:TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW A. Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS VOL. XXXII, NO. 6 TWENTY CENTS A COPY-TWO DOLLARS A YEAR JUNE 1958 ';,_;JT 0 A ~ f! I vu.l \rif~i)f+· 1958 Last year over $I billion in new homes, schools, churches, factories, and commercial buildings were completed in Texas, altering the appearance of many of the state's cities and providing a major support for the Texas economy. The first of a series of brief studies of construction activity, major projects, and building trends in major Texas cities begins on page 7. For the regular monthly statewide construction sum­mary, turn to page 16. The Business Situation in Texas By FRANCIS B. MAY After declining for two consecutive months to a March low of 183% of the 1947-49 average, the seasonally ad­justed Index of Texas Business Activity rose sharply to 192%, a level just below the February index value of 193%. During the months since May 1957, when the in­dex reached an all-time peak of 205% of the 1947-49 aver­age level of activity, the index has pursued an irregularly downward course marked by short periods of reversal dur­ing which the index would move upward for a month or two. The net effect of this uneven course has been a reduc­tion of the level of activity to a figure 6% below the pre­recession peak. This 6% decline to date equals the total decline in busi­ness activity in Texas during the mild 1953-54 recession. It is slightly more than the total decline of 5% in the rate of activity during the 1948-49 recession. If the bottom of the present decline has been reached, as some economists believe, it will have been of the same order of magnitude as its predecessors. The fact that the average rate of decline has been approximately one-half of one percent a month during the eleven-month period of the recession shows how moderate the downswing has been when the overall level of activity is considered. Of course, some sectors of the state's economy have suffered severely from the results of special supply problems aggravated by the decline in demand resulting from the recession. In April, crude petroleum production dropped to 97% of the 1947-49 average, a figure 3% below the preceding month's low level and 30% below April 1957 production. Since April of last year was a period during which the high production levels occasioned by the Suez Canal closing still prevailed, the year-ago comparison exaggerates the extent of the decline somewhat. A more conservative comparison would be with April of 1956. The April 1958 production total was 26% below April of 1956. When it is considered that this is a reduction of 26% in the rate of operations of an industry producing in former years more than one bil. lion barrels of output valued at approximately $3 a barrel, the full magnitude of the loss can be appreciated. How much longer can this condition be expected to prevail? There is good reason to expect that conditions will begin to improve in the second half of the year, per· haps as early as July. This upturn will be the result pri· marily of action taken by the Texas Railroad Commission in reducing output from Texas wells. Successive proration orders have reduced the output of all prorated wells in the state to a low figure of 8 days a month for May. This rate will be continued in June, the third consecutive month of production at this greatly reduced level. As a result of this belt-tightening, inventories of crude which had reached excessive heights have been reduced to a workable level in all sections of the country except the West Coast, where production and imports have been main­tained at high levels. The fact that crude imports to most areas also have been reduced has contributed to the im· proved outlook. With the vacation season approaching, de· mand for motor fuel is improving to a very encouraging de­gree. The summer peak of gasoline sales may be high Texas Business Activity Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947-1949=100 -250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 1940 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 ·47 '48 '49 '50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW enough to provide substantial improvement in the level of operation of the oil industry. It seems unlikely that this upturn in operations will be the first step toward a revival of the "good old days" of high production allowables and refineries operating at 100% of capacity. There has been a fundamental change in the world oil industry which leaves the outlook for the domestic industry, of which Texas operations are such a major portion, rather uncertain. Factors governing the supply side of the operation are at the root of the problem. Exploration abroad is resulting in large additions to an al­ready enormous supply of petroleum. Financial factors are forcing many of the firms engaged in foreign operations to press for markets for their product. World demand is in­adequate to absorb this oversupply with the result that the foreign operators are offering discounts from prices al­ready below the levels prevailing in the United States. This increases the pressure on domestic refiners whose profit per barrel on domestic crude is low to find ways of utilizing foreign oil. While imports of crude into the area east of the Pacific Coast are being kept in check, there is evidence that partially refined crude is being imported in increasing; amounts for further refining here. There have also been substantial increases in the amount of gasoline imported. These increases point to the need for federal regulation of imports of finished and unfinished products as well as crude. There is every reason to believe that this situation will be permanent. No longer does the domestic oil industry dominate the world scene. The roles are now reversed. A co-product of oil, natural gas, is also providing fuel competition. The advantages of gas as a home heating fuel and as an industrial fuel are so great that sales of light fuel oils used in home heating and residual fuel oil used for in­ dustrial energy production are being affected. Gasoline amounts to about 44% of the refined products derived from a barrel of crude. A substantial part of the remainder con­ sists of light and heavy fuel oils. Weakening markets for these products are adding to the tribulations of domestic refiners. Total electric power consumption in April was 4% ahead of March after making allowance for purely seasonal fac­ tors. At this level, the index value was still 2% below April of last year. Improvement in industrial electric power con­ sumption was the principal cause of the overall increase. Industrial use of electric energy increased 7% on a season· ally adjusted basis between March and April. Industrial consumption was below April of last year primarily be­ cause of the reduction in power consumption by the crude oil producers from the high levels of last year. Ordinary life insurance sales are another bright spot in the economic picture in Texas. April sales were 12% above March after seasonal adjustment. They were 14% above the year-ago level. This is in contrast to national sales of ordinary life insurance, which have shown less buoyancy. Retail sales in April rose slightly above March after sea­ sonal corrections were made. They were 2% below the April 1957 index value. The month-to-month improvement was the result of a 2% increase in sales of nondurable goods. Durable goods sales were unchanged from March. When the increase in prices of consumer nondurahles since 1957 is taken into account, it seems likely that the physical volume of goods sold in April was farther below April 1957 than the sales data show. Consumer prices as meas­ ured by the Consumer Price Index have continued to rise during the recession. Urban building permits issued were another encouraging area in the economic picture of the state. Total permits in April rose 10% above March after seasonal adjustment. This is the second consecutive 10% monthly increase in the index. All of the April increase resulted from increases in residential permits, which rose 22% above the March level. Nonresidential permits declined 4%. Sunny weather, easier mortgage credit terms, and a more plentiful supply of housing credit have given the building industry a new lease on life. SELECTED BARO.METERS OF TEXAS B USINESS (Adjuoted !or seasonal variation, 1947-49 =100) Percent change Index Apr 1958 Ma r 1958 Apr 1957 Apr 1958 from Mar 1958 A p r 1958 from Apr 1957 Texas business activity 192 183 200 + 5 Miscellaneous freight carloadings in S. W. district 78 76 81 + 3 4 Crude pet roleum production Crude oil runs to stills ........ ---·· 97 132 100 132 139 150 3 •• -30 -12 T otal electric power consumption ------------------­ 323 310 329 + 4 2 I ndustria l electric power consumption 345 321 364 + 7 5 Bank debits . ------------------­ 229 219 234 + 5 2 Ordinary life insura nce sales .... 369 330 323 + 12 + 14 Total retail sales Durable-goods sales ............ 181 148 180 148 + 1 •• -2 -10 Nondurable-goods sales .. ........ 199 196 + 2 + 1 Urban building permits issued• 222 201 186 + 10 + 19 Residential ...... 253 207 182 + 22 + 39 N onresidential ---------·-------------­ 189 197 197 4 - 4 F arm cash income, unadjusted ······················· 60 55 60 + 7 •• •Includes additions, alterations, and repairs. ••change is less than one-half of one percent. Unemployment in Texas in April was 6.5% of the labor force engaged in nonagricultural pursuits. This figure was unchanged from March. It was below the comparable fig­ure for the nation, which showed 7.3% unemployed among those engaged in nonagricultural activities. Of the 17 major labor markets in the state, San Antonio continued to have the lowest unemployment rate with 4.45% of the nonagricultural labor force unemployed. Austin was second with 4.60% unemployed. Dallas was third with 4.90% unemployed. The Houston-Baytown area had 6.84% unemployed, and Fort Worth had 7.53% un­employed. Two of the areas with poorer employment. fig­ures in April were Beaumont-Port Arthur with 10.21 % un­employed and Texarkana with 12.82% unemployed. If we look at the month-to-month changes in Texas business barometers for April, plus signs predominate over the minuses. This is the first time since January that this has been true. If the column of year-to-year comparisons is used, minus signs predominate. This is proof enough, if any were needed, that we are still in the recession, although the bottom may he at hand. Only future data can reveal whether this is the bottom or not. In any event it is not to he expected that activity will start climbing to new peaks immediately. The nature and size of the fall pick-up in activity, whether it is vigorous or weak, will provide a better clue. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Editor...................·-·······--·-·····-···-·········---John R. Stockton Managing Editor___________ __ _ _______ __ ____Robert H. Drenner TABLE OF CONTENTS The Business Situation in Texas____________ _ ____________ _ _ 2 Retail Trade ------------------------------------------------------------4 The Changing Face of Texas___________ _ _____ _ _____ ______ _ 1 Industrial Production ·----------------------------------------------9 Finance --------------------------------------------------------------------11 Agriculture ------------------------------·-------------------------------14 Construction ------------------------------------------------------------16 Local Business Conditions -------------------------------------· IB Barometers of Texas Business ------------------·---------------24 BUSINESS RESEARCH COUNCIL William R. Spriegel, Dean of the College of Businesa Administration (n officio): L. G. Blackstock; C. P. Blair; E . W • .Mumma; Eastin Nelson; and G. H. Newlove. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH John R . Stockton Stanley A. Arbingast Florence Escott Director Aasiotcint Director Reaearoh Supervi•or Resources Specialist Francis B. May Stella Traweek Robert H. Drenner Statistician Co7t8ulting Statisticicin Resecirch Associate Deirdre C. Handy J acquie LeRoy Tina Piedrahita Rcs•arch Associate Resea.-ch Associate Statiatical Assistant Joan N. Houston Roberta Steele Mildred Anderson Statistical Asaiatant Cartographer Statistical Assiatunt Candler P. Cass Evo. A. Arias Anna Merle Danz Statistical Asaiatant Statistical Technician Library Assiatant Edrine Carson Mary Lou Hammack Crescencia M. Stanley Senior Clerk-T111>i1t Senior Secretary Senior Secretary James S. Swearingen, Jr. Marilyn C. Whites John 'I'. Myracle Editorial Aasistant Publication AssiBtant Editorial Assistant Mary Ann Ward Peggy J. Sullivan Dorothy W . Smith Senior Clerk-Typist Clerk·Tvpist Clerical Assistant Robert Dorsett Offaet Press Operator Cooperating Faculty James A. Byrd Buford A . Casey Aasistant Professor of Finance Asaistant Profeasor of Marketing Assistants Alice B. Baghdassarian, Charles 0. Bettinger, Ada B. Cardon, Charles R. Fee, Murphy M. McNulty, Jr., Hiroshi Ohno, Sylvester D. Parsons, and Marie Payne. Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas, Aus tin 12. Entered as eecond class matter May 7, 1928 at the post office at Austin, Texa•, under the act of August 24, 1912. Content of this publi­cation is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely. Acknowledge­ment of 101nce will be appreciated. Subscription, $2.00 a year; individual copies, 20 "Ants. Retail Trade: APRIL SALES SEASONALLY STEADY By BUFORD A. CASEY Dollar sales. Total retail sales in Texas for April were estimated at $942 million, which was 2% below both this March and April 1957. Durable goods sales ($264 million) were 6% below March and 10% less than in April 1957; nondurable goods sales ($678 million) were approximately the same as in March and 1% above April 1957. For the first four months, total sales were down 2% from the same period of last year, durable goods being off 9% and non· durable goods up 2%. ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES (Unadjusted for seasonal variation) Percent chani'e April April Jan-April 1958 1958 1968 from from from April Jan-April Mar April Jan-April Type of store 1958 1958 1968 1967 1957 Millions of dollars TOTAL -·-··-·--··-·-··--941.9 3,702.1 -2 -2 Durable goods ·-·--··-·-·---264.2 1,125.1 -6 -10 Nondurable goods ·-·-·· 677.7 2,577.0 •• + 1 + **Change is less than one-half of one percent. April indices. The preliminary index of retail sales (1947-49=100; adjusted for seasonal variation) in Texas was 181, one point (0.6%) above March. The durable goods index was 148, the same as in March; the nondur· able goods index was 199, three points (1.5%) above March. Retail Sales in Texas Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947-1949-100 1940 ·41 ·42 ·43 ·44 ·45 "46 ·47 ·4s ·49 Sales by kinds of businesses. Five pre-Easter shop· ping days, better weather, increased farm activity, and building and repair work combined to boost April sales above those for March for men's and boy's clothing stores (+35%), farm implement dealers (+31 % ) , hardware stores and florists (each +21 % ) , lumber and building material dealers (+13%), country general stores (+7%), department stores (+4%), and family clothing stores (+2%). April volumes considerably below those for March were recorded by automotive stores and shoe stores (each -10%), while slightly lower volumes than in March were reported by furniture stores and women's ready-to-wear stores (each --4%) ; restaurants and gasoline and service stations (each -3%) ; and drug stores, food stores, and liquor stores (each -2%). TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW In interpreting the table, Retail Sales Trends by Kinds of Business, it should be remembered that this April bene­fited from only the last five days of pre-Easter sales, whereas April 1957 reflects three weeks of pre-Easter business. RETAIL SALES TRENDS BY KINDS OF BUSINESS Source: Bureau of Bll81nes• Research In cooperation with the Bureau of the C.naua, U . S. Department of Commerce Percent change in sales Kind of business N umber of reporting establishments April 1968 from Mar 1958 April 1958 from April 1957 DURABLE GOODS Automotive stores ······-····----­-····· 289 - 10 - 14 Furniture and household appliance stores ........................ 176 - 1 •• Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ................ 278 + 1, + 8 NONDURABLE GOODS Apparel stores ---·········--··-····-······ 221 + 1 8 Drug stores .................................... 1S7 2 + 7 Eatinii and drinking places ...... 101 2 1 Food stores ········---·-···-···---·--··--··--·· Gasoline and service stations .... 263 839 2 3 + 7 •• General merchandise stores ...... 159 + 3 -10 Other retail stores ........................ 220 + 5 + 8 ••Change is less than one-half of one percent. Because of this and other short-term variables, a more meaningful comparison is probably that of sales for the first four months with those of the same period of last year. Total sales for January-April 1958 were above sales for January-April 1957 for farm implement dealers ( + 18%), drug stores ( + 10%), country general stores ( +8%), food stores (+7%), florists (+4%) , and women's ready-to­wear stores and gasoline and service stations (each +2%). Those businesses with total sales for January-April 1958 below sales for January-April 1957 included lumber and building material dealers (-1% ) ; hardware stores, eat­ing and drinking places, and office, store, and school sup­ply dealers (each -2%); department stores (-3%); furniture stores and jewelry stores (each -4%) ; men's and boys' clothing stores (-6%) ; automotive stores (-11% ) ; and liquor stores (-18%). Volume of department and apparel stores. Dollar volume of 276 Texas department and apparel stores in April was 2% above March and 10% below April 1957. Volume for the first four months was down 2% from Jan­uary-April 1957. Of the 28 cities reporting, 18 exceeded March and one was ahead of April 1957. The 12 cities that had gains in department and apparel store sales for the first four months compared with January-April 1957 were Paris ( + 11% ) ; Bryan ( + 10%) ; Greenville (+8% ) ; Port Arthur ( +6%) ; McAllen ( +5%) ; Big Spring and Temple (each +3%) ; Amarillo, Brownwood, Corsicana, and Henderson (each +2%); and Lockhart ( + 1 % ) . Aus­tin equalled last year's volume of the first four months, while Dallas, Marshall, and San Angelo fell just 1 % under their January-April 1957 figures. The remaining cities had losses in department and apparel store sales of from 2% to9%. Sales in Texas cities. Of 27 cities, 12 exceeded their retail sales for March, 5 were ahead of April 1957, and 2 improved over and 3 remained even with January-April 1957. Cities with April sales volumes greater than in March were Plainview (+23%); Amarillo ( + 18%); Temple and Lubbock (each +10%); Victoria (+7%); Paris ( +6% ) ; Fort Worth, Greenville and McAllen (each +4%); Big Spring ( +2%); and El Paso and Waco (each +1%). Those cities ahead of April 1957 were Temple ( + 15%), Victoria ( + 11 % ) , Bryan ( +7%), El Paso ( +6%), and McAllen (+3%). Ahead for the January-April period were Temple ( + 11 % ) a:nd McAllen ( +3%); while Big Spring, Bryan, and San Angelo were even with the first four months of last year. McAllen and Temple were the only reporting cities with gains in sales during the three time-period comparisons. Losses in sales volume for the first four months in the 22 remaining cities ranged from 1%to29%, with the median loss at 6%. Credit and collection ratios. The April ratio of 69.5% for credit sales to net sales in 63 Texas department and apparel stores was up 0.9 point from April 1957. Cities with highest ratios were Dallas (80.6%), Fort Worth (69.3%), and Houston (69.0%). The April ratio of collections during the month to out­standings at the beginning of the month (34.9%) was 1.1 points below April 1957. Dry goods and apparel stores ( 52.9%) and men's clothing stores (44.0%) had the highest collection ratios. Cities with the highest collection ratios were Austin ( 46.4%), San Antonio ( 45.4%), Dallas (43.8%), Waco (40.3%), Cleburne (40.2%), and Gal­veston ( 40.l% ) . CREDIT RATIOS IN DEPARTMENT AND APPAREL STORES Credit Collection ratios• ratios•• Number of Classification reporting stor~ Apr 1958 Apr 1957 Apr 1958 Apr 1957 ALL STORES ····-------··········· 63 69.5 68.4 34.9 36.0 Austin ·······--································· 6 65.2 64.5 46.4 49.7 Cleburne ········-·-·······--------­-­-----•-.• 8 40.2 37.8 40.2 37.2 Dallas ············································ 6 80.6 79.3 43.8 43.5 Fort Worth ................................ 3 69.3 67.7 31.4 31.2 Galveston ···································­ 5 67.4 64.9 40.1 45.3 Houston --·······-·······················--·---­ 4 69.0 67.4 29.7 31.5 San Antonio ·········---······-··········· 4 66.0 67.5 45.4 43.3 Waco ---··············------------·-············· 5 62.6 62.l 40.3 44.S BY TYPES OF STORE Department stores (over $1 million) ·------­--··-·-· 18 70.5 69.3 33.5 34,, Department stores (under $1 million) ·-·-·-···--· 20 50.6 51.7 34.7 40.1 Women's specialty shops ........ 10 66.6 65.9 41.5 42.5 Men's clothing stores --·-··-·--·-·· 10 72.6 70.5 44.0 47.6 BY VOLUME OF NET SALES Over $1 ,600,000 ----------------------­ 23 70.6 69.3 34.7 35.6 $500,000 to $1,500,000 ------­----­ 15 59.5 59.5 40.7 ,5.1 $250,000 to $500,000 ·--------------· 11 57.6 57.7 37.0 37.4 Less than $250,000 -----------­-----·-· 14 51.4 61.8 36.6 38.1 • Credit sales as a percent of net sales. •• Collections during the month as a percent of accounts unpaid on the first of the month. Secondary trade indicators. Advertising linage in 20 Texas newspapers during April was 1 % more than in March and 4% less than in April 1957. Fourteen papers bettered March linage and 10 exceeded their April 1957 advertising. Of 110 Texas cities and towns, postal receipts increased in 55 and were the same in 7 for the April 5-May 2 period compared with the same time of last year. THE NATIONAL PICTURE U. S. retail sales (seasonally adjusted) were up about 2% in April from the low February-March level, and they were almost even with April 1957. Inventory reductions, especially of durables, put many merchants closer to re­ order levels. Department store sales had improved from -5% for January-February (vs. the same period of 1957) to -3% by May 17. During both periods the Dallas Federal Reserve District equalled the national performance. Retail and Wholesale Trade Employment in Texas Thousands Thousands 600 600 ~00 500 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 1946 '.47 '48 '<49 'SO '51 '52 ·53 ·54 '55 '56 ·57 '58 Changing markets for consumer durables. Since in the retail area most of the lag in sales centers upon con­sumer durables, perhaps it should be asked, "Why has the consumer cut back so drastically in his purchases of house· hold appliances, television and radio sets, furniture, auto­mobiles, and some other durable goods?" Part of the reason undoubtedly can he found in individual judgment of the maximum use of credit, unemployment, reduced take-home pay, rising costs of providing customary nondurables and services, and a general outlook of caution. Much has been said recently about individual savings being at so high a level. Many people with savings and credit sufficient to purchase additional durable goods this year apparently prefer higher savings and credit reserves to the offerings of durable goods manufacturers and mer­chants. Three principal avenues (and combinations of them) are theoretically open for increased volume: (1) lower the price, ( 2) iinprove the product, and (3) sell more effectively. Stability in wages and slowing rates of productivity offer little chance for substantially lower prices at present. The other two avenu~s to increased sales and profits offer a challenge to the makers and marketers of all durables. Products must be improved to such a degree that the added benefits for the buyer warrant earlier obsolescence of older models. The slightly improved product is no longer assured of ready acceptance by a mass market. It is heartening to note that recently political leaders and econo­mists agree with many businessmen that we need (a) products engineered and designed to meet people's wants, and (h) more effective selling of these products. Earlier obsolescence of older models of durables is per­haps more imperative now and in the next few years he· cause of the increased possibility of a slower rate of new household formations. Marriages have continued in recent years at a rate of about 1.5 million per year. This is at a time when many population experts expected the effects of lower birth rates of the early 30's to drastically reduce the marriage rate. The number of marriages did slip 3% in 1957. For September 1957-February 1958 the decline was a meaningful 9% from the same period in 1956-1957. Marriages have not kept up relative to population in 6 recent years, largely because of the increased number of old and very young citizens and the reduced numbers in the ages of highest frequency of marriage. For first mar. riages only, the median age of the groom is 23; of the bride, 20. There are somewhat fewer young people in the 17-31 age group now than in 1950, although total popula· tion is up 13%. The market for consumer durables, then, likely will center even more than in the past upon replacement of products in already-formed households than in selling slightly modified versions of existing models to newly-formed households. The challenge to manufacturers and marketers of consumer durables--automobiles, household appliances, television and radio sets, furniture, and others-is apparent: adver. tising, sales promotion, and personal selling that is so effective it will cause normally complacent prospects to prefer the benefits to be gotten from dramatically improved products. POSTAL RECEIPTS Percent change Apr 5­May2 1958 Apr 5. May2 1958 from from City Apr 5­May2 1958 Mar 8­Apr 4 1958 Apr 6­May3 1957 Mar 8­Apr 4 1958 Apr6­May 3 1967 Alice Alpine Borger --------­-----·­$11,201 2,859 -··-··-­------------­19,922 $12,303 3,940 19,875 $ 9,994 2,849 13,495 -9 -27 •• + 12 •• + 48 Brownfield 6,838 5,733 6,774 + 19 + 1 Cameron ---­---------------­ 8,984 8,694 6,857 + 3 + 31 Childress ---­ 3,839 4,731 3,566 -19 + 8 Cleburne 9,559 9,832 9,179 - 3 + 4 Coleman -- 4,004 6,527 5,506 -39 -27 Crystal City Cuero ·-­----­····-··········· 3,156 3,828 6,764 3,828 1,942 3,925 -53 •• + i3 -2 Denton ·····-······· ······ 20,207 20,354 21,748 - 1 - 7 Ea.gle Pass -----­ 4,645 5,272 4,396 -12 + 6 E l Campo ___ 7,098 6,914 6,147 + 3 + 15 Gatesville .................. 3,100 3,447 -10 Gilmer 4,088 3,294 3,031 + 24 + 35 Graham 6,260 6,516 5,917 - 4 + 6 Granbury 3,000 3,297 3,412 - 9 -12 Hale Center __ 1,087 1,378 1,241 - 9 -12 Hillsboro .. .. .......... ...... 5,385 4,916 4,553 + 10 + 18 Huntsville ....... _ ..,_,_,_, _ 8,334 7,729 6,073 + 8 + 37 J acksonville ···­----------Kenedy Kermit ····················-··­ 9,457 2,699 5,284 11,750 3,282 6,326 14,308 2,592 4,791 -20 -18 -16 -34 + •+ 10 Kerrville ·····-···· 8,594 8,957 8,105 - 4 + 6 Kingsville 10,500 11. 753 10,593 -11 - 1 Kirbyville ------------······ 1,653 2,386 2,167 -31 -24 La Grange 3,731 3,527 3,226 + 6 + 16 Levelland 5,565 5,779 5,257 - 4 + 6 Littlefield ·-----­----------­ 4,464 4,717 4,664 - 5 - 4 McCamey Marlin -------------····· -----············· 2,508 5,115 3,112 5,121 2,262 5,393 -19 •• + 11 -5 Midland ..._....______ --·--·· 60,459* 59,675t 55,140• + 1 + 10 Mission 6,340 6,832 6,436 - 7 -1 N avasota 3,741 3,853 3,948 - 3 - 6 N ew Braunfels -------­ 11,564 14,889 13,380 -22 -14 Odessa ·----------------.-----­ 48,322 51,501 49,443 - 6 2 P ecos -------········-··--·--­ 8,095 8,789 7,550 - 8 + 7 Pittsburg ·-·····----------­ 2,381 2,627 2,603 - 9 - 9 R aymondville ,_,,,__ ___ 4,272 5,051 3,945 -15 + 8 Sinton ········ 4,688 5,686 5,690 -18 -18 Slaton -----------······--­··-­ 2,825 2,906 - 3 Taft 1,935 2,173 2,023 -11 - 4 Terrell ·-····--­ 5,239 6,233 5,401 -16 - 3 Vernon ·········--··------­-­ 8,212 9,121 7,448 -10 + 10 W a xahachie ·············· 8,732 9,352 9,094 - 7 - 4 Weatherford 6,909 6,969 7,081 -15 -17 *Month of April. **Change is less than one-half of one percent. t Month of March. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Trends in and facts about Texas building singled out for attention this month: residential building as an economic stimulant, Texas' low building costs, urban renewal programs, luxury apartment dwellings, and residential air conditioning. Plus the contribution of the Houston and Fort Worth areas to •• • THE CHANGING FACE of TEXAS By ROBERT H. DRENNER Texans will apparently build nearly 60,000 new homes this year. Estimates by the National Association of Home­builders make it possible to visualize more clearly what 60,000 new housing starts would mean to the Texas econ­omy. Labor is a basic element: the NAHB estimates that 60,000 man-years of on-site labor are necessary to build 60,000 homes, a requirement which would have to be translated into substantially more than an average of 60,000 persons engaged directly in home construction in order to offset weather interruptions. Another 60,000 man­y'ears are required to produce the materials that go into 60,000 new homes-600 million board feet of lumber, 70 million board feet of finished wood flooring, 60 million square feet of softwood plywood, 50,000 garage doors, 20,000 garbage disposal units, 35,000 kitchen exhaust fans, 75,000 bathtubs, 6.5 million square feet of ceramic tile, 45,000 furnaces, 90 million square feet of ceiling and wall insulation, 300 million bricks, 70,000 tons of cement, 120,000 tons of steel, 1.2 million gallons of paint, 12 million square feet of asphalt tile flooring, 300 million square feet of gypsum products-not to mention roofing tars and aggregates, glass, wiring, and other building ma­terials, nor accessory items such as appliances and furni­ture. Some of these materials, of course, are manufactured out of state, but 60,000 new Texas homes would mean probably 40,000 man-years of Texas labor engaged di­ rectly in producing the building materials required, in addition to employment generated in providing new streets and utilities and the necessary financial, real estate, and insurance services. Data compiled by the FHA on comparative housing costs indicate that Texas home purchasers get better value for their housing dollars than do purchasers in nearly every other section of the United States--only in the South and parts of the Midwest are costs in roughly the same range for comparable homes. Home building costs in Dallas are fourth lowest of 71 major metropolitan areas in the nation-they are slightly lower only' in Knoxville, Tenn., Oklahoma City, and Columbia, S. C. A home purchaser in Chicago, for example, pays roughly 50% more than a buyer in Houston or Fort Worth for a comparable resi­dence, and, with the two cited general geographical excep­tions, prices in virtually every other section of the United States are at least 10%-and frequently 20% to 30%­higher than in Texas. URBAN RENEWAL Stimulated partly by an increasing awareness of the economic and social hazards created by urban deteriora­tion, partly by civic pride, and partly by the proffered monetary asistance of the federal government, Texas cities are beginning to wake up to the challenge of urban main­tenance and renewal. Lax minimum housing and build­ing codes, the shift of population away from the city core to the suburbs, and the incorporation of areas where few if any building restrictions had previously been operative have led to a complex set of problems that require detailed and long-range planning for their solution. Most of all, however, their solution requires a community-conscious­ness that the problems exist and a willingness to assist in solving them; not even the most drastic government-con­trolled program can yield more than a temporary change when confronted with public apathy. The more promising urban renewal programs are therefore those which begin with widespread publicity and community discussion of the problem, which encourage individual property owners to undertake improvements, and which place specific de­molition and construction proposals within the context of sensible zoning, building codes, and a master plan. Austin, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Fort Worth, and San Antonio are among those Texas cities with city planning and renewal programs in various stages of development. The Gruen Plan for the development of the downtown Fort Worth area, for example, is one of the nation's most determined and ambitious efforts to cope with the familiar problems of a large city's business district. Urban renewal proper, however, is illustrated at its best in Dallas, where the program is the more impressive for the magnitude of the task that has been undertaken. An estimated 200,000 Dallas residents live in sub-standard housing. The recently­formed Citizens Committee for Urban Renewal began the rehabilitation of blighted areas through the organization of neighborhood programs in the hands of voluntary citi­zens' groups, assisted when necessary by the municipal government. A new minimum housing ordinance was passed, and with its support plans were made for the de­struction of hundreds of vacant, dilapidated dwellings scattered throughout the city. A crash program for the installation of street lights, sanitary sewers, street paving, and other facilities in areas lacking them was instituted, and the necessary planning for the integration of city-wide efforts was rushed. Private investors are being encouraged to build low-cost, FHA-guaranteed housing, and the ad­visability of requesting federal funds is being actively debated. Urban renewal, of course, is not a one-shot proposition; success requires an effort enduring through the life of a city. But the first steps are the hardest, and an enormous construction outlay will be required before many Texas cities can devote most of their attention to planning for the future rather than in dealing with problems created by the past. In the past five years alone, Corpus Christi has spent over $120 million on public improvements under its urban renewal and planning program; comparable ex­penditures by Dallas and Houston, for example, would not only greatly improve the physical environment of Texas' two largest population centers but would also greatly stimulate the state's building industry. HOUSTON Last year total building authorized in the incorporated limits of Houston amounted to nearly one-quarter billion dollars-just short of one-fourth of all urban building con­struction in Texas, and exceeded among the nation's cities by only Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago. This record was both cause and effect of the highest growth rate of all the country's major metropolitan areas: in the 1950-58 period, the Houston area gained 48% in popula­tion. In common with virtually every other major population and industrial center in the United States, however, con­struction in the metropolitan Houston area last year, in­fluenced by the general business recession, lagged behind construction in 1956-approximately 7% behind. Chief cause of the lag was a 20% decline in new residential building; nonresidential construction was at approxi­mately the same level as in the preceding year. The decline carried over into the first few months of 1958, but March and April data indicate that a steady upturn may be at hand. For example, the value of commercial and indus­trial construction in Harris County during the first four months was 15% greater than in January-April 1957. In April total building authorized in the City of Houston was 36% above authorizations in April 1957; also in April, 1176 permits issued for new residences represented a 62% increase from the same month last year. Two encouraging developments in recent Houston resi­dential construction have been the pickup in subdivision platting (which fell to a post-World War II low in 1957) and a building spurt in the older sections of the city. The latter development suggests that the exodus to the suburbs which civic leaders have feared would lead to the de'. terioration of some central city areas, has drastically slowed. Additional evidence of greater interest in close-to­town residences is the boom in apartment house construc­tion. More than 50% of the residential permits issued in April were for apartment or duplex units-twice the per­centage in April 1957-and all but two un;ts were to be located in the pre-1950 corporate city limits. Houston, it seems, is another instance of the move "back to the city" that has been commented on frequently of late in a num­ber of the nation's major metropolitan areas, including the Dallas area. Not only is apartment dwelling becoming more popular -builders have suddenly discovered a strong market for luxury accommodat;ons, for apartments renting for up to $1,000 per month and equipped with virtually every con­venience for comfortable living. The 1400 Hermann Drive Auartments. the 72-unit Graustark. a11d the French Ouar­ter Apartments are recently-comnleted examples of the wide variety' of approaches possible in luxmy apartment construction. Major apartment proiects under way in the Houston area include a 72-unit, $750.000 structure on Timmons Lane and the 32-unit, $225,000 Baywood in Baytown. Practically all of these new apartment bu;ldings--and 89% of all Houston homes in the over-$15,000 price range--are air-conditioned. Installation of air condition­ ing is. increasingly characteristic in new buildings of every type m the Southwest. Texas leads the nation in the num. h~r of ??us:holds--368,000-with complete or ·partial ~~r co,?d1t10?mg. Houston (which with good reason calls itse~f the air-conditioned capital of the world") is an es­pecia.lly. good place to observe the growth of and trends i? this imp.ortant 7~nstruction-related industry. Last year six room air conditioners werq sold in the Houston trade area for everr fi~e sold in the New York territory. . Houston ~ightmg and Power Co. estimated that 78,700 wmdow umts of all types were sold in 1957 in the com­pany's service area, compared with 67,000 in 1956--an mcrease of almost 18%, and over one-third of all units so.Id in Tex?s. About 86% of all Houston homes now have wmdow umts; 15% have central units installed. In 1957 a tren~ to .larger sizes became apparent when sales of 11h· ton un~ts ]Umped to 18,500 from practically none in the precedmg year.; today l 1h-ton units account for over 20% of all room umts sold, and the average per residence ton­nage for homes with room units has climbed to 1.9. To completely air condition a large commercial struc· ture often requires equipment with a capacity great enough to cool 1000 homes. The 21-story Texas National Bank ~ldg. has 1,315 tons, and the Bank of the Southwest Bldg. is. c?oled by 3,000 tons--the equivalent of melting 6 m1~h~n pounds of ice daily. Every major new commercial b~1ldmg. J?la~ned for the Houston area has a provision for ai_r conditi?mng, a~? a .number of existing buildings, built without air cond1t10mng, are installina the necessary equipment. The University of Houston w:s one of the first universities in the nation to have its buildings "heat­proofed," many Houston churches have installed central units, and two drive-ins provide facilities to cool their customers' cars. An,Y given month also finds a heavy complement of in· dus.tnal and commercial building in the Houston metro­politan area. Outstanding projects now under construction or in t?e planning stage include a new $12-million plant by Umted States Gypsum Co., a $5-million expansion by the Maxwell House Division of General Foods Corp _(which will. make Hol:1ston the second largest coffee process: mg center m the Umted States), an $8-million aromatics recovery plant by Sinclair Refining Co., a $20-million polyethylene plant by National Petrochemicals Corp. a new $5·million Sakowitz Bros. suburban store the i6­s~ory, $~-million Texaco office building, and the SllO-mil­hon Sm1th-Hofheinz Shopping Center. A $14-million fed· er~l.office building, a $10-million postoffice, and a $10.6· m~lho? hospital a.re p~af!ned in the near future. Perhaps this highly selective hstmg of multimillion dollar struc­tures will also convey some idea of the extremely large ~umber of smal!er bmlding projects in every major build­m!? category. Smee the Houston metropolitan area com· pnses one of the nation's largest concentrations of both oil refining and ~hemic~l ~anufacture, construction origi· ?ate.cl by these mdustnes is a major support for total build· mg m the area-and in the state. DALLAS-FORT WORTH In recent years Dallas and Tarrant counties have to· gether ac~oui:ited for about one-fifth of all urban building construct10n m Texas. But, though the two counties are ad­joining, their building patterns frequently exhibit striking TEXAS BUSINESS REVJEW differences. Last year, for example, total building in Dallas County approximated the 1956 figure, w~ile in Tarrant County authorizations were up 15%. Agam, ~hough total building in the former was two and o?e·half times gr~at~r t.han in the latter, only 20% more residences were built m Dallas County. Despite the high level of industrial construction in Texas in recent years, residential building still accounts for the major share of constructio.n outlay~ and e?Iployment, even in Texas' large commercial and mdustnal centers. Fort Worth and Dallas are no exceptions, and residential con· struction is watched closely as an indicator of economic health and development. In 1956 both cities suffered sharp declines in residential construction activity from the record 1954-55 period; 54% fewer residences were built in Dal­las and 37% fewer in Fort Worth (at the same time, of course, residential construction was off generally in the state, with Houston showing a 23% decline and San An­tonio a 39% drop). Building continued to languish in 1957, especially in the Dallas metropolitan area, where starts dropped 15% below the 1956 rate to make the worst residential building year for Dallas since 1946. In January and February statistics indicated that another decline might be corning in 1958, but the picture changed com­pletely in April and May, and at present 1958 permit totals are approximately 70% greater than in the same period last year. If anything like the present rate of activity is maintained, Dallas County home construction this year will establish a new record. In Tarrant County, where starts so far this year are at roughly the same rate as in 1957, a strong optimistic note was sounded recently in an announcement by the Fort Worth Home Builders Association that members plan a 50% increase in home completions over the 5,000 units built last year. If this increase materializes, home building in Tarrant County in 1958 will aggregate between $50 million and $75 million in value, and will amount to at least 10% of all residential construction in Texas. Construction is also booming in the smaller communities in the area. In Dallas County, Richardson, Irving, Garland, Mesquite, and Balch Springs have been regularly exceeding SlOO per capita in new construction each month, as have North Richland Hills, Bedford, Euless, and Benbrook in Tarrant County. Dallas commercial and industrial building dominates nonresidential construction in the area. Over $25 million in individual non-housing projects costing over $1 million have already been completed this year, and 35 other such projects under construction or expected to be placed under construction this year have an aggregate value of about $170 million. Of the completed projects, the $4-million Braniff office building, the $7-million Mercantile Dallas Building, the $2-million Southwest Airmotive Terminal, the $3-million Sherwin-Williams Company plant, and the $1.5­ million Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Diamond Exchange are outstanding. Construction has begun or will soon begin on the $18-million Trade Mart, the $35-million Southland Center, a $4-million plant for Texas Instru­ ments, Inc., the $3-million Sanger's Big Town store, the $5­ million Hartford Insurance Building, a $5-million Federal Reserve Bank addition, the $6-million Ervay Building, a $3.9-million Chance Vought Aircraft high-speed wind tun­ nel, the $6-million Braniff Airways Maintenance Base, a $24.5-million federal office building, and 25 other over-$1 million projects. Industrial Production: THE TEXAS SHRIMP FISHERY By JAMES S. SWEARINGEN, JR. Dominating the commercial marine resources of the Gulf of Mexico, the shrimp industry has risen to become the most important commercial fishery of the state. Oper­ating throughout the year, shrimping contributes to the livelihood of a greater number of Texans than do all the other combined fishery industries. The growth of the Texas shrimp industry has ~een es· pecially notable in the last two decades. The first impetus of this expansion occurred at the advent of World War II, when sea foods were heavily emphasized as a component of the civilian diet. The second stimulation occurred when the "red shrimp" gained in popularity with the consuJI?ing public. Evidence of this expansion are the Texas landmgs of shrimp, which increased from 13,946,872 pounds in the 1939-40 fiscal year to 68,842,314 pounds in the 1956-57 fiscal year, a gain of 394%. TEXAS SHRIMP LANDINGS, 1937-1957 Source: Texas Game and Fish Commission Pounds Pounds Fiscal year (thousands) Fiscal year (thousands) 1936-37 12,849 i 947-48 i 8,262 1937-38 11,694 1948-49 2i,082 1938-39 12,564 1949-50 37,883 1939-40 11,568 1950-51 si,333 1940-41 i 3,947 1951-52 n. a. 1941-42 18.111 1952-53 n. a. 1942-43 19,023 1953-54 68,758 1943-44 12,935 1954-55 79,093 1944-45 14,602 1955-56 57,092 1945-46 15,533 1956-57 68,842 1946-47 19,012 n. a. Not available. The Gulf Coast is the chief source of the most popular crustacean in the United States-the shrimp. The Ameri­can people eat more than ten times as much shrimp as lob· ster and half again as much as they consume of crab. Of the millions of pounds of shrimp taken from the sea each year to be boiled, fried, or served in a wide variety of cock­tails, salads, and appetizing cooked dishes, more than 85 % comes from the Gulf Coast. The shrimp receipts of the Gulf fisheries account for more than 30% of the total poundage caught and for 75% of the total value. Texas leads the other Gulf states each year in both pounds of shrimp landed Coastruclioa Employment in Texas Th o usands · Th ousands 250 250 200 200 I/'l/'­ '""\_ ~ /'./W\. 150 150 /' I--' flA \.V\[7 100 100 50I/' 50 0 0 1946 .,.., ·,a ·,9 ·50 ·51 ·52 ·53 ·54 ·55 "56 ·57 ·5a Industrial Electric Power Use in Texas ordinary shrimp. This marketing problem was solved in Index• Adjusted for seasonal variation, 1947-1949·100 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 ° 1940 '41 '.42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '48 '49 '50 '51 '52 '53 '54 ·55 '56 '57 '58 and in aggregate value. As Gulf of Mexico products are more accessible to the Great Plains area than are the Pa­cific or Atlantic fishing centers, Texas is ideally located to supply these marine products to the regions of the interior, from Denver to Chicago and from the Gulf to Canada. To meet this enormously expanding market, Texas shrimp are packaged fresh-frozen in the shell, as breaded fantail shrimp, or as cooked cocktail size ready to serve, and are shipped in refrigerated trucks to every part of the country. Total Electric Power Use In Texas the next year when housewives became accustomed to see­ing the darker-colored shells. In the same year, 55% of Texas shrimp production was accounted for by these darker-shell shrimp. For the fiscal year 1956-57, the num­ber of pounds of white shrimp taken amounted to only 3,926,633, brown shrimp made up 2,635,830 pounds, and pink shrimp accounted for 63,279,851 pounds of the total production of 68,842,314 pounds. Shrimp landings at Texas ports reached a peak during the 1954-55 fiscal year as 79,092,603 pounds were processed. Crude Petroleum Production in Texas Index , Adjusted for seasonal variation , 1947-1949-100 200 150 100 50 Index , Adjusted for seaso nal variation , 194l-1949·100 500 500 400 300 300 200 100 1940 '41 '42 '43 '44 '45 '46 '47 '48 '49 '50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 The most important contributing factor toward the re­cent growth of the shrimp industry is the rise to com­mercial importance of the grooved species, which are the brown shrimp and the pink shrimp. For many years pro­duction was primarily of the white variety, taken from the bays and inshore Gulf waters. As a decline in the white shrimp became apparent in 1947, the offshore fishery for brown and pink shrimp was developed, accounting for much of the rapid rise in landings since 1948-49. The darker-shell species encountered some market resistance, and at first this problem was circumvented by canning as much of the darker types as possible, for the shelled meat is white and indistinguishable in flavor from that of the· WELL COMPLETIONS Source: T iu• Oil and GQ.IJ J our'l\al Ap ril 1958* J a nuary-April Region Oil Gas Dry Total 1958 1957 TEXAS 946 73 612 1,631 6,135 7,037 --------------------864 Southwest 100 16 126 242 743 ---------··········· Gulf Coast 98 15 108 216 668 814 East 61 0 39 100 425 U3 ···························· North Central 243 18 242 503 2,041 2,516 W est ............................ 393 82 478 1,825 1,996 Panhandle 51 21 20 92 433 434 -------····· • F or 5 weeks ending May 3, 1958. The peak of shrimp production is reached during the late summer and fall months (roughly August through Oc­tober) with a second high level occurring in May (the "spring run" ). The season's catch depends largely upon weather conditions and, of course, on the availability of shrimp. The industry is active in the search for improved fishing methods and other means by which to maintain or profitably expand the present high level of production. Modern shrimp trawlers, for example, are fitted out to enable them to work for long periods at great distances from their home ports, which necessitates facilities on board for preliminary shrimp processing. Many shrimp fishermen from Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana have moved into the rich waters off the Texas coast as the state maintains its position leading the other Gulf states each year in value of shrimp produced. Texas shrimp production has risen significantly in value from $21,402,256 in 1954 to $32,069,487 in 1957-a gain of 50%. This value reported is the amount received by the owner or operator of the vessel for the first sale at the dock. RE FINERY STOCKS* Sou rce: The Oil u71d GQ.IJ J our11.ul Percent change Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Area and products A p r 1958 Mar 1958 Apr 1957 from Ma r 1958 from Apr 1967 (thousands of barrels) UNITED STATES . Gasoline ---------······----­ 174,499 216,647 198,332 -19 -12 Distillate ...... 64,626 75,125 79,119 -14 -18 R esidual ---·······-----------­ 26,797 55,165 37,571 -51 -29 Kerosene ·------·-······--·---­ 18,352 17,222 21,165 + 7 -13 TEXAS Gasoline ---------··········--­ 33,968 37,900 33,952 -10 Distilla te ·········---------···­ 9,139 9,082 10,481 + 1 -13 R esidual ·-----···········----­ 5,919 6,228 6,289 - 5 - 6 Kerosene ............ 2,450 2,185 2,934 + 12 -16 - --· •Figures shown are for the week ending nearest last day of the month. ••Change is less than one-half of one percent. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Cr.de Oil Runs to Stills in Texas Index • Adjusted For seasonal variation • 1947-1949·100 1940 ·41 ·42 ·43 ·44 ·45 '46 ·47 '48 .'49 ·50 ·51 ;52 ·s3 ·54 ·55 ·56 ·57 '58 Any expenses involved in handling or processing ashore are not included, even though chargeable to the vessel. Shrimp, once caught, are processed in various ways, and the large investment in on-shore processing facilities in Texas has an extensive impact on the economy of the entire Texas coast. Although there are at least twenty-five towns and cities in the state directly benefiting from shrimp pro­ducers, packagers, and handlers, the total shrimp landings along the coast are reported by four major areas-Laguna, Aransas, Matagorda, and Galveston. Cameron County in the Laguna area dominates Texas landings, accounting for slightly more than one-half of total Texas shrimp produc­tion in 1956 and ranking fourth in value of landings at major fishing ports in the United States in 1954. Each July, Brownsville and Port Isabel honor the area's $12,000,000 per year commercial fishing industry with an annual three-day Shrimp Fiesta. The Brownsville Naviga­tion District constructed a $650,000 shrimp boat harbor to accommodate more than 500 boats, and a new $250,000 canning plant under construction at Port Brownsville's Fishing Harbor will greatly stimulate the local shrimping industry, providing a more efficient utilization of the catches by affording new sales outlets for shrimp produc­tion. Other major Texas shrimp landing and processing points are Corpus Christi, Aransas Pass, Rockport, Port Lavaca, Freeport, and Galveston. Charged with the management, conservation, and de­velopment of this important marine resource, the Texas Game and Fish Commission maintains a Marine Labora­tory at Rockport, Texas, to gain accurate information on which to base sound methods of scientific shrimp manage­ment and control. FEDERAL INTERNAL REVENUE COLLECTIONS Source: Internal Revenue Service, U. S. Treasury Department Julyl-March 31 District 1957-58 1956-57 Percent change TEXAS .................. ......$1,828,376,131t $1,687,626,866t + 8 Income ............................................ 820,982,296 779,154,371 + 5 Employment ................ .................. 21,997,236 21 ,427,298 + 3 Withholdinir ................... 816,767 ,603 728,523,560 + 12 Other ............. ................................ 168,808,993 158,521 ,634t + 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT ........ 973,758,794t 903.131,541 + 8 Income .............................. 444 ,197,947 423,056,062 + 5 Employment .................................. 5,931.359 5,658,794 + 5 Withholding .................................. 41 9,274,764 376,352,205 + 11 Other ...... ...................... .................. 104,351,721 98,064, 479 + 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT ...... 854,617,336t 784 ,495 325t + 9 Income ...... .. ................................... 37 6, 784,349 356,098,309 + G Employment .................................. 16,065,876 15,768,504 + 2 Withholding .................................. 397,492,968 352,171,305 + 13 Other .............................................. 64,454,142 60,457,155 + 7 t Detalla do not add to totala due to roundinir. JUNE 1958 Finance: TEXANS TO SEE OTHER SIDE OF EASY MONEY By JAMES A. BYRD Texans can prepare for a look at the other side of the "easy money" coin in the second half of this year. They have already felt some reductions in rates charged on cer­tain types of new borrowing, especially on real estate loans which are among the first types to reflect a change in finan­cial conditions. Now, reductions in rates of return paid on some types of savings are probable starting in the second six months of the year. Although serious discussions of possible rate reductions have been confined for the most part within the business thus far, it appears that dividend rates paid on share accounts in the state's savings and loan associations may he among the first savings rates to he reduced. Action by association hoards of directors can he expected within the next few weeks if reductions are to be made effective for the dividend period beginning July 1. It may he that such actions will he deferred until later in the year, to take effect January l, 1959. Texas Bank Debits Index •Adjusted for seasonal variation , 1947-1949,100 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 50 100 00 so 50 0 1940 '41 '42 '43 '44 45 '46 '47 '48 49 50 51 52 53 54 '55 56 57 58 Reductions in rates of interest paid on savings accounts in commercial banks in Texas may not come so early nor be so widespread as dividend-rate reductions by savings and loan associations. But, if the current trend of interest rates and investment yields continues downward, some reductions can be expected within the next year. This appar­ent lag on the part of commercial hanks as a whole in reducing savings-account rates can be explained largely by the fact that they were not so quick to increase them in 1956 and 1957, nor did they increase rates to levels as high as those paid by savings and loan associations as a whole. The rate of interest paid on new savings bonds is cur­rently fixed at 314 %, if bonds are held for the full period to maturity. The U. S. Treasury is not expected to lower this rate in the near future because savings bonds lost their relative popularity during the tight money period, 1955­1957, as other savings rates increased more rapidly. Febru­ary was the first month since July, 1956, that purchases of savings bonds exceeded redemptions. The margin of net purchases in February was not large enough to indicate a return of savings bonds to their former popularity. At least three significant developments in recent months can explain the probability of actions to lower rates of return on some types of savings this year. They are: (1) relaxation last November by Federal Reserve authorities 11 ..,.,,..._,.,. 1--.r /'/ ,.,;.... !w'v I I •µy~ I ,,,.. 1 _J ,,.,.,, ;.r" v 'I I I _,.,.,,,,., 1 I I I0 of a policy of increasing monetary and credit restraint that had been applied to the nation's banking system for more than two years; (2) a sharp increase in the volume of savings flowing into the nation's and the state's savings and loan associations and commercial banks; and ( 3) a decline in demand for loanable funds, especially on the part of business firms and for long-term purposes, commencing in the Fall quarter last year and carrying over thus far in 1958. All three developments have stimulated or reinforced a declining pattern of interest rates and of investment yields in the nation. Savings and loan associations and com­mercial banks eventually feel the effects of these declines in the form of reduced earning rates that otherwise might pre­vail on their earning assets. Even while these easing moves are taking place and are being reflected in reduced rates of earning on assets, savings and loan associations and commercial banks have found only mild relief from mounting costs of doing business. Increased usage of modern office machine techniques has been adopted by most financial institutions in recent years as a means of cutting operating costs relative to earnings and otherwise to increase efficiency. Adoption of these techniques has not been progressing at a pace fast enough to off set the pressure of operating costs on earnings. For these and other reasons, savings and loan associations have become increasingly sensitive to reductions in gross yields obtainable on their principal type of earning asset­home loans. Historically, savings and loan associations have specialized in making home loans in their local communi­ties. Because gross yields on home loans are among the earliest of long-term yields to reflect changes in tight money or easy money conditions in the economy, dividend rates paid on share accounts are more subject to periodic revision than rates paid on other forms of individual savings. REVENUE RECEIPTS OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER Source: State Comptroller of Public Accounts September 1-April 30 19b7-1956-Percent Account 1958 1957 change TOTAL ----------------------------------------$669,758,453 $591,948,788 + 13 Ad valorem, inheritance, and poll taxes ------------------------------------------42,001,388 37,650,241 + 12 Natural and casinghead gas production taxes ----------------------------28,540,715 26,915,799 + 6 Crude oil production taxes ----------------91,567,860 96,366,460 5 Other gross receipts and product ion taxes 13,434,086 13,558,646 Insu rance companies and other occupation taxes ............................. . 17,013,967 18,153,635 6 Motor fuel taxes (net) ---------­110,061,967 107,433,882 + 2 Cigarette tax and licenses -----------­30,910,618 29,541,398 + 5 Alcoholic beverage taxes and licenses ········-························-····-·----·· 21,027,070 21,101,292 •• Automobile and other sales taxes ---­14,166,635 14,095,287 + 1 Licenses and fees ------------------------------22,759,410 18,621,725 + 22 Franchise taxes .................................... 18,423,467 11,147,275 + 65 Mineral leases, land sales, rentals, and bonuses -----------------------------------­ 11,775,378 12,577,343 -6 Oil and gas royalties -----------------------­19,191,318 19,864,116 -3 Interest earned -----------------------------------­19,360,064 14,901,981 + 30 Unclassified receipts -----------------------­43,251,883 39,003,006 + 11 Other miscellaneous revenue -----------­6,237,909 8,309,358 -25 Federal aid for highways ---------------­64,266,401 13,356,608 + 381 Federal aid for public welfare -------­82,056,351 75,717,740 + 8 Other federal aid ---------------------------­13,182,905 13,364,873 -1 Donations and grants ------------------------549,061 268,113 + 105 •• Change is less than one-half of one percent. LOANS BY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS Source: F..teral Home L0&n Bank of Little Rock Percent chan1e Apr 1958 Apr 1968 Apr Mar Apr from from Type 1958 1968 1957 Mar 1958 Apr 1957 Number ALL LOANS ·-··-·­··· Const r uction ----­------------­P urchase ·-··-···--····· ·-----··· Other -········-·······---­--·---­ 4,013 3,724 3,950 730 702 730 1,710 1,464 1,465 1,573 1,668 1,765 Value (thousands of dollar s) + + + + 8 4 17 1 + 2 •• + 17 -10 ALL LOANS ........ Const r uction ---­-­---···---­P u rchase ···········--···---­Other ------······-···--···-··-··· 31 ,392 7,610 15,190 8,59Z 34,55 1 12,895 13,069 8,597 25,389 6,666 11,802 6,921 -+ 9 41 16 •• + 24 + 14 + 29 + 2i •• Chan1e is less than one-half of one percent. In general, commercial banks pay rates of interest on savings accounts somewhat lower than dividend rates paid on savings and loan share accounts in the same community. Several factors account for this differential, but among the most significant are the following: ( 1) commercial banks emphasize short-term loans for commercial, indus­trial, and agricultural purposes and investments in U. S. government securities, and yields on these assets are lower (in some cases substantially lower) than yields on home loans; and ( 2) rates of interest paid on savings accounts in commercial banks are legally binding, whereas dividend rates paid by savings and loan associations are not. Ordinary life lnnrance Sales In Texas• Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947-1949·100 •Face amount of ordinary .life insurance policies sold. In Texas, the current rate of dividend paid by most savings and loan associations is 31h%, compounded semi· annually. It has moved upward from the 21h % level in less than four years. (A few associations currently are pay· ing up to l/2% more or less than this rate, but these are isolated cases.) Texas commercial banks are not as uniform in rates of interest paid on savings accounts. Banks in Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and Waco, for example, quickly increased their rates to the maximum 3% compounded semiannually authorized by Federal Reserve authorities last year. On the other hand, banks in Dallas and Fort Worth have main­tained the 21h % rate for the last two years and are not now under as much pressure to cut their rates as might be true of banks elsewhere in the state. Less than five years ago, the most common rate paid on savings accounts in Texas commercial banks was 11;2%. A recent survey of financial institutions in the state re· vealed that, among the major cities, banks in Houston might be the first to move downward-to 21h% or lower. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Banks in Dallas and Fort Worth probably will hold a "wait and see" line because of their 21/2% current rates. The Texas experience is not unique. Banks and savings and loan associations throughout the country are facing similar conditions. Announcements of 1/2 % cuts in rates in most sections of the nation have been expected for several weeks. Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate Employment In Texas Thousands Thousands 1946 •57 "58 Many savings and loan associations have found them­selves with more money on hand in recent months. This increased flow of cash has been the result both of an in­crease in savings on the part of the public and of repay­ments on existing mortgages exceeding the amount of new residential loans available in which to invest. Where they have bought new mortgages or made new home loans in recent months, rates of return were at least 1h%lower than just three months ago. Commercial banks around the country that increased their rates to the 3% ceiling shortly after it was authorized last year are also considering reductions of at least 1h% at the present time. One New York banker predicts that bankers will have to accept the fact that 3 % interest has become a "built-in cost" for competitive reasons, but his was a lone opinion voiced in a recent national survey. In summary, it appears likely that some Texans will begin to feel effects of reductions of up to 1h% in rates of return paid on some forms of individual savings during the second half of the year. Discussions of action to reduce savings rates have been confined largely to savings and loan officials and commercial bankers so far. But, serious consideration of such actions are a logical consequence of recent easing of monetary and credit policy, a falling off in demand for loanable funds, and a sharp increase in the flow of savings into financial institutions. CHANGES IN CONDITION OF WEEKLY REPORTING MEMBER BANKS IN THE DALLAS FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT Source: Board of Governon of the Federal Reoene S:r1iem Percent change• Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Apr 1967 from from from Account Mar 1958 Apr 1957 Mar 1957 TOTAL ASSETS + 2 + 9 -1 Loans and investments, leas loans to ba nks a nd valuation r eserves ·-·········· + 2 + 8 •• Loans, less loans to banks and valuation reserves ....... . + 6 + 1 Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans ................... . + 3 + 1 L oans for purchasing or carrying securities ................................... . + 20 + 2 Real estate loans ............................. . + 2 + 6 2 Other loans ....................................... . ** + 13 + 1 Total U.S. Government securities ................................. . + 8 + 13 Treasury bills ........ .......................... . -28 + 13 -46 Treasury certificates of indebtedness ............................ . + 9 -22 +168 Treasury notes ................................. . + 46 + 33 -2 Bonds ................................................. . + 3 + 12 •• Other securities ........................... . + 1 + 11 + 2 Loans to banks ......................... . +471 +100 -81 Reserves with Federal Reserve banks ................................... . + 5 + 1 + 14 Cash in vaults ............. . + 4 + 9 -10 Balance with domestic banks .. 6 + 21 -19 Other net assets ....................... . 7 + 7 • TOTAL LIABILITIES .. •• + 7 1 Total adjusted deposits ......... . + 4 + 7 + 1 Demand deposits ............................. . + 2 + 1 Time deposits .................................. . + 7 + 28 + 5 U . S. Government deposits ........... . + 3& + 30 + 44 Total interbank deposits ....... . -8 + 10 -11 Domestic banks ............................... . -12 + 11 -11 Foreign banks ................................. . + 13 -11 •• Borrowings ............................... . + 87 -21 +260 Other liabilities ....................... . -10 + 13 -7 CAPITAL ACCOUNTS .. + 1 + 9 •• *Percent&&"• chan&"eo are based on the week neare1t the end of the month. ••Chanll'e is less than one-half of one percent. NEW publication PERSONNEL PRACTICES IN INDUSTRY (Revised) By William R. Spriegel, John Robert Beish line, & Alfred G. Dale One Dollar Fifty Cents A Selected and Annotated Bibliography of MARKETING THEORY By Ralph B. Thompson Fifty Cents published by and available from: BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH • THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Agriculture: VEGETABLE OIL PROCESSING IN TEXAS By JOHN T. MYRACLE Every year Texas farmers receive a substantial income from oil-grown in their own fields. Although the "green gold" of vegetable oil lacks the romance and adventure associated with the legendary "black gold," the cultivation of vegetable oil plant sources and the processing of vege· table oils are important segments of Texas agriculture and industry. Although production of a number of other vegetable oils has increased impressively in recent years, cottonseed oil is still by far the largest contributor to the state's economy. It will almost certainly remain dominant as long as-and probably only as long as-large acreages continue to be planted in cotton primarily for fiber. In 1954, according to the Census of Manufactures, Texas accounted for approximately one-fourth of the nation's cottonseed oil output. In the same year there were 84 cottonseed oil mills operating in the state. They employed a total of 3,385 persons, to whom they paid almost $11 million in wages and salaries. These 84 mills shipped crude cottonseed oil with a value of $164 million in the same year, about equal to the average annual value of cottonseed oil production over the past decade. From 1945 to 1954 average annual payments to Texas farmers for cottonseed were over $100 million. Preliminary estimates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicate that in 1957 oil mills purchased approximately 1,822,000 tons of cottonseed at an average price of $58 per ton. Prices Received by Farmers in Texas Index • Unadjusted for seasonal voriolion , 1909-1914·100 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 I/ . Ir-" !/ v / l-1 ((\ '" l\.J (\ v "\ ~ht-,....._ ~" 400 350 300 250 200 150 00 1 0 I 0 1940 ·•1 ·•2 ··3 ._. ·•5 "'6 ·47 ·49 ·49 ·50 ·51 ·52 ·53 54· 55 56 57 58 The first Texas cottonseed oil mill was established in Fayette County in 1867. At the turn of the century a boom began which lasted roughly 15 years. It resulted in a con· siderable over-expansion of mill capacity, and in the 1920's many mills closed down although cotton production was still increasing. Cotton acreage restrictions in the 1930's also closed many mill doors, and, following World War II, the rapid shift of cotton production from East Texas to West Texas adversely affected the stability of the state's cottonseed oil industry. In recent years there have been mill shutdowns in Houston, Navasota, Bryan, Caldwell, Wei­mar, Commerce, Mount Pleasant, and Bonham, among others (many of these mills, however, have been converted to fertilizer manufacturing and other industrial opera· tions) . To a large extent these discontinuances have been balanced by new mills in the West Texas area. From 1947 to 1956 the number of mills in operation declined by only 7%, and technological improvements in the new mills more than made up this loss of capacity. Though the number of mills will probably continue to decline slowly for the next decade, the major part of the shift in cotton production has apparently been completed, and the Texas cottonseed oil industry can look forward to a new period of relative stability. CARLOAD SHIP l\lESTS OF LIVESTOC K• Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with Agricultural Marketing Service. U. S. Department of Agriculture Percent change Classification A pr 1958 Ma r 1958 Apr 1957 A pr 1968 from Ma r 1958 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 TOTAL 4,896 3,233 3,682 + 51 + 33 Ca ttle ---···---·····-··············· Ca lves ............................ 4,198 316 2,774 2,233 3,097 316 + 61 + 42 + 36 •• H ogs ··················------------·····­·· 4 1 11 +300 -64 Sheep ------------·····-·················· 378 235 258 + 61 + 47 INTERSTATE ·········· 4,388 3,028 3,267 + 45 + 34 Ca ttle ···································· 3,722 2,596 2,704 + 43 + 38 Calves ·································· 290 200 295 + 45 - 2 H ogs ...................................... 4 11 -64 Sheep .................................... 372 23 2 257 + 60 + 45 INTRASTATE ·········· 608 205 415 + 148 + 22 Cattle .................................... 476 178 393 + 167 + 21 Calves ···-···················· 26 23 21 + 13 + 24 H ogs ······································ Sheep ···································· 6 3 + 100 + 600 •Rail-car basis: cattle, 30 head per car ; calves, 60 ; ho11:s, 80; and sheep, 250. ••Change is less than one-half of one percent. The South Plains region in West Texas now accounts for about 10% of total cotton production in the United States. It is not surprising, therefore, that Lubbock is today a ma· jor center of cottonseed oil milling. Three of the Lubbock mills have a combined capacity of 1,600 tons of cottonseed per day-enough, if the mills operated at capacity the year round, to process one-third of the state's annual cottonseed production. The Lubbock mills are also generally noted for their application of modern methods to cottonseed proces· sing. Two of the mills employ the solvent process in cotton· seed oil extraction. This process makes possible the re· covery of a greater percentage of the total oil in the seed, but installation of the necessary additional equipment is relatively expensive, and conversion to the process, espe· cially by the smaller mills, has been slow. Crude cottonseed oil-that extracted at the mill-must be refined before it can be used in shortening, margarine, mellorine, salad dressing, and other food items. Foots or settlings, by-products of refining, are used in the manu­facture of soaps, linoleum, plastics, and a variety of other products. There are 17 vegetable oil refineries located in Texas, the majority operated in conjunction with a cottonseed oil mill. The bulk of the advanced processing is done in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Sherman. In addition to refineries, the 1954 Census of Manufactures lists seven Texas concerns manufacturing cooking oils. In 1954 the seven employed about 1,000 persons full-time and paid out over $4.5 million in wages and salaries. Five margarine plants employed another 500 persons. However, the 1955-56 International Green Book listed nine shorten· ing plants and seven margarine plants, indicating that 1954 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW census data on Texas vegetable oil and related industries probably need substantial revisions upward. Although in comparison with cottonseed oil the value of the other vegetable oils processed in the state is relatively small, it is nevertheless economically significant, and, in several instances, increasing rapidly. Soybean oil, which has most uses in common with cottonseed oil, is an example. Soybeans are just out of the experimental stage in Texas, though soybean oil is the largest vegetable oil industry in the United States. Texas farmers, too, are beginning to appreciate the forage and soil-building advantages of the crop. Soybean acreage in the state averaged only 6,000 in the 1946-1955 period. In 1957 acreage increased to 24,500, and this year approximately 33,000 acres are indicated, chiefly in the North Central and South Central regions. Since only minor modifications in cottonseed oil extracting equipment are necessary in order to process soybeans, mill conversion has not been a serious problem. In 1956 there were 13 mills which extracted both cottonseed and soybean oil. One mill, in Amarillo, processes soybeans exclusively. Peanut oil production in Texas, though significant, has declined sharply from a peak during World War IL Pea­nuts were grown and processed in large quantities through­out the war period, when vegetable oil demand was ex­tremely high. Since the war, however, most of the peanuts grown in Texas have been used for livestock feed, with a small percentage processed for use in the manufacture of peanut butter. Nevertheless, peanut oil production in the state is second in quantity and value only to cottonseed oil. There are still 12 peanut oil mills in operation, four of them cottonseed oil mills which process peanuts. Flax is another important vegetable oil crop in Texas. Flaxseed is processed for linseed oil, used in the manu­facture of paints, waxes, polishes, and plastics. Since flax has little resistance to frost it is grown primarily along the FARM CASH INCOME* J anuary-April Percen t Commodity 1958 1957 change Thousa nda of dollars TOTAL ....................... . 532,673 41 3,010 + 29 Cotton ................................... . 150,585 105,286 + 43 Cottonseed ........................... . 10,892 Wheat ................................... . 17,267 8,574 +101 Oats ..................................... . 2,302 883 +161 Corn ..................................... . 3,114 1,755 + 77 Grain sor ghum ................. . 42,393 16,290 +160 Peanuts ............................... . 4,047 1,324 +206 Cattle ................................... . 125,926 92,982 + 35 Calves ................................... . 30,628 30,067 + 2 Hoga ..................................... . Sheep and lambs ............... . 20,71 3 8,371 27,724 8,409 -25 •• Wool ..................................... . 1,330 1,913 -30 Mohair ................................. . 3,752 8,351 -55 Poultry ................................. . 19,922 18,726 + 6 Eggs ······································ Milk a nd milk products ... . 18,517 41,719 18,291 48,415 + 1 -14 Fruit a nd vegetables ....... . 83,601 24,020 + 40 •Farm cash income as computed by the Bureau understates actual fann cash income by 6% to 10%. This situation reaults from the fact that means ot securin2 complete local marketings, especially by trnck, have not yet been fully developed. In addition, means have not yet been devel­oped for computing cash income from all ag·riculturaJ specialities o! Jocal importance in scattered areas. This situation does not impair the a.ccura.cy of the index shown on page 24. Months of January and February, 1958, included in cumulative Farm Cash Income figures, have been revised on the basis of Farm Income Situation figures. •• Change is less than one-half of one percent. CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES Sou rce : Compiled from reports received from Agr icultural M&rket ins Ser vice, U.S. Department of A1tric11lture ========== ==== -·===== J anuary-Ap r il Percen t Commodity 1958 1957 --­ cha nge --- TOTAL SHIPMEN TS ............ 14,899 11,996 + 24 VEGET ABLES ................................ 14,307 11,741 + 22 Beets ............................................................ 49 48 + 2 Broccoli ...................................................... 46 79 -42 Cabbage ...................................................... 2,662 807 +230 Carrots ........................................................ 4,477 3,501 + 28 Cauliflower ................................................ 861 1,037 -65 Corn .............................................................. 6 Lettuce ........................................................ 313 1,016 -69 Mixed vegetables ...................................... S,469 2,994 + 16 Onions ...................... ................................... 1,611 1,391 + 16 P eppers ..................................................... . 1 Radishes ............ .......................................... 1 Spinach ...................................................... 1,318 844 + 56 Tomatoes ................................................... . 17 FRU IT ................................................ 478 199 +140 Ca n teloupes ............................................... . 5 Grapefruit .................................................. 221 105 + 110 Lemons ........................................................ 15 Mixed cit rus .............................................. 184 74 +149 Oranges 53 15 +253 Strawberries .............................................. 5 ALL OTHERS .................................. 11 4 56 +104 Coastal Plain, chiefly in and around Karnes County, A mill at Kenedy both extracts and refines the oil, and several cottonseed oil mills in the area are equipped to crush flax­seed. Experiments are under way on commercially feasible ways to more widely utilize flax straw; the most promising area appears to be the manufacture of special papers. In 1949 over 329,000 acres were planted to flax in Texas. Acreage declined sharply during the drouth years, however, and in 1957 only 18,000 acres were harvested. The value of the 1957 crop was approximately $300,000. With the return of favorable moisture conditions flax acreage will be substantially increased this year, and at least 100,000 acres are anticipated in 1959. Under the stimulus of con­tinued strong demand for linseed oil, flax production and flaxseed processing may soon approach record levels. Guar, a plant imported from India in the early 1900's, has been grown commercially in Texas since 1946. A legume well adapted to some of the state's soils, it was first grown in South Texas as a rotation crop with flax. The center of production, however, has shifted to Northwest Texas. Guar seed contain mannogalactan gum, used as a thickening agent in salad dressings, ice cream mixes, cheese spreads, and in other foods. One of the few guar seed proc­essing plants, General Mills, Inc., in Kenedy, has an­nounced that it will pay $4 per hundred pounds of number one beans this year. Since seed yields of 500-1000 pounds per acre are common and the legume is both drouth re­sistant and an exceptionally good forage and soil-building crop, guar prospects in Texas are extremely promising. Castor oil is also produced in the state. Though castor bean cultivation declined after World War II, the advent of jet aircraft reversed the trend. Castor oil is extremely heat resistant and is valued as a lubricant in jet aircraft. It is also used in over 200 products, including paints, lipstick, hair dressing, oil cloth, linoleum, plastics, and synthetic fiber. The latter two categories appear to offer the best possibilities of increased castor oil consumption. At present castor beans are grown primarily in Central and West Texas and in the Cross Timbers area. In 1953 approx­imately 95,000 acres were planted to castor beans in the state; in the same year total U.S. acreage was only 125,000. Sesame is one of the neweit commercially·grown vege· table oil crops in Texas. From a scant 1,000 acres planted in the state in 1953, acreage has increased to an estimated 25,000 this year-90% of the U.S. crop. Sesame oil resists rancidity and is used in an increasing number of food pro­ducts, especially bakery items. American Sesame Products Co. of Paris, which is expected to purchase 4.5 million pounds of the estimated 7 million pound seed harvest in Texas this year, is conducting extensive marketing research on a variety of new sesame seed and sesame oil food products. Success by this one company would greatly stimulate similar ventures and react favorably upon Texas sesame cultivation and seed processing. Most of the Texas crop has been grown on the South Plains, but sesame is suited to many Texas soils, and widespread commercial utilization would spread production over a large por­tion of the state. The Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta­tion and the Texas Research Foundation have been active in developing nonshattering varieties to facilitate mechani­cal harvesting; whole seed quality and oil content have also been improved. The growing Texas vegetable oil industry is greatly indebted to the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, which, in the case of all the newer vegetable oil crops, largely eliminated the guesswork in cultivation beforehand. In every instance the station continues its search for better­adapted and improved plant varieties; a substation at Chillicothe, for example, specializes in castor bean improve­ment. New crops, with promising Texas prospects, are under development-saffiower, for example, appears to be· almost ready for commercial production. The industry also owes a debt to those mill owners who were and are willing to undertake the processing of the newer vegetable oil crops. Without adequate local processing points, cultiva­tion could never have gotten beyond the experimental stage. Bureau of Business Research Publications Notes on The Industrialization of Texas (Reprinted from the Texas Business Review} Series 4 fifty cents 1958 Publications of the Bureau of Business Research on req uest Construction: RESIDENTIAL BOOM IN TEXAS? By ROBERT H. DRENNER The total dollar value of urban building construction authorized in Texas in April was an estimated 22% greater than authorizations in the same month last year. Authorizations rose 3% from March. After adjustment for seasonal factors, however, the rise from March was much more encouraging: the adjusted index climbed from 201 in the earlier month to 222. Excepting February, when weather conditions over much of the state delayed already. authorized construction and thus depressed the issuance of new permits, the over-all index has risen steadily since last October. There have been only six separate months in the past when the index was at a higher level; it has never been as high in any preceding April. Building .Construction in Texa.s• Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947-1949·100 •value of building construction aurhoriud. A whopping 40% jump over April 1957 and an 11% increase (unadjusted) from March 1958 in new residential permits issued were almost wholly responsible for the much· improved April picture. Nonresidential building authorized declined from both the preceding month and from April 1957. Permits for additions, alterations, and repairs were up 12% from the same month last year; for the January· April period total authorizations in this category were at the same level as in the comparable period a year ago-in contrast with an 8% lag for the first quarter. Although month-to·month totals in the category vary considerably, nonmetropolitan building construction in recent months in Texas cities of less than 10,000 population is worth noting. In 1957 such construction fell 7% from the 1956 total. The 10% increase thus far in 1958 from January-April 1957 is attributable in large measure to the end of the drouth and the more favorable prospects of many communities that depend primarily upon agriculture. Since the long-term trend away from the farm to metropoli· tan areas works constantly against building in agriculture· oriented cities, the improvement so far this year is es· pecially encouraging. RESIDENTIAL The index of residential (housekeeping) construction authorized in Texas, adjusted for seasonal variation, rose from 207 in March to 253 in April. Only during the housing boom of 1954 (and then only in November and December) TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW was the residential index at a higher level. The 11 % in­crease from March to April this year was in contrast to a normal seasonal decline of almost exactly the same amount from the one month to the other. Texas builders' plans in April, evidenced by new build­ing permits, apparently confirm the housing upturn sug­gested by a dramatic increase in FHA applications for the same period. There were continued week-to-week increases in May; there was also a sharp climb in VA mortgage applications. On the national scene, in mid-May the FHA requested Congress to grant the agency a S4 billion increase in its mortgage insurance authority for the fiscal year be­ginning July 1-$1 billion greater than had been requested in January. In the first four months of this year the FHA handled 254,425 applications, against 153,812 in the same 1957 period-a 65% increase. In April 79,471 applications were processed, the second highest monthly total in the agency's history. The Administration has offered another housing bill to the Congress, in general covering somewhat different areas from those provided for in the emergency bill that became effective April 1 (and discussed here last month) . In addi­tion to the requested increase in FHA insurance capacity, the new bill proposes that (1) the FHA's mortgage insur­ance limit on single-family housing be raised from the present $20,000 to $30,000; (2) the limit on mortgages the FNMA can buy be raised from $15,000 to 820,000; and (3) that a six-year, $1.3-billion program of slum clearance and redevelopment be instituted. There will apparently be several major changes in the bill before it is passed by the Congress; most of the favored changes are toward still greater federal support for new housing. Spot surveys of builders in the larger Texas cities show a variety of sentiment concerning the probable rate of home construction in the state through the balance of the year. Nearly every builder is more active than he has been in months. Most report a high level of interest by prospective home buyers. Relatively few, however, have observed a really encouraging upturn in actual home purchases. Despite the liberalization of loan terms, buyers are obvious­ly in no great hurry. But the great interest shown in new homes argues that a moderate general business upturn could easily convert interest into sales, and many contrac­tors are rushing to build up an inventory of completed homes for the market they foresee this fall and next year. Present activity is being further strengthened by a desire to take full advantage of a more favorable money market than has obtained in years, and, in some cases, of lowered building material costs. It is also of interest that many builders are switching from higher-priced homes to the $12,000-Sl5,000 bracket, confirming a prediction based on those provisions of the new housing law that make mort­gages on homes in this range especially attractive to in­vestors. NONRESIDENTIAL After a promising rise to 197 in March, the seasonally adjusted April index of nonresidential building authorized declined to 189. Excepting the March figure, however, the April index was at its highest level since last November, and the total dollar value of nonresidential building authorized in April was only slightly below April 1957. Within the general category there were several encour­aging signs of strength. In the first place, the drop from JUNE 1958 March was caused by a 91 % decrease (from $12,956,000 to $1,123,000) in authorizations for new schools-though it is to be noted that in spite of a 19% lag so far this year from January-April 1957 in new educational building per­mits, the lag for the first quarter was 61 % . Every other major nonresidential building category registered substan­tial increases from the preceding month. Most gratifying was the jump in new factory permits, which, though 25% below similar permits in April 1957, improved the 61 % decline that had been shown for the first quarter to 53 % for the January-April period. New utility permits, up 355% from March, were 178% greater than in April 1957. Tourist courts continued the remarkable advance they had shown through the first quarter. New church authorizations and permits for institutional buildings, office-bank buildings, and for stores and mercantile structures were all up sub­stantially from March. ESTIMATED VALUE OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED Source: Bureau of BUJJiness Re11earch in ceoperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistle11. U. S. Department of Labor P ercent chan&'e Class ification A p r . 1958 Jan-Aprt 1958 Jan-Ap rt 1967 Jan-Apr 1958 from J a n-Apr 1967 Thousands of dollars CONSTRUCTION CLASS ALL P E RMITS ................. . 100,234 36&,824 340,792 + 5 New construction ·········-·--·---------­ 89,976 317,892 301,795 + 5 Residential (housekeeping ) ... . 60,778 205,969 172,666 + 19 One-family dwellings ......... . 64,303 188,411 165,039 + n · Mult iple-family dwellings... . 6,475 17,359 7,626 + 128 N on residen tial buildings ..... . 29,198 111,923 129,130 -13 Nonhousekeeping bu ildings ( residen tial) ................... . 1,374 4,016 1,847 + 117 Amusement bu ildings ....... . 1,314 2,995 1,375 +118 Churches ............................... . 3,983 11 ,668 13,603 -14 F actor ies and workshops ... . 3,123 8,234 17,524 -63 Garages (commercial and private) .................. 411 1,461 2,018 -28 Service stations ................. . 848 3,713 4,380 -15 Institutional bu ildings ..... . 1,052 3,057 5,699 -46 Office-ba nk buildings• ....... . 6,881 15,550 20,802 -25 W orks a nd utilities ........... . 2,285 4,639 3,779 + 23 Educational buildings ....... . 1,1 23 30,332 37,290 -19 Stores and mercantile building s ... ........................ . 5,754 20,217 18,957 + 7 Other buildings a nd structurest ....................... . 1,050 6,041 1,856 + 225 Addit ions, a lterations, a n d repairs§ .. ............................... . 10,258 38,933 38,997 •• METROPOLIT AN vs. N ON­ METROPOLITAN ll Total metropolitan ................... . 77,424 267,842 262,725 + 2 Central cit ies ...... ................... . 67,522 230,534 232,505 - 1 Outside cen tral cities ........... . 9,902 37,308 30,220 + 23 Total nonmetropolitan ............. . 22,810 88,984 78,067 + 14 10,000 to 50,000 population ........... ................ . 16,892 65,689 56,894 + 15 Less t ha n 10,000 population .............................. 5,918 23,295 21,173 + 10 *I ncludes J>ttblic (nonfederal) administration buildings beginning Jul,­1957. tinclud.,. government (nonfederal) service buildin1r1 bea:innin1r Jub 1957. §Includes additions and alterations to public buildin1r1 bea:innin1r Jul,­1957. II As defined in 1950 Census. •• Chanste is less than one-hntr of one per~ent. t Federal contracts and public housings are included in 1957 figures and in J a nuary of 1958. local Business Percent change Percent change City and Item Apr 1958 Apr 1958 from Mar 1958 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 City and Item Apr 1968 Apr 1958 from Mar 1958 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 ABILENE (pop. 55,000r) Retail sales -------------­------------------------­----------­General merchandise stores -4 -12 -1 -13 BAYTOWN (pop. 22,983r) Postal receipts* -·····--------------· -----­----------··· ·$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 20,132 398,763 + 11 + 15 + 16 + 26 Lumber, building material, and hardware stores .......... . Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands ) $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ..$ 1,913,355 82,140· 58,779 + 31 + 66 5 2 -38 -12 3 3 Bank debits (thousands ) ------­-------------­-­S End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ····-----·-· Employment (area) ---·--··--··--··---·-···-·-····-·· Manufacturing employment (area) __ 20,452 22,216 9.4 481,100 91,075 -10 -26 + •• •• •• -14 •• + a -1 Annual rate of deposit turnover Employment 16.6 80,000 4 •• •• Percent unemployed (area) ···-­--····-···----­ 1.8 + +106 Manufacturing employment --­----­-----­Percent unemployed -------------­------­------------­ 3,980 6.6 + 3 + 8 + 18 BEAUMONT (pop. 122,485r) Retail sales - 5 -11 AMARILLO (pop. 125,049r) Retail sales --------------·--····------·-­·-----­----­-------­ + 18 6 Apparel stores ·--·-···--··---·--··--····-----· Automotive stores ............ . -2 -13 -17 -18 Apparel stores -----­-----------------­----­--· Automotive stores ---------­----­---­-------------­ + 9 + 19 10 16 Eating and drinking places Food stores - 6 1 + 6 Drug stores ----------------------------------­--­ 5 Furniture and household Eating and drinking places ____ _ 3 6 appliance stores .... -12 9 Furniture and household General merchandise stores .. + 2 -11 appliance stores + 26 4 Lumber, building material, and Gasoline and service stations + 10 -10 hardware stores ............................ . + 28 + 12 Liquor stores ···--· ·-----········--· 3 -13 Postal receipts* . -­---------­····-··· $ 87,643 - 4 -11 Lumber, building material, and Building permits, less federal contracts $ l ,281,005 -11 -36 hardware stores -----------·······------------­Postal receipts• -----------------------­....... $ Building permits, less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) ------·­S End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ $ 147,020 2,928,389 180,127 109,042 + 26 + 2 + 3 1 + -4 + 19 + 76 + 5 + 6 Bank debits (thousands) .... ---------··-·-···­$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . $ Annual rate of deposit turnover --··----·--· Employment (area ) ····--·----···-···------­--­Manufacturing employment (area) __ 142,565 109,000 15.7 85,100 27,060 --- 6 •• 7 2 2 -10 + 2 -12 •• -7 Annual rate of deposit turnover __ Employment -----------------------------------------------­Manufacturing employment . Percent unemployed --­--------------­ 19.9 48,650 5,580 7.1 + - 19 + 2 + 5 + 54 Percent unemployed (area) ................. . BEEVILLE (pop. 10,SOOr) Postal receipts* _ ------­---··--········­--­..... $ 10.2 8,250 + 10 -7 + 92 + 19 ARLINGTON (pop. 27,550r) Postal receipts• ··---­--· ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts S 19,502 674,935 -15 + 10 -5 -17 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ______ ____ $ End-of-month deposits (thosands ) + .... $ 71,221 9,097 12,705 + 48 + 10 •• -26 + 16 + 3 Employment (area) ·--··-···--··-----· 189,000 - 5 Annual rate of deposit turnover ---­--­-··-­ 6.7 - 13 - 13 Manufacturing employment (area) .. 52,725 2 -15 Percent unemployed (area) ·······--·--···--·-· 7.5 + 3 + 47 BIG SPRING (pop. 24,442r) AUSTIN (pop. 186,000r) Retail sales -------­-·-­···-­·····­·· Apparel stores ----······--····--······--·---··--·----­Automotive stores ---­----­----···--······­-·---···· Eating and drinking places -------­Food stores . -----·-······--···-···-­Furniture and household appliance stores . Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ··---············ -4 + 6 -17 7 6 8 + 18 -9 -1 -15 3 3 -16 Retail sales -·······----····-­------------­·-----·· Apparel stores ...... . Automotive stores . Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ............................... . Postal receipts* ··-·········--­-------------·· .$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ····--------··---------­$ End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover 23,286 186,100 33,530 22,300 17.2 + 2 + + 9 + 26 -44 + 14 -9 -10 + 12 -24 + 6 + 37 -32 + 11 -8 + 17 Postal receipts* ---------·········---­-·-··--··-$ Building permits, less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) ·---------­--------···· $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ S Annual rate of deposit turnover ----··-­·--· Employment ---·--···--­Manufacturing employment Percent unemployed ······----------·-······---------­252,059 4,008,574 176,198 132,050 16.0 72,600 5,430 4.6 7 + 25 -8 •• 11 •• + 1 4 -6 + 22 •• + 5 4 + 3 + 3 + 15 BRADY (pop. 5,944) Postal r eceipts* -------··----····-·---­······ ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thosands) --------··--··--····-.... S End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... . S,005 51,650 4,108 6,312 7.6 -21 +470 2 5 4 -11 +178 + 2 + 4 BAY CITY (pop. 14,042r) Retail sales Automotive stores ----------········---------------­Postal receipts• ·-··-------­----------··--··--···· ....$ Bank debits (thousands) ·-----------··--·------­$ End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ..$ 7,752. 9,915 18,576 3 8 4 + 5 11 + 6 + + 2 BRENHAM (pop. 6,941) Postal receipts• ------·-···· .. $ Building permits, less federal contracts$ Bank debits (thousands ) __ ___ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -··-----···· 5,788 80,785 6,639 11,795 6.7 -9 +169 + 5 + 14 + 11 + 66 + 6 4 + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover --··-···--·· 6.6 4 For explanation of symbols, see page 23. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Conditions Percent change Percent change Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Apr from from Apr from from City and Item 1958 Mar 1958 Apr 1957 City and Item 1953 Mar 1958 Apr 1957 BROWNSVILLE (pop. 36,066) DALLAS (pop. 538,924") Retail sales --------------------------------------------------11 -3 Retail sales ____ --·-····················-···-·······-···-·---15 Automotive stores ------------------------­-27 -23 Apparel stores + 4 4 Lumber, building material, and Automotive stores 9 15 hardware stores ---······· + 30 + 12 Drug stores + 1 Postal receipts• -------------------------------------S 19,617 -17 Eating and drinking places + 4 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 86,180 + 82 -30 Food stores ---·-·····--·-··-····· 6 + 3 Furniture and household appliance stores BROWNWOOD (pop. 20,181) + 12 Gasoline and service stations + .. + 5 Retail sales J ewelry stores -------·-················--9 2 Apparel stores ---------------------------------------­+ 4 8 Liquor stores ----··········-··--··--·· •• + 6 Furniture and household Lumber, building material, and appliance stores ---------------------------------­+ 19 14 hardware stores .............. .. ................ + 14 + 4 Postal receipts• ----------------------------------$ 17,851 + 8 + 16 Office, store, and school Building permits, less federal contracts S 5,371 60 62 supply dealers ---------·--·-····-········-·--·---· 5 12 Bank debits (thousands) -------------------S 11,184 + 10 + 2 Postal receipts• ... -------------·-········-·-· $ 1,614,348 8 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t---$ 11,795 -i Building permits, less federal contracts $14,130,111 + 43 + 51Annual rate of deposit turnover __ 11.3 + 12 + 2 Bank debits (thousands) ---···--·· $ 2,167,584 3 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 1,019,560 + 2 + 4 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------· 25.7 3 7 BRYAN (pop. 23,883r) Employment (area) ---------··----·-··-·············-342,000 •• + 1Retail sales ---------------------------------------1 + 7 Manufacturing employment (area) .. 86,975 Apparel stores _--------------------------------------+ 10 + 4 1 Percent unemployed (area) -----------·-·-·--·· 4.9 + 4 +104 Food stores ---------------------------------------------7 + 9 Furniture and household appliance otores +H 7 Lumber, building material, and DEMSON (pop. 17,504) hardware stores ------·········-----··-··········· + 13 12 Retail sales Poetal receipts• ____ ------------------__________________ $ 19,187 + 3 + 5 Automotive stores -----------------------------------14 -16 Postal receipts• ·············-····-···········-·--· ____$ 13,242 15 •• CISCO (pop. 5,230) Building permits, less federal contracts$ 127,701 + 2 + 12 3,132 16 + 2 Bank debits (thousands) ---------------·-······ $ 16,231 6 + 7 Bank debits (thousands) -----------------------$ 2,622 + 4 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 18,220 + 3 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) L $ 3,572 3 •• Annual rate of deposit turnover ····--··--10.8 8 + Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------8.7 + -2 Postal receipts• -----------------------------------------$ CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 165,458") EDINBURG (pop. 15,993r) -11 -8 Postal receipts• ---------··-···---·-············-$ 7,578 -7 + 25 Retail sales ··-·-·---·-·---·--------···············-·-------· Apparel stores ············-·-·--·---·-················ + 3 -10 Automotive stores --+ 44 -17 15 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 50,407 Lumber, building material, and Bank debits (thousands) ···-·····-·-····---··---$ 9,117 10 + 21 + + hardware stores + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 8,316 + 10 Postal receipts• ·-····-·········-··----------·-·--······· 123,184 5 1 Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 13.2 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,690,379 + 50 + 75 Bank debits (thousands) -----·-------·········· $ 175,210 4 -7 End-of-month deposits (thousands ) t __ $ 112,931 + 4 •• EL PASO (pop. 244,400r) Annual rate of deposit turnover -··········· 19.0 5 5 Employment ··-·-·---------------·-··-··-·······--···------64,300 •• -1 Retail sales ····-·-················-···-·--···---·-------·----+ + 6 Manufacturing employment ·-·-············ 8,350 •• -1 Apparel stores ·····---····----·------·-----·-·-······· -28 -36 Percent unemployed 8.2 -5 + 46 Automotive stores ---------------------------------­+ 4 + 17 Drug stores ----·-· + 1 + 13 CORSICANA (pop. 19,211) Furniture and household Retail sales appliance stores -12 + 14 Apparel stores ·-····----·----------··················· + 2 17 General merchandise stores ·-----·· + 7 + 3 Postal receipts• ...... ·-·-·-······----·--···-·--·--·---$ 12,661 8 10 Lumber, building material, and Building permits, less federal contracts $ 83,300 -31 + hard ware stores ----------------------------------+ 9 •• Bank debits (thousands) ______________________ __ $ 14,489 •• 5 Postal receipts• ················-·········-·---·-·-----···$ 195,815 4 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 21,102 -1 5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,163,337 + 12 +155 Annual rate of deposit turnover --··· 8.2 •• + 3 Bank debits (thousands) ·-·---····-----------···$ 291,598 .. + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands} t _ $ 158,642 + 3 + 9 DEL RIO (pop. 14,211) Annual rate of deposit turnover -··--···--·· 22.3 2 5 Postal receipts• ·········-··················-···---·······$ 8,438 -20 -14 E:nployment ··-·········--·-·····-··----··-···--·-··----·--· 79,600 •• + 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 65,901 + 6 -53 Ma nufacturing employment ·--············· 13,410 + 1 + 5 Bank debits (thousands) ----·--·---···----$ 8,858 + 15 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands ) t ..$ 9,766 -1 -11 Percent unemployed ----··---·--·-··-··-·············· 5.5 5 + 31 Annual rate of deposit turnover ·-·------·-· 10.8 + 15 + 32 For explanation of symbols, see page 23. JUNE 1958 LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Percent change Percent change Apr Apr 1958 from Apr 1958 from Apr Apr 1968 from Apr 19i8 from FORT WORTH (pop. 315,578u) Retail sales --------------------­Apparel stores ---------­-----------------------------­Automotive stores --­-------------------------­----­Drug stores ----------------------------------­-­--­-----­Eating and drinking places ---­-------------­Furniture and household + 4 3 8 7 •• -5 -16 14 6 7 GRAND PRAIRIE (pop. 14,594) Postal receipts• ........ ----------..·-·­---·-­·---·-..·--$ 13,840 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 223,425 Employment (area) --------..--·-·--·--.............. 342,000 Manufacturing employment (area) .. 86,975 Percent unemployed (area) ____ _____ ........... 4.9 -14 -43 •• 1 + 4 -19 + 17 + 1 -1 +104 appliance stores ---------------------------------­Gasoline and service stations -------------­General merchandise stores ---------------­Hay, grain and feed stores -----------------­Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ------·--·--·--··················· Postal receipts• ------------­------------­----------­---­$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) --­----------­--------­$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ---­-------­Employment (area) -----­---­---------------------­Manufacturing employment (area) __ 555,977 3,355,392 680,496 364,242 22.3 189,000 52,725 + 14 1 + 6 4 + 9 + 5 -24 + 2 -1 •• 2 + 11 -4 -10 -25 + 22•• + 43 3 2 2 5 -15 GREENVILLE (pop.17,500•)Retail sales ______ _____ .._..__ ..__ ..__________________________ Apparel stores ...................................... Automotive stores .......................... Food stores ----------·-------­______________________ .... Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ---------------·--·---"·--------­Postal receipts• _______________ .....................$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ---------·--------­-..--$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 15,735 127,700 12,314 14,602 10.1 + 4 + 22 + 25 -13 + 8 2 + 7 + 2•• + -9 -8 -30 -6 + 13 + 9 + 2 + 21 -1 Percent unemployed (area) -------------------­GALVESTON (pop. 71,52711 ) 7.5 + 3 + 47 HARLINGEN (pop. 30,038') Retail sales Automotive stores _____ ________________ ...___ .,____ _ -26 -13 Retail sales -------------------------------------------------­Apparel stores ____ -------­---­----­-----------------­Food stores ---------------------------------------------­Postal receipts* -----------­-------------­--------------­$ Building permits, less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) ---------------------­-$ 61,729 407,839 84,958 + 2 -25 + 89 + 2 -16 -14 •• -11 + 4ll 8 Postal receipts• -·-·----..­------·-..·-·------------·-·---$ Building permits, less federal contracts$ Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover --------·-·­ 23,786 147,750 32,013 24,914 15.3 -16 -49 3 1 4 -8 -59 + 5 + 17 -12 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t-- $ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­66,543 15.0 3 + 3 7 4 HENDERSON (pop. 11,606) Retail sales .................................................. -10 - 4 Employment (area) ---------------------------------­ 47,350 8 Apparel stores ------· _____________ ................. + 14 -11 Manufacturing employment (area) -­Percent unemployed (area) -----------------­ 10,910 7.8 + 3 3 6 + 34 Drug stores ..._________ __ _...........................___ _ Food stores ----·--·-­-·­--·------------·­--­..··-----.... - 7 •• + •• Furniture and household GARLAND (pop. 28,151•) Postal receipts* ---------------------------------------­-$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Employment (area) ---------------------------------­Manufacturing employment (area) -­Percent unemployed (area) -----­-------------­17,704 947,331 342,000 86,975 4.9 -5 -83 •• 1 + 4 + 5 -36 + -1 +104 appliance stores -----­-·--·-·-......__ ______ ..___ _ Postal receipts• ________ .._____.._.._..___________________ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ---·-·------------..·­$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$' Annual rate of deposit turnover ·····----·-· 6,937 93,000 7,172 14,773 5.7 -24 -27 +138 + 5 3 + 8 -a -5 + 32 + 1 + 5 -12 GIDDINGS (pop. 2,532) Postal receipts --­------­-----------------------­-----­----$ Bank debits (thousands) -------­------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ------­----­ 2,083 1,900 3,420 6.7 -20 + •• + 2 a + 8 + 8 + 5 HEREFORD (pop. 8,500) Postal receipts• . ------------·-­·---....................$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ................______ __ $ E'nd-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ...________ _ 5,794 57,500 9,548 10,483 11.2 + 7 -51 2 + 5 2 + 11 -44 + + GOLDTHWAITE (pop. 1,566) Postal receipts• ----------------­-------------------·-··-­$ Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover___ .,_____ ..__ 1,524 2,887 3,230 10.9 + 25 + 26 + 4. + 68 + so -26 •• -26 HOUSTON (pop. 700,508u) Retail salesiJ -·-·--·-----------.............................. Apparel storesiJ ........____________________ _......... Automotive storesiJ _____________ ........._________ _ Drug storesiJ __________ ....____________________ _ Eating and drinking places'!! ...._. _______ _ -4 -2 -10 •• 5 -' -11 -23 + 7 8 GONZALES (pop. 5,659) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ 25,800 5,188 +182 + 11 +101 •• Food stores __________ ............____________ _ Furniture and household appliance stores'!! -------·------................ Gasoline and service stations .............. -- 2 •• 3 + 5 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands)t....$ 4,970 5 Gen eral merchandse stores ................. -11 - 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­ 12.5 -11 + 2 Lumber, building material, and hardware stores __________.._________________ ..... - 2 + 19 GLADEWATER (pop. 5,305) Postal receipts• -------------------------------------­...$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ----------­---------­--$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­Employment (area) ---------------­--­--­---­-----­Manufacturing employment (area) .. Percent unemployed (area) -------............. 4,408 6,100 3,431 4,105 9.7 25,450 4,580 1.6 -1 + 1 6 + 2 •• •• -6 + 8 6 6 4 9 + 74 Other retail stores -----------------..··---·­---·-· Postal r eceipts• _________ ........_. ______________ ___ ......$ 1,157,335 Building permits, less federal contracts $20,070,604 Bank debits (thousands) --·--------­------......$ 2,231,873 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..$ 1,206,603 Annual rate of deposit turnover .......... 22.4 Employment (area) ·­----------------................ 431,100 Manufacturing employment (area) .. 91,075 P ercent unemployed (area) -----..·-·--·-·--­6.8 + 7•• 2 + 2 2 •••• + -6 + 6 + 36 4 2 2 + 8 1 +106 F or explanation of symbols, see page 23. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Percent change P ercent change City and Item Apr 1958 Apr 1958 from Mar 1968 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 City and Item Ap r 1958 Apr 1958 from Mar 1958 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 IRVING (pop. 40,065r) LOCKHART (pop. 5,573) Postal receipts* ................... . ..... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Employment (area) ...... . ................... . Manufacturing employment (area) .. Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 14,302 1,032,651 342,000 86,975 4.9 + 7 -29 •• + 4 -2 -48 + -1 +104 Postal receipts* ................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 2,748 600 3,635 4,065 10.4 -23 + 20 4 7 + -4 -95 + 10 -10 + 21 JASPER (pop. 4,403) LONGVIEW (pop. 34,328r) Postal receipts• .................. . .... $ 28,689 17 -10 Retail sales General merchandise stores ............... . + 4 •• Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 1,024,425 36,212 + 15 5 +285 1 Postal receipts• ........................................ $ 4,228 12 -16 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 36,159 2 6 Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 6,314 6,377 11.4 + 3 8 2 + 15 -14 + 27 Annual rate of deposit turnover Employment (area) ................... . Manufacturing employment (area) .. 11.9 25,450 4,680 2 •••• + 3 1 9 Percent unemployed (area) ................. . 6.6 - 6 + 74 KILGORE (pop. 9,638) Postal receipts• ........................................ $ 9,969 - 9 - 8 LUBBOCK (pop. 134,156r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 139,661 +159 -13 Retail sales + 10 -12 Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . Employment (area) ................................. . Manufacturing employment (area) .. 14,520 14,592 11.9 26,460 4,580 - 3 •• •• •••• 6 7 2 9 Apparel stores Automotive stores ............................... . Furniture and household appliance stores ............................... . Lumber, building material, and -9 + 16 + 16 -33 -32 + 2 Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 6.6 - 6 + 74 hardware stores ............................... . Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 120,369 + 66 •• + 85 + 20 KILLEEN (pop. 21,076r) Postal receipts• ..... ····················· .. .. $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . 20,510 311,550 7,438 6,634 13.4 -13 + 97 1 + + 11 +2453 + 23 + 21 -1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover .......... . Employment (area) Manufacturing employment (area) .. Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 3,722,265 141,072 104,639 16.2 44,800 4,400 6.7 + 43 •• -6 •• •• 10 + 44 + 4 + 4 + 2 2 + 10 LAMESA (pop. 10,704) Retail sales Automotive stores ................................. . Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ---­----­-------·----············· Postal receipts• ........................................ $ 7,132 + 39 + 21 -20 + 2 + 50 8 LUFKIN (pop. 20,846r) Postal receipts• ......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ......................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . 13,404 509,781 24,832 25,117 12.4 -13 +489 + 8 + 10 + 2 -4 -80 + 8 + 17 + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 803,245 +525 +826 Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 10,491 14,245 8.6 6 6 2 + 7 + 8 McALLEN (pop. 25,326r) Retail sales ....... . Automotive stores + 4 + 12 + 8 + 12 Postal receipts• ....................................... $ 19,309 8 + 6 LAMPASAS (pop. 4,869) Building permits, less federal contracts$ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 188,435 24,700 -21 + 11 + 33 Postal receipts• .......................................$ 2,958 -22 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t....$ 22,719 + 17 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 25,100 63 + 423 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 5,007 6,066 10.0 + 16 + 2 + 15 + 6 1 + 8 McKINNEY (pop. 10,560) Building permits. less federal contracts S 55,325 -14 + 23 Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ 7,617 + + 15 LAREDO (pop. 59,350r) Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 24,139 8 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 10,151 8.0 -20 + 10 12 + 16 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover .... 51,600 25,767 21,107 14.6 6 + 2 •• + 3 -78 + 7 + 3 + MARSHALL (pop. 25,479r) Retail sales Apparel stores + 31 4 General merchandise stores ···-----····­ - 6 10 LLANO (pop. 2,954) P ostal receipts• .......................................$ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . 1,779 2,548 3,202 9.8 7 + 17 + 4 + 14 + 6 +__21 + 3 + 23 Postal receipts• ................................ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 17,741 52,243 14,594 20,992 8.5 -6 -46 2 + 3 3 + 7 -73 + 2 + 6 8 For explanation of symbols, see page 23. JUNE 1958 21 LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Percent change Percent change City and Item Apr 1958 Apr 1958 from Mar 1958 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 City and Item Apr 1958 Apr 1958 from Mar 1958 Apr 1958 from Apr 1957 MERCEDES (pop. 1 0 ,081) Postal receipts• ......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts$ 3,500 17 ,400 -10 9 + 18 PORT ARTHUR (pop. 82,150u) Retail sales ................................................. . Apparel stores ....................................... . Automotive stores ................................. . -7 + 4 -16 -9 -3 -S6 Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 6,545 6,108 1 + 34 + 18 + 1 Food stores ............................................. . Furniture and household 4 + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 14.7 -14 + 86 appliance stores ................................. . General merchandise stores ............... . 2 MONAHANS (pop. 6,311) Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ............................... . 2 + 67 Postal receipts• ... ................................ $ 5,286 -13 + 9 Postal receipts* ....................................... $ 37,899 6 + 1 Building permits, less f ederal contracts $ 292,250 +112 + 30 Building permits, less federal contracts$ 401 ,186 -90 -58 Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ 9,002 3 + Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 65,276 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 7,397 4 -14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 44,502 + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 14.3 + 1 + 15 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . Employment (area) ............................... . 17.5 85,100 + 1 2 + 5.. ORANGE (pop. 21,174) Retail sales Manufacturing employment (area) .. Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 27,050 10.2 + 2 10 -7 + 92 Automotive stores Lumber, building material, and hardware stores .................................. Postal receipts• ......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t....$ 15,807 799,852 20,195 21,830 -14 + 15 -21 -19 3 2 -7 + 54 + s -39 6 12 ROCKDALE (pop. 4,550') Postal r eceipts• ...................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . 3,066 37,600 3,098 5,240 7.0 -9 +1609 •• 3 + •• -61 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.0 4 + 6 SAN ANGELO (pop. 62,359') Retail sales ................................................ . - 8 -3 P ALESTINE (pop. 1 5 , 0 63r) Postal receipts* ......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . P AMPA (pop. 2 0,448r) Retail sales 8,642 68,150 8,815 13,092 8.0 -U -10 + 8 + 8 -7 -14 + 16 1 + 18 Lumber, building material, and hardware stores .............. . Postal receipts• ........................................ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ......................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . Employment ............ . Manufacturing employment ............... . P ercent unemployed ... ............................. . 53,567 719,484 47,717 40,167 14.0 22,100 2,850 9.2 -19 -5 + 62 + 2 + 8 •• •••• -20 + 7 + 75 + 3 -11 + 15 -3 + 3 + 92 Automotive stores ................................. . Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t.... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 689,380 18,651 24,602 9.1 -8 + 82 + 5 + 5 -5 •• + 1 + 18 -12 SAN ANTONIO (pop. 555,000 ' ) Retail sales ......... ....................................... . Apparel stores ....................................... . Automotive stores ··-··-··········--················ Drug stores ------------------····--------·-·············· -3 -7 -18 4 -2 -10 -6 + 6 Eating and drinking places ............... . + 11 PARIS (pop. 24,55lr) Retail sales ................................................. . + 6 Furniture and household appliance stores 6 •• Apparel stores ....................................... . + 10 11 Gasoline and service stations ............. . -21 + Lumber, building material, and General merchandise stores ---····-·-······ + 11 + 10 hardware stores ................................. . + 19 + 70 Lumber, building material, and Postal receipts* .......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 18,277 129,268 12 17 -9 + 49 hardware stores -·-·--·-·-········-············­Stationery stores --·-------··----·-·····-·········­Postal receipts• ................................ $ 507,792 + 12 + 2 -6 -1 + 14.. PASADENA (pop. 22,483) Postal receipts• .......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts$ Employment (area) ............................... . Manufacturing employment( area) .. Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 24,676 692,400 430,600 91,076 6.8 -4 -50 •••• + + 5 -20 + 2 -1 +106 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . Employment ............................................... . Manufacturing employment ............... . Percent unemployed ................................. . 6,011,508 648,324 346,482 19.0 193,400 22,025 4.4 + 30 + 9 •• + 9 •• + 1 -2 + 68 + 10 + 2 + + PHARR (pop. 8,690 ) Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 3,979 -18 9 SAN MARCOS (pop. 9 , 980) P ostal receipts• .......................................... $ 7,606 - 2 - 8 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 4,170 4 + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,420 -87 -91 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,072 8 + 10 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 6,565 -13 + 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.7 2 4. End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 7,999 - 4 - 1 Annual rate of deposit turnover ·-·-··-----­ 9.6 - 12 -12 PLAINVIEW (pop. 14,044) Reta.ii sales ................................................. . Apparel stores Automotive stores ··-···········-··················­Postal receipts• ......................................... S Building permits, less federal contracts $ 11,551 43,600 + 23 -3 + 37 -16 -53 -21 -10 -21 -4 -90 SEGUIN (pop. 14,000r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands ) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 58,176 8,032 14,417 6.7 -24 + 9 -1 + 10 + 27 + 13 -3 + 14 For explanation of aymbole, see Paiie 23. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Percent change Percent change Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Apr 1958 Ap r from from Apr from from City and Item 1958 Mar 1958 Apr 1957 City and Item 1958 Mar 1958 Apr 1957 SHERMAN (pop. 25,855') TEXAS CITY (pop. 23,000') Retail sales -4 -19 Lumber, building material, and Retail sales -------------------------------------------------­ + 23 -18 Automotive stores ---------------------------------­ Apparel stores ---------------------------------------­ 11 -25 hardware stores -------------------------------­+ 17 -10 Lumber, building material, and Postal receipts• ------------------------------------------$ 14,837 -6 + 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 916,410 hardware stores ---------------------------------­+ 17 -11 + 70 -33 Postal receipts• -----------------------------------------$ 21,866 -6 + 5 Employment (area) --------------------------------47,350 1 -3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 156,371 -12 -35 Manufacturing employment (area ) __ 10,910 s -6 Percent unemployed (area) --------------------7.8 + 3 + 34 SULPHUR SPRINGS (pop. 9,890r) Retail sales 6 4 TYLER (pop. 49,443) Automotive stores ----------------------------------+ ­ Retail sales Poetal receipts• ----------------------------------------$ 6,146 -14 -1 Automotive stores --------------------------------17 -13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 102,318 +317 + 47 Bank debits (thousands) ___________________ ___ _ $ Postal receipts• ____ ------------------------------------$ 99,063 + 26 8,632 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,434,505 + 176 + 70 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i _ $ 11,736 -1 Bank debits (thousands) --------------------------$ 78,643 + 2 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------8.7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i __ $ 60,028 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------16.6 + + 1 SWEETWATER (pop. 13,619) Postal receipts• ---------------------------------------$ 19,033 + 45 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 162,200 + 1 10 VICTORIA (pop. 49,164') Bank debits (thousands) ----------------------$ 10,468 + 7 + 16 Retail sales + 7 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 10,766 6 12 Automotive stores ---------------------------------­+ 3 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------11.S + 13 + 27 Eating and drinking places ---------------­2 + 6 Furniture a nd household TAYLOR (pop. 9,071) appliance stores --··············--·······--·----+ 16 + 40 Retail sales hardware stores ................................ + 46 + 1 Automotive stores ---------------------------------­-48 -26 Postal receipts• __ ------------------------------------$ 25,261 -1 -2 Postal receipts* --------------------------------·---------$ 7,944 -1 + 9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,118,185 + 79 +166 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 42,062 -22 + 93 Bank debits (thousands) ---------------------$ 6,185 + 4 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t----$ 10,249 -1 + 4 WACO (pop. 101,824') Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------7.2 + 11 + 4 Retail sales -----------------------------------------­+ -18 Apparel stores ----------------------------------------+ 7 -16 Automotive stores ----------------------------------+ 1 -23 TEMPLE (pop. 33,912') Florists -----------------------------------------------------+ 11 14 Retail sales -------------------------------------------------­+ 10 + 16 Furniture and household Apparel stores ----·----------------------------------­+ 9 -3 appliance stores ----------------------------------+ 6 + 2 Drug stores --------------------------------------------+ •• General merchandise stores ----------------•• 16 Furniture and household Postal receipts• ____ ------------------------------------$ 121,326 + 6 •• appliance stores ---------------------------------­+ 2 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 910,273 -35 + 11 Lumber, building material, and Bank debits (thousands) _ _________$ 91,643 1 + hardware stores ---------------------------------­+ 26 + 40 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i _ $ 65,722 + 1 + "3 Postal receipts• ·-----------------------------·---------$ 23,620 -8 + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------16.8 3 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 428,010 -14 +290 Employment ------------------------------------------------46,550 •• Bank debits (thousands) ----------------·--------$ 18,013 + 2 + 12 Manufacturing employment -------------­8,820 2 "9 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 30,630 + + 15 Percent unemployed ----------------------------------7.5 + + 79 Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------7.1 + -1 TEXARKANA (pop. 31,051') WICHITA FALLS (pop. 103,152•) Retail sales Retail sales ---------------------------------------------------11 -16 Automotive stores .................................. 16 17 Automotive stores ---------················---······ -7 13 Furniture and household Lumber, building material, and hardware stores .................................. + 46 + 19 appliance stores ---------------------------------­4 13 P ostal receipts* § -------------------------------------$ 44,680 + 4 -4 Postal receip~• -----------------------------------------$ 76,975 8 6 Building permits, less federal contracts$ 174,830 -34 + 54 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 670,304 2 -77 Bank debits (thousands)§ ___________________ ___ $ Bank debits (thousands) ---------·--------------$ 95,400 + 7 102,605 2 38,442 + •• __$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..$ 15,939 -5 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t •• Annual rate of deposit turnover ------------11.2 + 2 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover§ ----------14.0 + 3 3 Employment§ ---------·--___ ----------------------------30,600 •• 5 Employment ·····--········································· 37,050 •• 3 Manufacturing employment ----·-----------3,680 4 2 Manufacturing employment§ -------------­3,980 •• -15 Percent unemployed§ --------------------------------12.8 -2 + 12 Percent unemployed ----------------------------------7.5 + 97 •Receipts for Tyler are for month of April. Other cities receipts are for period from April 5 to May 2, 1958. Other receipts are for comparable periods. t Money on deposit at the end of the month, but l!xcludes depOt1its to the credit of banks. IReported by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Houston, for Harria County. §Figures include Texarkana, Arkansaa (pop. 19,733) and Texarkana, Texas (pop. 81,051) . rRevised for use by the Texaa Highway Department. ul950 Urbanized Cenaus. • *Chaniie ia laa than one-half of one percent. JUNE 1958 2:5 BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESSf Year-to-date averag.Apr Mar Apr 19li8 1968 1967 1958 1967 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY tTexa5 business activity, index ......................................................................... ......... 192 183 200 193 19~ Miscellaneous freight carloadings in SW District,' index .................................. . 78 76 81 77 86•\ Ordinary life insurance sales, in