LIBRARY
M A y g i
m
ebbem #n n
In This Issue:
W hat Do Banks Produce?
Planting Changes to Reduce Farm
Production Expenditures
Banking Notes: Manufacturing Loans
District Business Conditions
Federal Reserve Bank Of Atlanta
Federal Reserve Station
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Address Correction Requested
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BULK RATE
U.S. PO STA G E
PAID
A tlanta, Georgia
Permit No. 292
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
What Do
Banks Produce?
by W . F. Mackara
O ne o f the more frustrating problem s facing financial econom ists is the
m easurement o f bank o u tp u t, i.e., w hat a bank produces. Based on volum e
o f research, one m ight in fe r that econom ists have a clear idea o f h o w to
measure bank o u tp u t. Rather than a consensus, how ever, there exists a variety
o f concepts and methods, none o f w hich is w ith o u t its disadvantages. This
article examines several o f these m ethods fo r th e ir strengths and shortcom ings,
though no a ttem pt is made at completeness. (For m ore detailed analyses, see
the references cited at the end o f the article.)
The Problems
It is useful to q u a n tify bank o u tp u t fo r several reasons.
In evaluating the p ro d u ctive efficiency o f the banking industry, the average
cost o f o u tp u t (total operating costs d ivid e d by the total product) can help
analyze w hether, on average, costs increase m ore than, less than, o r by the
same am ount as o u tp u t. This helps determ ine w h e th e r a large bank is less
costly on average to operate than a sm aller one, i.e., if “ econom ies o f scale”
are present. If so, then by at least one measure, larger banks use resources
more e fficie n tly. This in turn is useful in evaluating issues in banking legislation
and regulation. To measure average cost, how ever, one must first q u a n tify
total bank product.
A n o th e r use o f o u tp u t measures fo r banking legislation and regulation
relates to the structure as w e ll as to the size o f banks. Is branch banking more
e ffic ie n t than u n it banking o r bank h o ld in g companies? H ow can w e determ ine
the c o m p e titive im pact o f the acquisition o f a bank in to a branching system
o r a h o ld in g company? W o u ld the entry o f a new bank be preferable to that
o f a branch? Does existing legislation pro m o te o r im pede an e ffic ie n t
M onthly Review, Vol. LX, No. 5. Free subscription and additional copies available
upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank o f Atlanta,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Material herein may be reprinted or abstracted provided
this Review, the Bank, and the author are credited. Please provide this Bank's
Research Department w ith a copy of any publication in w hich such material is
reprinted.
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
banking system? These are questions w hich may
be analyzed if we have some way to measure bank
o u tp u t. A measurement o f bank o u tp u t is also
useful in national p ro d u ct accounting fo r d e te rm in ­
ing how much the banking industry contributes to
the gross national product.
Before we can measure the o u tp u t o f any
industry, we have to define w hat we w ant to
measure, no small problem in the case o f banking.
For example, suppose firm X manufactures a
physical p ro d u c t w hich we shall call widgets.
Assuming that all widgets are identical and that
they are the on ly o u tp u t, calculating the firm 's
d aily total pro d u ct w o u ld mean co u n tin g the
num ber o f w idgets com p le te d .1
N ow contrast this hypothetical firm w ith a bank.
First, unlike the w id g e t maker, banks fo r the most
part produce no physical o u tp u t. Rather, they
“ p ro d u ce " services by fu n c tio n in g as a source o f
cre dit (loans and investments), p ro vid in g customers
w ith lo w o r no-risk assets (tim e and savings
deposits), p ro tecting valuables (safe deposit boxes),
pro vid in g accounting services (m onthly statements),
and m aintaining investm ent p o rtfo lio s fo r the
p u b lic (trust departm ent services).
Even less tangible are banking's interm ediation
services. Individuals w ith more money than they
wish to spend can keep deposits in banks; those
w ishing to spend m ore than th e ir presently available
incom e can b o rro w there. In this way, banks act
as a marketplace fo r lenders and borrowers. Instead
o f personally searching fo r someone to lend to or
b o rro w from and accepting fu lly the related risks,
the individual can go to a bank w hich pools the
funds and the risks. Furtherm ore, by handling
checking deposits, banks facilitate the exchange o f
goods and services, co n trib u tin g to econom ic
activity.
H ow are services measured? A service cannot
be counted in units like a physical good w ith o u t
first specifying w hat a “ u n it" o f service o u tp u t
is. There are, then, tw o basic problem s to the bank
o u tp u t question: (1) d e fin in g precisely w hat con­
stitutes bank o u tpu t, and (2) measuring this o u tp u t
so defined.
A second m ajor difference between banks and
the hypothetical firm is the assumption that the
firm makes on ly one product. Banks, however,
provide many d iffe re n t services. To understand
the significance o f this, suppose the im aginary firm
produced tw o goods— w idgets and sadgets. Now,
we must som ehow take in to consideration the
fact that w e are no longer p roducing just one good.
Rather than physical units, the d o lla r value o f
o u tp u t may be com puted by m u ltip ly in g (or
“ w e ig h tin g ” ) the physical num ber o f each pro d u ct
by its m arket price, and the w eighted sum used
as o u r measurement o f “ total p ro d u ct.” Some
economists have suggested a sim ilar way o f
measuring bank ou tp u t.
Banking's m u ltip ro d u c t nature com pounds the
problem o f measuring ou tp u t. N ot o n ly must a
u n it o f service o u tp u t be determ ined, but there are
many d iffe re n t services to be so defined.
M oreover, banking's m u ltip ro d u c t nature creates
problem s not fo u n d in most o th e r industries.
Though it m ight be perfectly reasonable to treat
business X as if it were tw o separate firm s, one
producing widgets and the oth e r sadgets, there are
econom ic and legal reasons w hy we m ig h t n o t w ant
to do this fo r banks.
Econom ically there may be “ jointness” or
interdependence in the demand or supply o f bank
services. In oth e r w ords, p ro vid in g one service may
entail p ro vid in g others, and the demand fo r one
bank service may necessarily accompany demand
fo r another service. As an example, w hen an in d i­
vidual places m oney in a checking account, he is
actually getting at least tw o conceptually separate
services: safekeeping o f his m oney and accounting
services. By dem anding one o f these services, he
gets the o th e r; and by supplying one, the bank
supplies the other. There is no way o f separating
these services and p ricin g them in d ivid u a lly.
Because o f this interdependence, it has been argued
that banks must be view ed as a single u n it rather
than as a co lle ctio n o f independent departm ents
p ro ducing separate products.2 The U. S. Supreme
C ourt made this view o ffic ia l fo r regulating co m ­
p e titio n in banking, adding a legal rationale fo r
seeking a single measure o f bank o u tp u t.3
There is yet a th ird com plication. Suppose one
o f firm X's products isn't o nly an o u tp u t good but
also serves as an “ in p u t.” In oth e r words, widgets
may not o nly be m anufactured fo r th e ir ow n sake
b u t are also used to produce sadgets. Are widgets
still an o u tp u t o r are they an input? There is no
absolutely " rig h t” way o f treating this problem .
If we substitute "b a n k " fo r “ firm X ," "d e p o s its " fo r
"w id g e ts ," and "earning assets" (loans and
investments) fo r "sadgets," w e see this problem
in measuring bank ou tp u t.
An in d ivid u a l can place money in a bank in
the form o f a checking o r tim e deposit. In either
case, the bank provides p ro te ctio n and accounting
services. If the m oney is placed in a tim e deposit
account, the in d ividual has b ought an interestbearing asset. In this respect, the deposit is an
o u tp u t o f the bank. But the bank uses this m oney
(except that p o rtio n w hich must be held as
2See the paper by Adar, Agm on, and O rg le r fo r an expansion
of the "jo in tn e ss" problem .
1This disregards the problem
of partially com pleted widgets.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
:,U n ited States vs. Philadelphia N ational Bank
71
reserves) to make loans and investments, w hich are
a source o f incom e just as selling sadgets is to firm
X. Deposits are also inputs, then, p ro vid in g the raw
materials used to make loans and investments.
To the degree that the treatm ent o f deposits in ­
volves an arbitrary choice, so does the measurement
o f o u tp u t.4
Despite these d ifficu ltie s, a num ber o f studies
have tried to quantify bank o u tp u t.5 If any single
conclusion may be drawn from this large volum e
o f literature, it is that the choice o f an o u tp u t
measure depends largely on w hat aspect o f banking
is being investigated and w h a t the prim ary fu n ctio n
o f a bank is considered to be.
W ith this in m ind, let us examine some methods
o f measuring bank o u tp u t, along w ith th e ir
in d ividua l strengths and shortcom ings.
A Single-Valued Measure
Perhaps the sim plest way o f measuring o u tp u t is
to define it as a bank's total loans and investments
(earning assets), the rationale being that loans and
investments are by far the most im p o rta n t source
o f incom e to a bank. If firm X's o u tp u t is the market
value o f its widgets and sadgets, the o u tp u t o f a
bank w o u ld be the m arket value o f its loans and
investments. This o u tp u t measure also stresses the
cre dit fu n c tio n o f banking, w ith the advantage of
its being readily available from banking balance
sheets.6
There are several drawbacks, however, in using
earning assets. First o f all, p ro d u ctio n is a “ flo w "
concept, expressed as some am ount per unit
o f tim e (such as 100 w idgets per m onth). The total
am ount o f earning assets, on the o th e r hand,
is a "s to c k " concept, representing a given am ount
at a p articular p o in t in tim e. For example, if on
A p ril 15, 1975, firm X had 100 w idgets in its
warehouse, that is its stock o f inventory.
Using a stock to measure a flo w concept can
be misleading. Looking at firm X's stock o f inven­
tory w o u ld be v irtu a lly useless in measuring firm
X's flo w o f o u tp u t w ith o u t such facts as how many
w idgets w ere in the warehouse, say, three months
ago, and how many were sold in the meantime.
This is the problem in measuring bank o u tp u t
‘ Determ ining inputs and outputs depends in part on the scope
of analysis. From a m icroeconom ic view point, i.e., concentrating
on a bank as an individual unit, deposits are an input to banks
and loans, and investments are an output. From a macroeconomic
view point, i.e., concentrating on the banking system's
impact on the whole economy, loans and investments are
inputs and deposits the output. A third concept sees banks as
producing intermediation services, and the inputs are such
things as labor and machinery.
in d iv id u a lly , many of these problems are applicable to other
industries. It is the convergence of all of them in banking
that makes output measurement there so difficult.
''See Alhadeff and Horvitz.
72
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
by earning assets. H ow many loans and investments
the bank has made depends n o t o n ly on the
a m ount outstanding w hen the balance sheet is
com puted but also on the extensions, repayments,
and the a m ount outstanding reported in the
previous balance sheet.7
Furtherm ore, using total earning assets makes
no d istin ctio n as to size o r type o f asset. Thus, ten
consum er loans o f $1,000 becom e equivalent to
one $10,000 business loan. There are some o b je c­
tions to this: A lth o u g h the single business loan
is equal to several consum er loans dollarw ise, it
does not necessarily fo llo w that they are equally
desirable in terms o f social w elfare and econom ic
im pact. The consum er loans may stim ulate private
consum ption and increase demand. A business
loan, on the o th e r hand, may be used to expand
plant facilities and increase supply. M oreover,
since d iffe re n t loans and investm ents carry d iffe re n t
interest rates, they may be o f dissim ilar value
to society and o f d iffe re n t costs (in clu d in g risk)
to the bank.
In essence, lu m p in g to g e th e r all earning assets
w ith o u t distinguishing types overlooks banking's
m u ltip ro d u c t nature. Ignoring the fact that banks^
provide "p ro d u c ts " (services) o th e r than c re d it
may be rationalized as a shortcut, since these o th e r
services represent o n ly a relatively small part o f
bank incom e. But use o f total earning assets fails
to consider that lending and investing activities
themselves are made up o f many q u ite d iffe re n t
"p ro d u c ts ."
W eighted Indexes of Output
To correct fo r these drawbacks, w eighted indexes
o f earning assets have been used to measure o u tp u t.
The u nderlying concept is sim ila r to that o f firm
X making tw o products, that is, w e ig h tin g (m u ltip ly ­
ing) the num ber o f each type u n it by its m arket
price.
A w eighted index o f earning assets w orks in
an analogous way, w ith w eights based on each type
o f asset's c o n trib u tio n to bank incom e. O ne o f
the w eighted index's advantages is in p ro vid in g
a single-valued o u tp u t measure, ju st as the first
measure. U nlike it, how ever, the w eighted index
e xp lic itly recognizes the m u ltip ro d u c t nature o f
bank cre d it operations. Also, because w eights are
based on the im pact o f earning assets on incom e,
it takes account o f the stock vs. flo w p ro b le m .8
7ln defense of this approach, however, it could be argued that
stock measures can indeed serve as proxies of flow concepts.
An obvious example is the use of the stock of houses as a
measure of the flow of services provided by housing.
^Actually, such indexes don't com pletely elim inate the stock-flow
problem. Earning assets are still balance sheet (stock) items.
They are m athematically converted to a flow, but it would be
preferable to use a flow measure to begin with.
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
However, the w eighted-index measure is not
w ith o u t its flaws. Proponents o f this m ethod
disagree am ong themselves as to the proper
assignment o f weights. Some say that the actual
interest rates charged on each type o f earning asset
should be used as weights, fo r the interest rate
reflects the value placed on that type o f asset by
society. As a corollary, it is argued that a bank
w hich comm ands higher rates on loans and invest­
ments must be pro vid in g m ore services (higher
outp ut) than a bank charging lo w e r rates; o th e r­
wise, customers w o u ld n 't pay the higher rates.9
The chief obje ction to this w e ig h tin g scheme
is that higher rates fo r one bank may reflect
im perfections in co m p e titio n o r differences in
managerial efficiency rather than level o f service.
For this reason, more com plicated w e ig h tin g
systems have been devised w hich u tiliz e interest
rates in a m ore roundabout w ay.10
In eith e r case, however, the problem remains
that interest rates are affected by the rate o f
in fla tio n. If in fla tio n increases, interest rates tend
to rise, and conversely. An index whose w eights
are based on interest rates (directly o r indirectly)
w o u ld produce an o u tp u t measure w ith an in ­
flatio nary bias. Just as the value o f o u tp u t in any
oth e r industry must be deflated by the price level,
so must one deflate the value o f bank o u tp u t
to arrive at some “ real" measure.11
The w eighted-index measures do a reasonably
good jo b o f recognizing bank lending's m u ltip ro d ­
uct nature b ut are relatively weak in do in g so fo r
non credit bank o u tpu t. In some versions, total bank
incom e over and above that derived from loans
and investments is sim ply th ro w n in to the o u tp u t
equation. But this ignores the m u ltip ro d u c t nature
o f nonlending o u tp u t.12
M ore fundam entally, however, all the above
m ethods look at o u tp u t alm ost e n tire ly from the
banks' v ie w p o in t. Deposits are treated exclusively
as an in p u t.13 To the p u b lic and the econom y in
general, deposits also provide services: Time
“This is essentially the view taken by J. A. Powers.
10For instance, G reenbaum uses linear regression to derive a set
of "av era g e" interest rates charged on various categories of
earning assets by a sample of banks. These average rates w ere
then used as weights.
“ See p. 29 o f the article by Speagle and Kohn.
,2A noth er criticism of some o f these w eigh ted indexes is that
they disregard the size of a credit transaction. This argum ent
maintains that a loan o f $10,000 has a d ifferen t im pact on the
econom y than 10 loans of $1,000 each. In a sense, then,
failin g to account for this is sim ilar to ignoring the d ifferent
types o f earning assets. Furtherm ore, if larger customers tend
to patronize large banks and if a single large loan to a
w ell-established firm is cheaper to make in terms o f paperw ork,
risk, and credit checking, then econom ies of scale w o u ld be
overstated by not taking this factor into consideration. See the
August 1967 article by G reenbaum for a discussion of this point.
13Powers presents a m odel w eigh ting the various earning assets
and nonlending outputs, including deposits.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
deposits serve as an earning asset and checking
accounts are a means o f purchasing goods and
services. There is a demand fo r these services,
just as there is a dem and fo r loans. Ignoring
d iffe re n t types and sizes o f loans disregards the
diffe re n tia l im pact o f bank cre d it activity on society;
so does the exclusion o f deposits. For in the broader
m acroeconom ic sense, deposits are a very
im p o rta n t part o f bank operations.14
Is there any measure o f o u tp u t w hich takes
account o f the m u ltip ro d u c t nature o f banking,
does not o ve rlo o k the d iffe re n tia l impacts o f types
o f loans and n o n lending o u tp u t, lacks an in fla tio n ­
ary bias, and w hich also includes deposits as
output?
Number of Accounts Method
The num ber o f accounts m ethod has all these
characteristics, yet is radically d iffe re n t in that it
avoids as much as possible using d o lla r amounts
in d e fin ing bank products.
By this approach, a ctivity is broken dow n into
several functions such as dem and deposits,
tim e deposits, business loans, instalm ent loans,
trust departm ent, safe deposit boxes, etc. The
basic u n it o f o u tp u t is then defined as the average
num ber o f accounts handled in each fu n c tio n per
year (or m onth).
This m ethod has been used in several studies
o f bank costs. By sp littin g bank a ctivity in to several
functions, in clu d in g deposits and o th e r nonlending
activities, both the m u ltip ro d u c t nature o f banking
and the o u tp u t nature o f deposits are taken into
account. The in fla tio na ry bias is absent because
numbers w ith o u t a price dim ension are used rather
than d o lla r amounts and interest rates.15 Finally,
because o u tp u t is expressed as a flo w concept
(num ber o f accounts per u n it o f tim e), the stockflo w problem is avoided.
Is this the ideal measure o f bank output?
U nfo rtu n a te ly not, fo r it, too, has its shortcomings.
This m ethod measures o u tp u t fo r separate bank
"p ro d u c ts ," b u t it does n o t give a measure o f
aggregate bank o u tp u t (the jointness problem ).
If bank services are n o t independent, then a tte m p t­
ing to measure them in d iv id u a lly w o u ld be
incorrect. To arrive at a single num ber representing
total o u tp u t w o u ld require indexing and w e ig h tin g
and all the attendant problem s.16
14Nevertheless, some w riters question the valid ity o f treating
deposits as an output.
ir’ Benston, Bell, and M urphy used such an approach. H ow ever,
it should be noted that interest rates and d o llar volum es do
appear in th eir equations. Thus, some inflationary bias may
affect these measures.
' “It can be argued, how ever, that measures o f individual bank
products are useful for com paring banks' efficiency in producing
a given product w ith that of a nonbank firm . For instance,
one could com pare banks' efficiency in providing consumer
instalm ent loans w ith that of a consum er finance company.
73
National Product Accounting Method
Still another m ethod is used by the D epartm ent
o f Com m erce in constructing the national incom e
and p ro d u ct accounts.17 These are made up o f gross
p ro d u ct (and income) o rig in a tin g in various
categories o f industries, in clu d in g banking.
For m ost industries, the procedure fo r measuring
gross pro d u ct o rig in a tin g involves subtracting in te r­
firm purchases from total sales. This yields the
c o n trib u tio n to gross p ro d u ct by that industry
(value added).
For banking, however, there are com p lica tin g
circumstances. If one measures bank sales as
total service charges and o th e r e xp licit charges fo r
bank services (such as safe deposit services) and
subtracts from this total purchases from o th e r
firm s, banking's value added is very low . This is
because much o f banking's p ro d u ct is not sold fo r
an e xp licit price, e.g., demand deposits. Thus,
some way o f in cluding this nonpecuniary pro d u ct
must be "im p u te d ."
The basic assumption behind this is that banks
do not e xp licitly charge depositors a price com ­
mensurate w ith the cost o f services provided to
them (in terms o f bookkeeping and handling
checks), and there must be some im p lic it charges.
These are view ed as the incom e w hich banks earn on
lending and investing deposits (or m ore correctly,
the am ount o f deposits over and above required
reserves), and w hich they do not pay o u t fu lly to
the owners o f these deposits. The im puted price
o f the service banks sell, then, is the total interest
banks receive on loans and investments minus
the interest they pay o u t to depositors.18
W hen im puted service charges are added to
explicit service charges and in te rfirm purchases are
subtracted out, the result is gross p ro d u ct o rig in a t­
ing in banking.
There is an add itional co m p lica tio n . In o rd e r to
establish w hat the ultim ate effect o f bank p ro d u ct is
on the national econom y, the ow nership o f deposits
must be considered. To the extent that deposits
are ow ned by businesses, the im puted bank pro d u ct
is an interm ediate purchase by businesses; it
cancels o u t in the consolidated GNP accounts.
To the extent, however, that these deposits are
ow ned by private individuals, the im puted p ro d u ct
represents a purchase o f final goods; and GNP
increases.
This m ethod has been criticize d as to o com plex
and in volving some dubious assumptions. Per­
haps most questionable is the idea that all im puted
benefits o f banking services are enjoyed by
depositors. Others have m aintained that borrow ers
also receive services over and above b o rro w in g
costs (such as investm ent advice), w h ich are not
otherw ise counted as "p ro d u c t."
M oreover, the d is trib u tio n o f im p u te d benefits
may depend on the usage o f deposits. If a greater
usage o f deposits im plies that m ore service, i.e.,
product, is being derived fro m a given volum e,
then ignoring deposit tu rn o v e r (or some oth e r
measure o f deposit usage) w ill yield an inaccurate
measure o f bank o u tp u t.
Finally, unless the im puted price o f bank services
is deflated by an index o f interest rates (since the
interest incom e used fo r im p u ta tio n w ill vary w ith
the rates charged on loans and investments), as
w ell as general prices, the national accounting
procedure w ill m isrepresent real bank o u tp u t.
Conclusion
Each m ethod o f measuring bank o u tp u t has its
strengths and flaws. N one provides a measure
w hich sim ultaneously solves all problem s: stockflo w , jo in tn e s s -m u ltip ro d u c t nature, in p u t-o u tp u t
treatm ent o f deposits, in fla tio na ry bias, and
distinguishing the im pact o f d iffe re n t sizes and
types o f bank cre d it and deposits.
Even if we cannot conclude that there is a
measure o f o u tp u t, we n e e d n 't accept the contrary.
There is a w h o le variety o f such measures, and
the choice o f m ethod w ill depend on w h a t aspect
o f banking is under study. If a bank's main fu n ctio n
is view ed as a source o f general cre d it w ith o u t
w o rryin g about to w hom it goes, then perhaps the
single-valued measure (total earning assets) w ill
suffice. If one wants to study banks' im pact on
various sectors o f the econom y through cre d it
granting, then a w e ig h ted -in d e x measure m ig h t be
useful. And if one wants to v ie w banks as a p ro ­
ducer o f a "m o n e y g o o d " (checking accounts),
then perhaps the num ber o f accounts m ethods
could be used. ■
‘ ’ Because of the com plexity of the method, this discussion
excludes many com plicating factors.
ls This is m athematically equal to gross operating expenses plus
profits minus explicitly charged services.
74
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
References
Adar, Z vi; A gm on, Tam ir; and O rgler, Yair E. O u tp u t M ix and Jointness in P roduction in
the Banking Firm. W o rk in g Paper No. 74-5, Banking and Economic Research Section, D iv i­
sion o f Research, Federal D eposit Insurance C orporation.
A lhadeff, D. A. M o n o p o ly and C o m p e titio n and Banking, (Berkeley, C alifornia: U niversity
o f C alifornia Press, 1954).
Bell, F. W. and M urphy, N. B. "B ank Service Charges and Costs," N ational Bank Review,
June 1967, pp. 449-457.
------------------. Costs in C om m ercial Banking: A Q uantitative Analysis o f Bank Behavior and
Its Relation to Bank R egulation, Federal Reserve Bank o f Boston, 1968.
— -------------. "Econom ies o f Scale and D ivision o f Labor in Com m ercial B anking," Southern
Econom ic Journal, O c to b e r 1968, pp. 131-139.
Benston, G. J. "Branch Banking and Economies o f Scale," Journal o f Finance, May 1965,
pp. 312-331.
----------------- . "Econom ies o f Scale and M arginal Costs in Banking O p e ra tio n ," N ational Bank
Review, June 1965, pp. 507-549.
-------- ---------. "Econom ies o f Scale o f Financial In stitu tio n s," Journal o f M oney C redit and
Banking, May 1972, pp. 312-340.
Gorman, J. A. "A lte rn a tive Measures o f the Real O u tp u t and P roductivity o f Com m ercial
Banks," in Production and P roductivity in the Service Industries (V. R. Fuchs, Ed.), National
Bureau o f Economic Research, (New York: C olum bia University Press, 1969), pp. 155-189.
Greenbaum, S. I. "C o m p e titio n and Efficiency in the Banking System— Empirical Research
and Its Policy Im p lica tio n s," Journal o f P olitica l Economy, August 1967, Supplement, pp.
461-479.
------------------. " A Study o f Bank Costs," N ational Bank Review, June 1967, pp. 415-434.
H orvitz, P. M. "Econom ies o f Scale in B anking," in Private Financial Institutions, Com m is­
sion on M oney and C redit (Englewood C liffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 1-54.
M urphy, Neil B. "A Reestimation o f the B enston-B ell-M urphy Cost Functions fo r a Larger
Sample w ith Greater Size and Geographic D ispersion." Journal o f Financial and Q u a ntita­
tive Analysis, D ecem ber 1972, pp. 2097-2105.
Powers, J. A. "Branch Versus U n it Banking: Bank O u tp u t and Cost Economies," Southern
Economic Journal, O cto b e r 1969, pp. 153-164.
Speagle, R. E. and Kohn, E. "E m ploym ent and O u tp u t in Banking 1919-1955," Review of
Economics and Statistics, February 1958, pp. 22-35.
U. S. D epartm ent o f Commerce, N ational Incom e 1954 Edition (W ashington: U. S. Gov­
ernm ent Printing O ffice, 1954).
U nited States vs. Philadelphia N ational Bank, 201 F. Suppl. 348 (E.D. Pa. 1962; 374 U. S. 321
[1963]).
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Planting Changes
to Reduce
Farm Production
Expenditures
by Gene D. Sullivan
Farm ers' p ro d u c tio n s p e n d in g in Sixth D is tric t states w ill be d o w n sh a rp ly in
1975. A 3 7 -p e rc e n t re d u c tio n in p la n n e d c o tto n acreage w ill p ro d u c e the
d o w n tu rn . Increased acreages o f o th e r crop s (in d ic a te d b y th e U.S.D.A.
March survey) w ill o n ly partially offset the im pact o f reduced p ro d u ctio n
expenditures fo r cotton.
Comparisons with Prior Years
Cotton
C o tto n p la n tin g s, firs t in use o f p ro d u c tio n fu n d s, b u t th ird in to ta l acreage,
w ill be c u t sh a rp ly in 1975. S oaring p ro d u c tio n costs and lo w prices co m p a re d
w ith o th e r crops have caused farm ers to p lan acreage re d u c tio n s o f m o re
than o n e -th ird fro m 1974's level (see cha rt). M o s t o f th e c u t in c o tto n
p la n tin g s w ill o c c u r in M ississip p i, w h ic h acco u n ts fo r n e a rly o n e -h a lf o f
th e re g io n 's to ta l c o tto n acreage.
Soybeans
The p la n n e d soybean acreage stands o u t, n o t o n ly because it is ne arly
d o u b le th a t o f any o th e r c ro p b u t also because it is an increase o f 27 p e rc e n t
o v e r last year's. Every D is tric t state is in crea sing p la n tin g s , e s p e cia lly M ississip p i
and Louisiana. In those tw o states, soybeans o ffe r th e m o st p ro fita b le
a lte rn a tiv e use fo r acreage re m o ve d fro m c o tto n p ro d u c tio n .
Corn
C o rn p la n tin g s, second in to ta l acreage in th e re g io n , w ill increase by 14
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
ACREAGE OF MAJOR CROPS PLANTED
Sixth District States
Miss.
Tenn.
Other States
|
+ 2 7 .2 % *
Upland
Cotton
-3 7 .4 % *
O
Winter
Wheat
-0.7% '
1 97 3
Small
Feed
Grains
{
1 97 5
I
1973
Rice /
1 97 4
+ 5.0% *
+ 3.4% *
1 97 5
1.... J_ ..1
M illio n s of A cre s
I...
I........ I
0
*The percentage change from 1974 acreage indicated
by the March survey of farmers’ planting intentions.
percent in 1975. The unusually high feed grain
prices in 1974 and early this year have apparently
stim ulated farmers to expand D istrict corn acreage,
about half o f w hich is located in Georgia.
However, the changes in these plantings are
dw arfed by the huge swings in soybean, corn,
and cotton acreages.
District Differs from U. S.
Rice, Wheat, and Other Small Grains
W heat acreage is included in the chart, although
it was planted in the fall o f 1974 and w ill have
reached m atu rity by late spring. The com bined
total acreage planted to rice, wheat, and small
feed grains w ill increase m oderately in 1975.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Changes in intended plantings in the U. S. as a
w h o le are much less dram atic than at the D istrict
level fo r all crops except cotton. Total U. S.
cotton acreage is projected to decline by 28
percent (as com pared w ith 37 percent in the
77
Cotton: Acres Harvested, 1972
D istrict) in 1975. A small acreage reduction is
indicated fo r corn; however, the return o f norm al
w eather to m ajor grain-producing areas should
boost 1975's corn pro d u ctio n sharply above 1974's
drought-reduced ou tput. Increases in soybean and
small feed grains plantings w ill approxim ately
offset acreage reductions in cotton and corn.
Reduced District
Production Expenditures
Farmers' p ro du ction expenditures w ill be sharply
altered, both in d istrib u tio n and in quantity, by
78
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the announced adjustm ents in crop acreages.
C otton p ro d u ctio n expenditures in 1975 w ill be
reduced an estimated $276 m illio n , o r about
o n e -th ird o f 1974 expenditures, by the 1 .5 -m illio n acre cut in cotton plantings (see table). The
fe rtilize r, insecticide, and g inning industries doing
business in c o tto n -p ro d u c in g counties (see map)
w ill bear the m ajor im pact o f this reduction. M ost
o f the products and services marketed to the co tto n
producer are o n ly slightly, if at all, adaptable to
oth e r types o f agriculture. Some ginners have even
indicated that they do not plan to operate at all
in 1975.
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
EFFECT OF PLANNED ACREAGE CHANGES ON 1975’S
PRODUCTION EXPENDITURES
(SIXTH DISTRICT STATES)
Cotton: Down 1,508,000 Acres1
Cost
Total Change
Per Acre2
in Expenditures1
Seed
Fertilizer and lime
Fuel, lubricants, and repairs
Insecticides
Herbicides
Ginning and wrapping
Other
Total variable costs
$
5
35
26
37
14
30
36
$183
$-- 7,540,000
- 52,780,000
- 39,208,000
- 55,796,000
- 21,112,000
- 45,240,000
- 54,288,000
$--275,964,000
or - 37% 4
Soybeans: Up 2,212,000 Acres1
Seed
$ 8
17,696,000
$
Fertilizer and lime
16
35,392,000
Fuel, lubricants, and repairs
12
26,544,000
6
Herbicides and insecticides
13,272,000
Other
9
19,908,000
Total variable costs
$ 51
$ 112,812,000
or + 27% 4
Corn: Up 541,000 Acres1
Seed
$ 4
$
Fertilizer and lime
29
Fuel, lubricants, and repairs
13
Herbicides and insecticides
4
Other
12
Total variable costs
$ 62
$
Rice: Up 27,000 Acres’
Seed
$ 20
Fertilizer
24
Fuel, lubricants, and repairs
16
17
Insecticides and herbicides
Irrigation
24
Drying
36
Other
49
Total variable costs
$186
Net Change, Four Crops
2,164,000
15,689,000
7,033,000
2,164,000
6,492,000
33,542,000
or + 14% 4
540,000
648,000
432,000
459,000
648,000
972,000
1,323,000
5,022,000
$
or + 3 % 4
$
$--124,588,000
‘ Changes from 1974 acreage indicated by the U.S.D.A.
March survey of farmers’ planting intentions
2Based on variable costs published by Economic Research
Service, U.S.D.A., adjusted for increases in prices paid
by farmers
3The cost per acre times the planned change in acreage
Percentage changes in expenditures resulting from
planned acreage adjustments from 1974 levels.
Bank
Announcements
March 1, 1975
UNITED SECURITY BANK
Church H ill, Tennessee
O pened for business as a p ar-rem itting nonm em ber. O fficers:
John Keyes, president and cashier; David M . W h itle y , vice
president.
Capital
$500,000;
surplus and
other
funds,
$750,000.
March 4, 1975
THE BANK OF FLORENCE
Florence, Alabama
O pened for business as a p ar-rem itting nonm em ber.O fficers:
Edward F. M au ld in , chairm an o f the board; James B.
Flem m ing, president; J. Robert M urray, III, vice president
and cashier. C apital, $375,000; surplus and other funds,
$562,500.
March 10, 1975
ELLIS NATIONAL BANK OF
WEST HILLSBOROUGH
Tampa, Florida
O pened for business as a m em ber. O fficers: A. D. W ilb u rn ,
chairman and president; Philip H. Chesnut, Jr., executive
vice president and cashier. C apital, $500,000; surplus and
other funds, $250,000.
March 14, 1975
MARINE NATIONAL BANK OF
WEST JACKSONVILLE
jacksonville, Florida
The acreage expansions in te n d e d fo r soybeans,
c o rn , and rice w ill generate increased e xp e n d itu re s,
b u t these increases w ill o n ly p a rtia lly o ffs e t the
effects o f th e c o n tra c tio n in c o tto n acreage.
Since m any in p u ts u tiliz e d by c o tto n p ro d u ce rs
are n o t tra n sfe ra b le to o th e r crops, th e in d ic a te d
$ 1 2 5 -m illio n ne t re d u c tio n in e xp e n d itu re s fo r the
fo u r crops c o m b in e d p ro b a b ly understates the
e c o n o m ic im p a c t o f these e xp e cte d changes. The
effects w ill u n d o u b te d ly be re fle c te d in red uce d
farm c re d it de m a n d . In a d d itio n , the im p a c t w ill
be fe lt by bankers and o th e r lenders w h o fin a n ce
farm s u p p ly and pro cessing in d u strie s associated
w ith th e c o tto n in d u stry. ■
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
O pened for business as a m em ber. O fficers: Jerry Thomas,
chairm an; Louis J. M arotta, president; A ndrew P. Ignotow icz,
cashier. C apital, $400,000; surplus and other funds, $600,000.
March 17, 1975
PAN AMERICAN BANK OF KENDALE LAKES,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Miami, Florida
O pened for business as a m em ber. O fficers: N eil Schiff,
chairm an; Charles G. Sheffield, president; Ronald G. Potter,
vice president and cashier; V irg in ia L. A rno ld, assistant vice
president and secretary; Judith L. Kirsin, assistant cashier.
C apital, $500,000; surplus and other funds, $500,000.
79
BANKING STATISTICS
Bil. S
DEPOSITS**
CREDIT*
-
— 40
Loans &
Inve stm e n ts
— 40
T ota l
-
- 36
-
_
_
Loans (N et)
A/
Net D e m an d
32
—
/V
y
24
—'
A/
O th e r
S ecurities
A/
rj
_
20
T im e
8
U.S. C o v ’t.
S ecurities
A/
-
____ ^
~
C
J
—
2
-
rj
rj
Savings
A/
A/
A/
A/
I I It I I I I I I I
ii i i ii i i i i i
I I I I II II I II
I I I I I I I I I! I
I i I l II i i i i i
I I I I I I I I II I
1973
1974
1975
1973
1974
1975
*Figures are for the last Wednesday of each month
**D aily average figures
LATEST M O N T H PLOTTED: M ARCH
SIXTH DISTRICT B A N K IN G ND TE5
A Note on Manufacturing Loans
CORRELATION BETWEEN CHANGES IN NATIONAL
INVENTORIES AND CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL LOANS
1970-1974
United States
$ Changes
Industry
Primary M e t a l ......................
New York
$ Changes
Atlanta
% Changes
$ Changes
% Chang
-.2 3 6
.174
-.0 9 4
.026
-.2 8 9
-.1 6 3
M ac h in ery................................
.727
.721
.750
.734
.264
.260
Transportation Equipment . .
.581
.498
.421
.367
.107
.043
Food, Liquor, Tobacco
.477
.367
.426
.318
.446
.447
. . .
.
% Changes
Petroleum Refinery
. . . .
.199
.134
.230
.163
-.1 5 9
-.1 6 1
Chemicals, Rubber
. . . .
.282
.181
.354
.215
.016
.013
.395
.428
.321
.258
.258
.306
Textiles, Apparel, Leather*
♦Inventory data for this series available only through December 1973.
Sources: Quarterly inventory stock data, U.S. Department of Commerce and Federal Reserve Bank sample of large
U.S. member banks that provide an industry breakdown of commercial and industrial loans.
80
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
An earlier Banking N ote suggested that business
b o rro w in g at Southeastern banks seems o u t o f step
w ith national patterns.1 Factors w hich apparently
induce corporations to b o rro w fro m banks across
the co untry do n o t seem to have the same im pact
upon sim ilar corporations b o rro w in g from South­
eastern banks.
The same analysis indicated little , if any, re lation­
ship betw een national inventories and borrow ings
at Southeastern banks. W h ile a strong relationship
was found betw een national loans and national in ­
ventories, neither d o lla r n o r percentage changes in
national
inventories
produced
corresponding
changes in borrow ings at Southeastern banks.
Since Southeastern banks seem to march to a
d iffe re n t drum m er, it seems reasonable to deter­
m ine just ho w much they are o u t o f step. To
determ ine this, w e used the approach o f the earlier
analysis. M em ber bank loans to corporations in
seven selected industries fo r each o f the tw elve
Federal Reserve Districts were com pared w ith na­
tional industrial loan and inventory activity. Per­
centage and d o lla r changes were calculated fo r each
o f the seven industries fo r a period betw een m id1973 and m id-1974; and comparisons w ere made
by calculating rank correlation coefficients (see
Table 1). (A co e fficie n t close to zero indicates little
correspondence between the tw o characteristics; a
co e fficie n t close to one im plies a close fit.)
Results show that Southeastern banks d iffe r very
much from oth er regions. M ost oth e r Districts
showed a closer relationship between loan activity
and national inventories. In a d d ition , most showed
a close relationship between regional and national
lending.
As one m ig h t expect, the New York area recorded
the strongest relationship, based on e ither percent­
age o r d o lla r changes, between loans and national
inventories. W h ile the eastern U nited States— repre­
sented by the First Federal Reserve D istrict (Boston)
— registered a perfect correlation between loans
and inventories based upon d o lla r changes, the
same relationship com puted on a percentage
change basis indicates a very loose relationship.
In com paring regional w ith national loans, New
York again showed the strongest relationship, both
in d o lla r and percentage changes. The Sixth Federal
Reserve D istrict (Atlanta), however, placed near
the b o tto m , measured in both percentage and d o l­
lar changes.
Since the earlier analysis found a difference in
b o rro w in g patterns at Southeastern banks, w e de­
cided to determ ine w hether inventories carried by
firm s across the nation have an influence on b o r­
row ing from Southeastern banks, p articularly over
a longer period o f tim e than was used in the first
analysis.
The results indicate that, in general, changes in
‘ W illiam N. Cox,
October 1974.
III,
"Loans
to M anufacturers,"
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
this
Review ,
Table 1
RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
Loans vs. National Inventories
(July 1973 to July 1974)
All Districts
Federal Reserve District
Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Richmond
Atlanta
Chicago
Minneapolis
St. Louis
Kansas City
Dallas
San Francisco
Percent
Change
Dollar
Change
0.57
0.86
0.21
0.75
0.57
0.00
-0 .7 5
0.04
0.18
-0 .4 6
0.07
0.29
0.71
0.18
1.00
0.82
0.61
0.89
0.21
0.36
0.71
- 0 .0 4
0.75
0.61
0.04
0.71
Loans, Each District vs. All Districts
(July 1973 to July 1974)
0.54
Boston
0.89
New York
0.79
Philadelphia
0.64
Cleveland
- 0 .3 2
Richmond
0.32
Atlanta
0.79
Chicago
-0
.5 7
Minneapolis
0.57
St. Louis
0.82
Kansas City
0.57
Dallas
0.71
San Francisco
0.86
0.96
0.75
0.96
0.14
0.68
0.86
-0 .2 1
0.93
0.68
0.29
0.86
national inventories have very little , if any, direct
influence upon b o rro w in g at Southeastern banks
(see opposite page). This conclusion is based upon
comparisons o f loans made by 23 large Southeastern
banks to corporations in seven selected industries
w ith in fo rm a tio n on national inventory activity in
these industries. Q uarterly d o lla r and percentage
changes in loans from 1970 to 1974 were matched
w ith sim ilar changes in inventories by calculating
correlation coefficients. (This c o e fficie n t always lies
between —1 and 4-1. Positive c o e fficie n t values in ­
dicate a tendency fo r the tw o factors to move to ­
gether; however, a negative c o e fficie n t indicates
m ovem ent in opposite directions.) For com parison,
the same analysis was made o f large banks c o u n try­
w ide and fo r large banks in New York.
A d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n presented here supports
the generalization that m anufacturing loans at
Southeastern banks do not fo llo w national patterns.
W ith o n ly one exception, Southeastern m anufactur­
ing loans are little influenced by national inventory
levels.
On the oth e r hand, New York's loans do show a
close relationship w ith national inventories and na­
tional loans, as one m ig h t expect from that area's
acknow ledged position as the country's financial
center. Though regional financial centers, in cluding
those in the Southeast, are grow ing in size and
stature, this study strengthens the contention that
the Southeast im ports funds in the form o f bank
loans. Many industrial firm s headquartered outside
the D istrict w h o operate plants here w o u ld logically
seek funds from the national financial center—
New York— or the region in w h ich they are head­
quartered.
JOSEPH E. ROSSMAN, JR
81
Sixth District Statistics
Seasonally Adjusted
(All data are indexes, unless indicated otherwise.)
L a t e s t M o n th
1975
One
M o n th
A go
Two
M o n th s
Ago
O ne
Year
Ago
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o rc e ) . .
A vg . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . ( H r s .)
S IX T H D IS T R IC T
IN C O M E A N D S P E N D IN G
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s ............................M a r.
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ...................................... F e b .
C r o p s ................................................................. F e b .
L iv e s to c k
...................................................... F eb .
In s ta lm e n t C r e d it a t B a n k s * ( M i l.$ )
N e w L o a n s .......................................................M a r.
R e p a y m e n ts
................................................. M a r.
L a te s t M o n th
1975
1 6 8 .4
214
308
188
537
587
1 7 0 .2
254
354
194
628r
714r
1 7 4 .3
203
245
172
1 7 3 .7
621
711
595
573
202
216
206
O ne
M o n th
A go
Two
M o n th s
Ago
One
Year
Ago
8 .7
3 9 .6
5 .3
4 0 .9
M a r.
M a r.
1 0 .2
3 8 .5
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
267
214
294
M a r.
F eb.
1 8 0 .8
249
1 7 9 .4
229
1 8 0 .7
158
1 8 2 .4
173
M a r.
M ar.
M a r.
M a r.
M ar.
1 4 9 .6
1 1 7 .2
1 5 5 .9
1 6 1 .5
8 0 .8
1 5 0 .1
1 1 8 .5
1 5 6 .2
1 6 7 .4
7 5 .3
1 5 0 .7
1 2 0 .9
1 5 6 .4
1 7 0 .5
7 7 .2
1 5 6 .0
1 2 8 .5
1 6 1 .3
2 2 0 .2
8 4 .3
M a r.
M a r.
1 0 .7
3 9 .9
9 .5
3 9 .5
9 .6
3 9 .1
4 .9
4 0 .4
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
301
242
311
306
239
288
303
240
307
M a r.
Feb.
1 4 9 .7
218
1 5 1 .5
244
1 5 7 .3
280
1 6 3 .1
221
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
1 2 5 .3
9 7 .7
1 3 7 .9
1 2 8 .0
1 0 4 .0
1 2 5 .9
9 8 .2
1 3 8 .3
1 3 3 .2
1 0 4 .6
1 2 7 .5
1 0 1 .4
1 3 9 .4
1 3 5 .4
9 9 .0
1 3 1 .4
1 1 1 .8
1 4 0 .3
1 5 0 .1
1 1 7 .1
M a r.
M a r.
1 1 .5
3 8 .0
1 1 .2
3 8 .3
1 0 .4
3 8 .5
5 .2
4 0 .4
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
250
1 91
353
256
190
326
M a r.
F eb.
1 6 9 .8
1 81
1 6 6 .3
346
1 7 2 .6
176
1 5 8 .7
199
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
1 2 1 .1
1 0 8 .4
1 2 3 .7
1 0 7 .6
1 0 2 .5
1 2 1 .2
1 0 8 .0
1 2 4 .0
1 0 9 .2
1 0 2 .7
1 2 1 .1
1 0 8 .1
1 2 3 .9
1 1 0 .4
6 4 .5
1 2 0 .1
1 1 0 .7
1 2 2 .1
1 0 8 .1
9 3 .8
M a r.
M a r.
8 .4
3 9 .3
8 .8
3 8 .8
8 .4
4 0 .3
7 .0
4 0 .5
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
261
207
259
253
201
253
253
203
245
244
186
223
M a r.
Feb.
1 9 2 .6
215
1 9 5 .4
329
1 9 6 .0
233
1 9 6 .6
243
M a r.
M a r.
M a r.
M ar.
M a r.
1 2 7 .6
1 2 0 .0
1 3 1 .1
1 3 5 .0
8 6 .2
1 2 8 .3
1 2 1 .3
1 3 1 .5
1 4 0 .5
8 5 .2
1 3 0 .0
1 2 4 .1
1 3 2 .7
1 4 4 .7
8 4 .6
1 3 0 .8
1 3 4 .4
1 2 9 .2
1 5 4 .4
9 2 .1
9 .5
3 9 .0
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ......................
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its
. . .
B a n k D e b i t s * * .................................
267
212
280r
270
209
277r
243
200
247
F L O R ID A
IN C O M E
EM PLOYM ENT AND
P R O D U C T IO N
N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t .................................M a r.
M a n u f a c t u r i n g ............................................M a r.
N o n d u r a b le G o o d s .................................M a r.
F o o d ............................................................M a r.
T e x t i l e s ................................................. M a r.
A p p a re l
................................................. M a r.
P a p e r ...................................................... M a r.
P r in tin g a n d P u b lis h in g
. . . M a r.
C h e m i c a l s ............................................M a r.
D u r a b le G o o d s ...................................... M a r.
L b r., W o o d P ro d s ., F u rn . & F ix . . M a r.
S to n e , C la y , a n d G la s s . . . .
M a r.
P r im a r y M e t a l s .................................M a r.
F a b r ic a te d M e t a l s ........................... M a r.
M a c h i n e r y ............................................M a r.
T r a n s p o r ta tio n E q u ip m e n t
. . M a r.
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ...................................... M a r.
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...................................... M a r.
T r a n s p o r ta tio n
.................................M a r.
T r a d e .......................................................M a r.
F in ., in s ., a n d re a l e s t .....................M a r.
S e r v i c e s .................................................M a r.
F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t ......................M a r.
S ta te an d L o cal G o v e rn m e n t
. M a r.
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ............................................M a r .
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o r c e ) ...................... M a r.
In s u r e d U n e m p lo y m e n t
( P e r c e n t o f C o v. E m p . ) ........................... M a r.
A vg . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . ( H r s .) . . . M a r.
C o n s tru c tio n C o n t r a c t s * ........................... M a r.
R e s i d e n t i a l .......................................................M a r.
A ll o t h e r ............................................................M a r.
C o tto n C o n s u m p t i o n * * .................................F e b .
M a n u f a c t u r in g P r o d u c t i o n ...................... F e b .
N o n d u r a b le G o o d s ...................................... F e b .
...................................................... F eb .
Food
T e x t i l e s ................................................. F e b .
A p p a re l
................................................. F eb .
P a p e r ...................................................... F e b .
P r in tin g a n d P u b lis h in g
. . . Feb.
C h e m i c a l s ............................................F e b .
D u r a b le G o o d s ............................................F e b .
L u m b e r a n d W o o d ........................... F e b .
F u r n it u r e a n d F ix tu r e s . . . .
F eb .
S to n e , C la y , a n d G la s s . . . .
F eb .
P r im a r y M e t a l s .................................F e b .
F a b r ic a te d M e t a l s ........................... F e b .
N o n e le c t r ic a l M a c h in e r y
. . . F eb .
E le c tr ic a l M a c h in e r y
. . . .
F eb .
T r a n s p o r ta tio n E q u ip m e n t
. . Feb.
1 3 2 .0
1 3 4 .5
1 1 9 .7
1 1 6 .8
1 0 7 .5
1 1 3 .5
1 1 6 .0
1 1 3 .6
1 3 1 .6
1 3 0 .4
1 0 7 .7
1 0 6 .1
1 0 4 .6
9 5 .1
1 0 1 .5
1 0 5 .9
1 2 5 .3
1 0 5 .7
1 0 9 .7
9 4 .3
1 1 7 .7
1 0 3 .6
1 2 1 .7
1 5 0 .7
9 7 .5
1 3 8 .4
1 3 6 .6
1 2 3 .7
1 3 5 .0
1 4 9 .9
1 5 4 .4
1 0 6 .0
1 4 3 .6
9 4 .1
1 3 1 .1
1 0 9 .1
1 0 8 .0
1 0 4 .0
9 6 .5
1 0 4 .3
1 0 7 .5
1 2 6 .0
1 0 7 .9
1 1 0 .5
9 5 .9
1 1 9 .1
1 0 6 .6
1 5 1 .4
9 6 .5
1 3 8 .9
1 4 1 .0
1 2 4 .8
1 3 5 .6
1 5 1 .1
1 5 4 .7
1 0 6 .2
1 4 2 .8
9 3 .8
1 2 4 .2
1 5 5 .3
9 9 .1
1 3 8 .4
1 4 4 .1
1 2 6 .5
1 3 6 .1
1 5 1 .7
1 5 4 .5
1 0 6 .4
1 4 1 .7
9 2 .2
1 3 5 .0
1 1 3 .2
1 3 5 .2
1 6 3 .1
1 0 7 .2
1 3 9 .7
1 6 0 .7
1 2 7 .8
1 3 7 .9
1 5 3 .5
1 5 1 .4
1 0 4 .3
1 3 6 .8
9 8 .5
10.1
9 .3
9 .0
5 .1
6 .7
3 8 .6
224
131
316
54
1 4 1 .8
1 4 4 .7
1 3 5 .3
1 3 7 .4
1 2 0 .7
1 3 6 .1
1 2 7 .2
1 5 9 .7
1 3 6 .8
1 2 6 .8
1 1 7 .0
1 4 2 .2
1 0 3 .1
1 1 2 .5
1 5 4 .5
2 2 7 .5
6.1
2.1
195
53
1 4 2 .6
1 4 4 .4
1 3 5 .0
1 3 7 .0
1 2 5 .1
1 3 5 .5
1 2 7 .9
1 5 6 .7
1 3 9 .7
5.5
3 9 .0
175
11 9
230
50
1 4 5 .2
1 4 6 .4
1 3 3 .2
1 3 4 .2
1 2 6 .7
1 3 7 .9
1 2 9 .2
1 6 2 .5
1 4 3 .6
120.2
122.1
1 2 1 .4
1 4 4 .8
1 0 5 .2
1 1 6 .1
1 5 6 .7
2 3 2 .4
1 2 8 .1
1 2 9 .3
1 4 9 .7
1 0 6 .9
1 1 7 .0
1 5 7 .3
2 4 6 .0
1 3 0 .7
4 0 .4
230
245
216
90
1 4 8 .1
1 4 6 .7
1 3 0 .9
1 4 9 .0
1 3 8 .2
1 3 6 .6
1 3 3 .3
1 5 2 .7
1 5 0 .5
1 5 2 .9
1 5 0 .2
1 6 0 .0
1 1 0 .5
1 3 3 .5
1 4 8 .7
2 4 6 .4
1 2 8 .9
278
261
278
263
269
248
122.8
111.6
1 1 0 .3
1 0 4 .1
9 8 .8
1 0 7 .2
110.6
1 2 7 .3
1 0 9 .2
1 1 3 .3
9 8 .6
122.2
110.0
110.0
1 2 3 .3
112.1
121.8
3 8 .9
15 3
110
276
255r
219
193r
304
216
188
287r
215
189
289
208
180
276
82
AND
B A N K IN G
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ......................
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its . . . .
B a n k D e b i t s * * .................................
308
241
296r
G E O R G IA
IN C O M E
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y ro lls
. - F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................
N o n fa r m E m p lo y m e n t
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r in g
............................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g
. . . .
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
F a rm E m p lo y m e n t
......................
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o rc e )
. .
A vg . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . (H r s .)
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ......................
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its
. . .
B a n k D e b i t s * * .................................
264
189
343r
262
181
309
L O U IS IA N A
IN C O M E
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y ro lls
. . .
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................
EM PLOYMENT
N o n fa r m E m p lo y m e n t
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r in g
...........................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ......................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ...........................
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o rc e )
. .
A vg . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . ( H r s .)
M em b er B ank Loans*
. . . .
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its *
. . .
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * .................................
IN C O M E
1 7 1 .2
233
1 7 6 .4
300
1 8 3 .0
244
1 8 3 .1
247
1 1 8 .8
1 0 6 .2
1 2 4 .6
1 3 3 .9
120.1
121.2
111.6
122.1
EM PLOYM ENT
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
F IN A N C E
M IS S IS S IP P I
IN C O M E
N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t .................................M a r.
M a n u f a c t u r in g
........................................... M a r.
N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g
.................................M a r.
C o n s t r u c t i o n ........................................... M a r.
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ............................................M a r.
N o n fa r m E m p lo y m e n t
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r i n g ...........................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ......................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ............................
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o rc e )
. .
A vg . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . ( H r s .)
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
ALABAM A
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s .................................M a r.
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ...................................... F eb .
EM PLOYM ENT
EM PLOYMENT
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
Loans*
A ll M e m b e r B a n k s ...................................... M a r.
L a rg e B a n k s ................................................. M a r.
D e p o s its *
A ll M e m b e r B a n k s ...................................... M a r.
L a rg e B a n k s ................................................. M a r.
B an k D e b its * /* *
............................................M a r.
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y ro lls
. . .
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y ro lls
. . .
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................
EM PLOYM ENT
1 0 9 .3
1 2 5 .0
1 3 4 .3
1 1 2 .7
1 2 5 .5
1 3 8 .7
1 1 5 .6
1 1 8 .4
1 2 3 .8
1 4 5 .2
N o n fa r m E m p lo y m e n t
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r i n g ...........................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ......................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
F a r m E m p l o y m e n t ...........................
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW
One
M o n th
Ago
L a te s t M o n th
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o rc e ) . .
A v g . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . (H r s .)
Tw o
M o n th s
Ago
O ne
Year
Ago
L a t e s t M o n th
One
M o n th
Ago
Tw o
M o n th s
Ago
O ne
Year
A go
EM PLOYM ENT
M a r.
M a r.
7 .6
3 8 .5
6 .9
3 7 .6
3 .8
3 9 .9
N o n fa r m E m p lo y m e n t
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r in g
...........................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ......................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ...........................
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o rc e ) . .
A vg. W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . ( H r s .)
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
266
217
253
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * .................................M a r.
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ........................... M a r.
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. M a r.
263
215
237
262
214
270r
269
218
251
M a r.
M a r.
1 2 5 .5
1 0 7 .5
1 3 5 .6
1 3 9 .0
8 9 .8
1 2 6 .9
1 0 9 .4
1 3 6 .6
1 4 6 .0
9 3 .6
1 2 7 .8
1 1 2 .4
1 3 6 .3
1 5 1 .2
9 4 .0
1 2 9 .2
1 2 0 .4
1 3 4 .1
1 4 0 .6
9 1 .4
9 .6
3 8 .2
M ar
4 .5
TENNESSEE
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
1 6 6 .4
244
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s .................................M a r.
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ...................................... F eb .
17 1 .1
184
1 7 3 .9
17 6
* F o r S ix t h D is t r ic t a r e a o n ly ; o t h e r to ta ls f o r e n t ir e six s ta te s
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * .................................M a r.
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ........................... M a r.
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * .................................................M a r.
1 7 5 .1
207
f P r e lim in a r y d a ta
* * D a i l y a v e r a g e b a s is
291
224
276
r-R e v is e d
287
220
260r
282
218
267r
259
200
245
N .A . N o t a v a ila b le
Note: All indexes: 1967=100.
S o u rc e s :
M a n u f a c t u r in g p ro d u c tio n e s t im a t e d
b y t h is B a n k ; n o n fa r m , m fg . a n d
n o n m fg . e m p ., m fg . p a y ro lls a n d h o u rs , a n d u n e m p ., U .S . D e p t, o f L a b o r a n d c o o p e ra tin g
s t a t e a g e n c ie s ; c o tto n c o n s u m p tio n , U .S . B u re a u o f C e n s u s ; c o n s tru c tio n c o n t r a c t s , F . W .
f a rm e m p ., U .S .D .A . O t h e r in d e x e s b a s e d o n d a ta c o lle c te d b y t h is B a n k . A ll in d e x e s
D odge
D iv .,
M c G r a w - H ill
In f o r m a t io n
S y s te m s
C o .;
fa rm
cash
re c e ip ts
and
c a lc u la t e d b y th is B a n k .
'D a t a b e n c h m a r k e d to J u n e 1 9 7 1 R e p o rt o f C o n d itio n .
Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts
Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District
(In Thousands of Dollars)
P e rc e n t C h a n g e
M a rc h
F eb .
1975
M a rc h
1974
| 3 m os.
! 1975
F eb . M a rc h
1975
1974
B a rto w -L a k e la n d W in te r H a v e n
D a y to n a B e a c h
F t. L a u d e rd a le H o lly w o o d
. .
F t. M y e rs
. . . .
G a in e s v ille
. . .
J a c k s o n v ille
. . .
M e lb o u rn e T itu s v ille -C o c o a
M ia m i
......................
O r l a n d o .....................
P e n s a c o la
. . .
S a ra s o ta
. . . .
T a lla h a s s e e
. . .
T a m p a -S t. P e te .
W . P a lm B e a c h
4 ,6 4 5 ,4 3 1
9 2 ,6 1 0
3 8 2 ,3 7 9
1 ,2 9 0 ,4 0 7
7 0 0 ,7 9 2
2 4 4 ,0 6 8
4 ,2 8 1 ,5 2 1
9 9 ,8 0 4
3 2 2 ,7 0 9
1 ,1 3 0 ,4 9 0
6 3 9 ,5 4 0
2 4 7 ,0 7 8
+ 12
+ 8
+ 4
+ 8
+ 5
+ 5
+ 22
- 0
+ 24
+24
+ 15
+ 4
+21
+ 3
+ 25
+27
+ 14
+ 7
8 6 0 ,6 2 3
4 8 3 ,9 1 4
8 4 2 ,3 6 4
4 0 7 ,5 8 7
8 2 4 ,6 4 8
3 9 0 ,3 2 2
+ 2
+ 19
+ 4
+ 24
+ 7
+ 17
.
1 ,8 7 8 ,1 0 5
4 4 5 ,8 9 0
2 8 6 ,4 6 9
4 ,9 2 1 ,1 9 4
1 ,8 4 5 ,8 2 3
4 0 2 ,5 0 5
2 5 6 ,3 5 3
4 ,4 3 2 ,7 6 6
1 ,8 4 2 ,3 2 7
4 0 5 ,7 8 0
2 5 4 ,3 1 5
4 ,7 1 3 ,6 8 2
+ 2
+ 11
+ 12
+ 11
+ 2
+ 10
+ 13
+ 4
+
+
-
.
.
.
4 5 6 ,7 9 6
7 ,3 0 2 ,0 9 5
1 ,5 6 4 ,2 7 9
5 1 6 ,6 7 0
5 4 5 ,1 0 4
1 ,1 7 0 ,2 3 3
4 ,2 4 5 ,4 0 2
1 ,2 9 8 ,3 3 8
4 0 5 ,1 7 6
6 ,8 1 8 ,0 3 7
1 ,4 7 9 ,5 5 3
4 9 1 ,0 7 8
5 4 3 ,4 0 9
7 8 9 ,7 5 0
3 ,8 4 3 ,0 5 9
1 ,2 0 2 ,5 1 6
4 0 9 ,2 9 9
7 ,4 2 8 ,3 8 5
1 ,5 8 4 ,7 9 3
4 5 0 ,5 5 4
5 2 4 ,3 7 0
8 2 7 ,7 6 5
4 ,2 9 4 ,5 6 0
1 ,2 9 3 ,7 5 7
+ 13
+ 7
+ 6
+ 5
+ 0
+48
+ 10
+ 8
+ 12
- 2
1
+ 15
+ 4
+41
1
+ 0
+ 10
lr
- 3
+ 19
+ 4
1
1
- 0
1 9 7 ,9 3 3
1 7 ,5 2 6 ,8 8 0
5 3 2 ,2 2 9
4 4 1 ,9 4 7
7 4 6 ,0 6 0
5 5 4 ,0 1 2
+ 5
+ 10
+ 4
+ 6
+ 11
+ 11
- 6
+ 11
+ 18
+ 3
+ 10
+75
- 0
+ 6r
+11 r
+ 2
+ 14
+ 66
.
A lb a n y
......................
A t l a n t a ......................
A u g u s t a ......................
C o lu m b u s
. . . .
M acon
......................
Savannah
. . . .
A le x a n d r ia
. .
B a to n R o u g e
.
L a fa y e tte
. . . .
L a k e C h a rle s
.
N e w O rle a n s
.
1 8 5 ,3 9 6
1 9 ,4 9 4 ,2 1 4
6 3 0 ,5 0 2
4 5 5 ,1 3 4
8 1 8 ,0 4 6
9 6 9 ,0 5 5
.
.
.
.
.
.
B ilo x i-G u lfp o r t
. .
Jackson
. . . .
C h a tta n o o g a
. .
K n o x v ille
. . . .
N a s h v ille
. . . .
.
,
,
1 7 7 ,2 8 9
1 7 ,6 5 0 ,5 3 9
6 0 6 ,9 8 3 r
4 3 0 ,4 7 2
7 3 7 ,8 8 0
8 7 4 ,7 7 6
3
6
8
1
3 3 1 ,5 3 1
1 ,9 0 3 ,0 5 1
3 7 6 ,1 5 4
2 7 1 ,1 2 5
5 ,4 7 6 ,5 2 1
2 6 9 ,7 3 5
1 ,8 6 7 ,7 1 4
3 5 4 ,2 6 3
3 0 1 ,0 8 2
5 ,0 0 5 ,2 5 2
2 8 8 ,7 1 3
1 ,4 3 2 ,9 6 1
2 9 2 ,8 7 0
2 5 1 ,6 3 9
5 ,0 5 4 ,2 5 9
+23
+ 2
+ 6
-1 0
+ 9
+ 15
+33
+28
+ 8
+ 8
+ 11
+43
+ 32
+ 16
+ 13
2 5 4 ,1 0 4
1 ,6 5 6 ,2 6 3
2 6 3 ,6 3 4
1 ,6 7 1 ,6 2 1
2 5 1 ,0 7 4
1 ,6 0 5 ,1 4 3
-
+
+
1
3
+ 12
+ 14
1 ,3 0 0 ,1 1 0
1 ,6 6 9 ,2 3 4
4 ,6 3 8 ,8 9 0
1 ,1 8 1 ,3 4 9
1 ,4 7 8 ,8 4 5
4 ,0 0 1 ,1 8 3
1 ,4 7 1 ,1 3 6
1 ,7 6 9 ,9 7 4
3 ,7 1 1 ,9 1 8
+ 10
+ 13
+ 16
-1 2
- 6
+25
- 9
+ 7
+ 20
1 2 1 ,6 3 4
1 1 4 ,1 0 9
1 1 2 ,2 5 1
+
+
8
+ 14
4
1
5TH E R C E N T E R S
A n n is to n
. . . .
Feb .
1975
1 9 4 ,3 6 4
7 6 .1 4 3
1 6 7 .7 7 5
7 2 .0 4 4
1 9 0 ,5 9 5
8 5 ,4 9 8
+ 16
+ 6
-r 2
-1 1
1
-1 6
2 0 1 ,8 6 3
1 4 2 ,4 4 8
2 2 5 ,6 6 7
4 9 ,4 7 4
9 6 2 ,4 9 4
2 ,1 9 7 ,7 6 8
2 0 2 ,9 2 6
1 2 3 ,9 5 0
2 0 4 ,9 6 6
3 4 ,5 7 0
8 8 6 ,8 8 3
1 ,9 2 1 ,3 9 4
2 0 6 ,3 2 9
1 1 3 ,7 7 5
1 9 7 ,4 1 5
5 3 ,5 1 8
9 9 4 ,6 1 8
2 ,0 2 8 ,9 2 0
1
+ 15
+ 10
+ 43
+ 9
+ 5
- 2
+ 25
+ 14
- 8
3
1
+ 5
+ 10
+ 3
-2 1
- 3
+ 4
1 6 5 ,7 8 2
1 1 6 ,0 0 3
1 5 7 ,8 5 0
2 5 ,9 8 2
1 6 3 ,6 0 5
6 9 ,2 6 0
3 9 ,8 7 6
4 3 ,4 7 7
1 5 7 ,4 4 6
1 0 9 ,1 0 6
1 3 6 ,4 9 6
1 2 2 ,6 7 8
1 4 9 ,5 8 5
2 2 ,3 7 6
1 4 7 ,0 8 0
7 0 ,3 9 9
3 7 ,9 1 3
4 1 ,2 4 0
1 3 7 ,0 8 4
9 5 .2 0 3
1 5 8 ,7 2 8
9 9 ,2 8 8
1 8 3 ,4 6 9
2 2 ,9 0 8
1 4 8 ,4 4 7
7 3 ,8 1 5
4 1 ,6 8 6
5 3 ,8 9 3
1 4 0 ,5 4 1
9 9 ,2 7 9
21
5
6
16
11
2
5
5
15
15
+ 4
+ 17
-1 4
+ 13
+ 10
- 6
- 4
-1 9
+ 12
+ 10
+ 4
+ 25
-1 6
+ 9
+ 10
- 7
-1 0
-1 4
+ 4
+ 10
1 8 ,9 1 5
1 7 ,4 0 1
1 1 1 ,7 0 8
8 8 ,3 7 9
3 2 ,1 1 5
6 8 ,8 0 9
1 6 ,8 9 9
1 3 ,1 7 3
1 0 2 ,4 4 8
8 2 ,9 0 2
2 8 ,3 3 6
5 7 ,0 0 1
1 6 ,1 2 4
1 3 ,6 0 1
5 9 ,6 4 4
6 2 ,8 2 8
2 1 ,8 6 9
3 6 ,6 6 8
+ 12
+32
+ 9
+ 7
+ 13
+ 21
+ 17
+ 28
+ 87
+ 41
+ 47
+88
+ 13
+30
+36
+37
+ 33
+63
.
-
1 5 1 ,1 6 0
7 7 ,2 8 0
1 2 0 ,0 5 4
5 4 ,2 3 3
1 4 0 ,2 3 7
7 9 ,0 5 5
1 1 9 ,9 2 8
5 5 ,8 4 7
1 2 1 ,3 0 9
7 9 ,1 7 7
1 2 3 ,0 7 3
5 6 ,5 3 8
+
+
-
8
2
0
3
+25
- 2
- 2
- 4
+ 19
+ 2
+ 4
+ 8
.
.
1 8 1 ,5 9 9
7 5 ,7 6 8
5 2 ,4 2 9
1 7 7 ,5 2 2
7 0 ,6 5 9
3 8 ,8 3 1 r
1 6 9 ,3 5 8
8 3 ,5 4 0
4 5 ,2 4 6
+ 2
+ 7
+ 35
+ 5
- 9
+ 16
+ 6
-1 0
+ 9r
B ris to l
. . . .
J o h n s o n C ity
K in g s p o rt
. . .
1 4 9 ,7 5 5
1 7 3 ,4 8 3
3 5 6 ,3 8 1
1 2 2 ,7 9 9 r
1 5 9 ,8 5 8
2 6 4 ,6 9 6
1 2 4 ,4 8 3
1 6 4 ,3 1 9
3 1 5 ,6 2 2
+22
+ 9
+35
+20
+ 6
+ 13
+29r
+ 2
+ 9
.
. 9 1 ,0 5 3 ,5 8 6
8 2 ,5 8 8 ,1 3 6 r
8 3 ,4 3 2 ,1 5 7
+ 10
+
9
A la b a m a
. . .
F lo rid a
. . . .
G e o rg ia
. . . .
L o u is ia n a . .
M is s is s ip p i. ■
Tennessee. .
1 1 ,1 9 4 ,7 6 7
2 8 ,4 4 2 ,2 2 6
2 6 ,8 3 0 ,3 9 4
. 1 0 ,0 5 8 ,7 7 2
. 3 ,4 0 0 ,4 3 5
. 1 1 ,1 2 6 ,9 9 2
1 0 ,2 2 5 ,0 7 3 r
2 6 ,0 5 8 ,5 2 8 r
2 4 ,1 3 5 ,3 2 0 r
9 , 3 5 1 ,0 6 4
3 ,1 2 3 ,0 0 0
9 , 6 9 5 ,1 5 1 r
9 ,3 9 8 ,2 9 9
2 8 ,1 9 6 ,0 6 9
2 3 ,7 8 0 ,0 4 8
8 ,6 5 4 ,9 4 7
3 ,3 9 2 ,1 9 8
1 0 ,0 1 0 ,5 9 6
+ 9
+ 9
+ 11
+ 8
+ 9
+ 15
+
+
+
+
+
+
19
1
13
16
0
11
D o th a n
S e lm a
5 ,2 1 3 ,8 3 2
9 9 ,5 7 6
3 9 8 ,6 9 4
1 ,3 9 6 ,6 0 2
7 3 8 ,1 9 9
2 5 7 ,0 9 6
7
'C o n fo r m s to S M S A d e f in it io n s a s o f D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 7 2 .
- D is t r ic t p o rtio n o n ly ,
r -re v is e d
F ig u re s f o r s o m e a r e a s d if f e r s lig h tly fro m p r e lim in a r y fig u r e s p u b lis h e d
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK O F ATLANTA
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
n "B ank
. . . .
. . . .
B ra d e n to n
. .
M o n r o e C o u n ty
O c a la
. . . .
St. A u g u s tin e
S t. P e te rs b u rg .
Tam pa
. . . .
A th e n s
.
B ru n s w ic k
D a lto n
.
E lb e rto n
G a in e s v ille
G r iff in
.
L a G ra n g e
N ew nan
R om e
.
V a ld o s ta
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
A b b e v ille
■
B u n k ie
. . .
H am m ond
N e w Ib e ria
P la q u e m in e
T h ib o d a u x
.
■
.
.
.
.
.
H a t t ie s b u r g
.
L a u re l
. . . .
M e r id ia n
. .
N a tc h e z
. P a s c a g o u la M o s s P o in t
V ic k s b u rg
. .
Y a z o o C ity
.
s t r ic t
T o ta l
.
.
.
.
.
.
M a rc h
1974
d a te
j 3 m os
l 1975
fro m
M a r.
1974
19 74
M a rc h
1975
f ro m
1974
S T A N D A R D M E T R O P O L IT A N
S T A T IS T IC A L A R E A S 1
B ir m in g h a m
. . . .
G adsden
. . . .
H u n ts v ille . . . .
M o b i l e ...................... .
M o n tg o m e r y . . .
T u s c a lo o s a
. . .
M a r.
1975
fro m
i jja t e
1975
f ro m
M a rc h
1975
P e rc e n t C h a n g e
F eb .
1975
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
9r
+ 19r
+ Or
+ 9r
+ 21
+ 7
+ 12r
D e b its a n d D e p o s it T u r n o v e r " b y B o a rd o f G o v e rn o rs o f t h e F e d e ra l R e s e rv e S y s te m .
83
District Business Conditions
M fg. Production
Nonfarm Employment
Unemployment Rate'
Average W eekly Hours*
M fg. Payrolls
Movin g Avg
Farm Cash Receipts
1111111111
’'Seas. adj. figure; not an index
Latest plotting: March, except mfg. production, January, and farm receipts, February.
The bad news for the Southeast's economy shows some signs of diminishing. Despite general weakness
in employment, some sectors have improved. Construction contracts advanced; consumer instalment
credit declined less rapidly. Mem ber banks continued to report large deposit advances. Farm cash
receipts, though trending downward, were helped by high income from sugar cane.
Labor markets weakened further in March. Em­
plo ym en t declined in nearly every industry, and the
une m ploym ent rate advanced to 10.1 percent. In
m anufacturing, both average w eekly hours and pay­
rolls declined. There were some b rig h t spots, h o w ­
ever. A u to m o b ile manufacturers recalled several
thousand w orkers previously idled. Food processing
and state and local governm ent e m ploym ent also
gained slightly.
Residential construction contracts advanced in
March and nonresidential construction gained con­
siderably. However, construction a ctivity remains
w ell below year-ago levels. The Federal incom e tax
cre dit fo r new homes is sparking fresh interest in
hom e purchases. Consumer savings in flo w s at banks
and savings and loan associations approached record
levels fo r the first quarter and should ensure the
availab ility o f mortgage funds.
Encouraging developments appeared in consummer instalment debt owed to commercial banks.
A lthou gh total outstanding instalm ent loans con­
tinued to drop in M arch, the size o f the decline
decreased- relative to that o f previous months. N o n ­
a utom otive consum er goods and personal loans fell
o n ly sjightly, fo llo w in g substantial decreases earlier.
A lm ost all the decline in total instalm ent cre d it
reflected reduced auto loans. D epartm ent store sales
rose slightly from the year-ago level.
Many banks experienced strong deposit gains
during April. W ith loan dem and still weak, banks
co ntinued to purchase sizable am ounts o f U. S.
G overnm ent securities. M em ber banks are also
becom ing less dependent on Federal funds p u r­
chases and interest-sensitive deposits. In early
May, many larger banks w ere posting a 7 V 2-percent
prim e rate, the low est since mid-1973.
Prices received by farmers fell again in March but
may have stabilized since then, according to pre­
liminary data. Some recovery in cattle and soybean
prices offset co n tin u in g declines fo r feeder calves
and wheat. Slaughter o f livestock, especially hogs,
dropped m arkedly from m onth-ago levels, reflecting
curtailed p ro d u c tio n fro m unfavorable feed-price
ratios. Broiler placements still lagged year-ago levels
through A p ril, although they were nearly unchanged
from a m onth ago. The decline in interest rates on
short-term agricultural loans has slowed. U nusually
large gains fro m the sugar cane crop in Louisiana
and Florida helped push D istrict farm cash receipts
above year-ago levels.
Note, Data on which statements are based have been adjusted whenever possible to eliminate seasonal influences.
84
Digitized for FRASER
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M A Y 1975, M O N T H L Y REVIEW