...•(\S!1\:-'f.A~ TEXAS BuSZ~:t~sRlEVIEW A Monthly Summary of Business a't\C!):~c . ' · .,~t1ons m Texas and the Southwest ·.~.f,/'::,'-.--~i~)./ Bureau of~{sResearch The University of Texas Entered as aecoud-claH matter on May 7, 1928, at the post office at Auetin, Volume X, No. 2 :\larch 28. 1936 Texas, under the Act of August 24, 1912. Business Review and Prospect EARLY MARCH apparently witnessed the turning point in the moderately downward trend in general busi­ness activity which has prevailed since last December; and, although industry and trade receded gradually dur­ing January and February from the high point reached in December, there is now expected a gradual upward tendency which should continue for at least a month or two. Even during these months there still remained a fair margin of improvement over the corresponding period last year. This margin is expected to widen sub­stantially between now and June, although a temporary set-back may be experienced in certain industries in the flood stricken areas of the Middle Atlantic and New England States. Practically all indexes of business and industrial activity are begin­ning to show an upward tendency. The DIRECTORY The capital goods index published FACTURERS (January now available. by Iron Age showed a slight gain per copy. A sample is enclosed. for the week ended February 14 after a sharp gain the week before, and now stands at 25 per cent above the comparable 1935 level. Of the parts that make up this index, rail shipments of forest products, automobile production, heavy construc­tion, and productive activity in the Pittsburgh district, all but the last is currently showing an increase in activ­ity, and this exception is accounted for by abnormal weather conditions. In spite of the improvement which has taken place during the past year in this index, how­ever, it still stands at 25 per cent below the base period, which is the average for the years 1925-27, when the population of the country was about ten million less than it is now. Moreover, we are in the seventh year of subnormal activity in these lines, and during four of these years activity was only about 50 per cent or less of the base period. These facts indicate a strong potential force making for sustained business recovery as confidence in the future gradually develops. Another industry in which great potentialities exist for additional improvement is construction, both resi­dential and commercial. Residential construction ex­pressed in dollars amounted to only one-tenth as much in each of the years 1932, 1933, and 1934 as it did in 1926 in the States east of the Rockv l\fountains. Even with the sharp improYement which, occurred in 1935, residential construction in these states was still onlv one-sixth that of ten years ago; and if this year it agai~ doubles last year's rate, it will total only one-third that of 1926. Moreover, residential construction was on the decline even before the depression began. the volume in 1929 ha\·ing dropped one-third from the high point reached in 1928. The foregoing facts seem to indicate that we are in the beginning stage of a new building cycle which may continue mam· vears. It will be retarded, however, if costs of building rise more rapidlv than general buying power. The experience during the last half of OF TEXAS MANU­ 1936 Edition) is 1933 and the year 1934, when costs The price is one dollar ($1.00) advanced sharply without a corre­ page with order blank sponding increase in general in­come, should serve as an example; and it is to be hoped that this error will not be repeated. The important role that building activit1· will pla\· in carrying forward the business advance this spring and summer is shO\vn by the Dodge figures for contracts awarded during the first two months of this year in comparison with those of a year ago. Total contracts in all classes show an increase of 93 per cent ol'er those of a year ago. Residential contracts increased 76 per cent; non-residential, 141 per cent; and public works and utilities, 73 per cent. Although these percentage increases are highly encouraging, it should 11ot be over­looked that they are computed on a Yery low base and that even with the present rate of increase, building will remain below the average 1925-29 rate for several years. Present advancing price trends of building materials and wages, together with rising laxes, will, moreover, serve as deterrents to a building boom. Nevertheless, the con­struction industries and the capital goods industries are now and will continue for several years to be among the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW most important factors in solving the unemployment Expansion in foreign trade seems to have begun. The problem. increase in exports in January over those of the corre­The agricultural outlook, especially that for the ani­ sponding month last year was the result mainly of expan­mal industries, continues bright. In Texas the volume sion in sales of manufactured goods, although the value of these products marketed is increasing, and prices are of exports of agricultural products also was somewhatbeing well maintained. Demand for Texas farm products larger. in the industrial centers of the North and East should strengthen as the expected expansion of industry in these F. A. BUECHEL. regions gets under way. For Texas Data, See Statistical Tables at the End of this Publication. Financial From the monetary and banking viewpoint, the past month has been singularly unproductive of important new developments. Aside from President Roosevelt's two messages to Congress, one proposing new tax legisla­tion and the other requesting a further huge relief appro­priation, there have been few ripples in the prevailing currents. The stock and bond markets suffered tempo­rarily from a bad case of nerves when Hitler re­militarized the Rhineland, but the underlying bullish trends appear to be unchanged. Congressional sentiment for fiat currency inflation appears to be, temporarily at least, on the wane; and, with its decline, foreign exchange rates have risen and gold exports ceased. Early in March, President Roosevelt proposed to Con­gress sweeping changes in the present system of taxing corporate income, changes which were designed to in· crease aggregate tax revenues from this source by some $620,000,000. In brief, he proposed that Congress should abolish the present system of taxing corporate income and substitute therefor heavy taxation of undistributed corporate income and normal income taxation of cash dividends paid to stockholders. In addition to produc­ing tax revenue the plan clearly is designed to effect a redistribution of a portion of the national income. Should the proposal be adopted, as now seems assured, it would undoubtedly compel corporations to pay out a much larger proportion of their annual net profits in the form of cash dividends. Advantages claimed for the plan include: larger tax revenues, elimination of unnecessary holding companies, and the partial clos:ng of one loophole in the present income tax law, i.e., the practice of some large income receivers of organizing corporations to hold their se~uri­ties and to colfect and reinvest income therefrom. Heavy taxation of undistributed corporate income, however, would certain! y necessitate radical changes in present corporation finance practices. It would tend to prevent the building up of surplus reserves during prosperity years with which to meet depression losses; it would tend to compel corporate expansion to be financed via stock and bond issues rather than through reinvestment of income; and it would to some extent protect corpora­tions now having large surplus accounts from the com­petition of new corporations. About the middle of March, the President requested Congress to appropriate $1,500,000,000 for relief ex­penditures for the fiscal year beginning July l , 1936. This sum, together with $1,000,000,000 which will be available out of prior appropriations and $600,000,000 already appropriated for C.C.C. work, was estimated to be sufficient for the year's relief needs provided industry reemploys many more men now on the relief rolls. As­suming that Congress approves the requested relief appropriation, the revised federal budget for 1936-37 aggregates $3,223,000,000; and this allows but $120,000,000 for bonus bond payments. Should bonus payments run above $1,000,000,000, as is generally ex­pected, federal expenditures during the coming year may approximate $9,250,000,000-the heaviest peace time government spending in history. Revenue estimates, on the other hand, including the President's proposed new taxes, total $6,027,000,000, forecasting a deficit for 1936-37 ranging between two and three billions. The grave dangers inherent in continued heavy federal deficits have been repeatedly pointed out in this column. It would seem, however, that the bond market is not yet disturbed about the condition of federal finances, since both the bond and note offerings of the Treasury on March 15 were heavily over subscribed and at extremely high prices. In this connection it should be remembered that banks and other financial institutions continue to be heavily overloaded with cash, and it is in large part the pressure of idle funds seeking employment which produces the present strong government bond market. Monetary and banking trends show little significant change. The quantity of money in circulation, which has been increasing quite steadily since December 1934, spurted sharply upward during recent months. From December 26, 1934, to March 13, 1936, the volume of currency in circulation adjusted for seasonal variation has expanded from $5,308,000,000 to $5,900,000,000. This substantial currency expansion is somewhat sur· prising. Some part of the increase can be explained by the increasing needs of business, resulting from im­ proved industrial activity. The bulk of the expansion suggests a renewal of currency hoarding, but thus far no definite indications of hoarding have developed. There has, however, been some evidence that large de­nomination bills have been exported to Europe during recent political troubles. Foreign exchange rates since mid-February have been gradually strengthening as fears of fiat currency infla­tion subsided. As a result gold imports into the United States have been resumed on a small scale, net imports since February 12 amounting to some $18,000,000. The general trend of commercial bank deposits and loans shows but little change. From February 5 to March 11, the adjusted demand deposits of the reporting member banks increased very slightly. Over the same period total loans on security collateral increased from $3,126,000,000 to $3,331,000,000, and "other loans" from $3,288,000,000 to $3,378,000,000. Holdings of government obligations decreased slightly from $9,880,­000,000 to $9,832,000,000; but this latter figure was expected to increase sharply following the issuance of the new Treasury bonds and notes on March 15. The increase in secured loans of the reporting member banks, together with an expansion of some $200,000,000 in total brokers loans extended by the New York City member banks over the same period, suggests rather definitely a drift of bank funds into security speculation channels and arou~es interest as to what steps the ne\\­Federal Reserve Board intends lo take in order to preYent an undue expansion of credit into this field. The Federal Advisory Council in its February meeting again warned against the inflationary possibilities inherent in the present huge excess rr.·sen e balances and urged the Resen'e Board to take ~'lf·ps to cut do\1·n excess reserves. The~e excess resen-e balances, which for some months have been running in the neighborhood of S3,100,000,000, were sharply reduced, following payment for the new Treasury bonds and notes on Siarch lo, to approximately $2,400,000,000. This total. however, will be gradually built up as the Treasun spends its ne1rh-borrowed funds. At present it appears that the onh action which the Federal Resen-e Board is likely to undertake is that of modifying the present margin requirementc: for securi­ties used to collateral brokers loans. J. C. DOLLEY. Petrole11m ­ Historically speaking, the oil industry is peculiarly an American industry. Today, nearly 80 years since Drake's discovery well on Oil Creek, Pennsylvania, the United States still occupies a dominant position in the oil industry of the world-in production of crude oil, in refining, and in consumption of oil products. More­over, the oil industry as a whole has become a key industry, not only in the United States, but throughout the rest of the commercial world. In large perspective, the nineteenth century, from the standpoint of the economic historian, pivots about the development of textiles and of the iron and steel indus­try in West-central Europe (including Great Britain) and in Northeastern United States. The resultant open­ing up to the vast continental interiors of the Temperate Zone countries and the ensuing phenomenal rise of world trade in agricultural commodities provided the incen­tives for the growth of railroads and for the technical evolution in ocean transport facilities. Into the growing complexities of agriculture, industry, and trade, there was thrust, as it were, towards the close of last century, two new industries: oil and electricity. Parallelling the rise of these two new industries came an almost sensa· tional evolution in industrial chemistry. These three industries, by 1900, were already evolv­ing rapidly; but they were to come really into their own after 1900. The point emphasized here is that following the turn of the century, economic life-industry, trade, communication, etc.-the world over is being recast through modifications largely induced by modern chem­istry, electricity, and oil. The oil industry in itself has become an industry of the first magnitude; it has attained this plane of impor­tance through the means by which it fits into the scheme of economic development of the twentieth century. Be­cause of the vital manner in which oil products serve modern industry, oil has become a necessity in all com­mercial countries and an indispensable factor in the national security of modern nations. The Pennsylrnnia Rock Oil Company was formed in 1857 by a group of i\ew Haven men who had received a favorable opinion from Professor Silliman of Yale concerning the possibilities of crude petroleum as a source of illuminating oil. This was the concern that sent Colonel Drake to drill on Oil Creek. near Titus­ville, Pennsylvania. Illuminating oils prior to that period were derived from animal fats, for which the demand was running ahead of the supply. The earh· oil indus­try was a kerosene industry; kerosene, though still im­portant, had to compete with the rapidly growing electrical industn-after 1880. But after 1880. with the progress made in' refining and with the rapid growth of higher speed machinery, lubricating oils from petroleum became an important item in the oil indum·y. After 1900 the electrical industry grew apace, thereby com­peting with the use of kerosene for lighting; but during the first decade and a half, fuel oils from petroleum became increasingly important; and, of course, with the spectacular rise of the automobile in the Cnited States after the turn of the century (in 1899 the automobile was not separatel1 classifie'd in the Ft>deral Census: 4,182 motor Yehicles were made in 1900: 137.000. in 1910; and production passed the million mark .on!)-in 1915-in which year the value of gasoline manufactured in Lnited States first exceeded that of kerosene 1. the manufacturing of motor fuel became the chief ite;11 of the American oil industry. And it is no mere coincidence that the automobile industry is, like the oil industn. peculiarly an American industry. ­ The rapidly progres~ing chemical industr~-aided the new oil industry in more ways than a few, though here only two can be mentioned: the metallurgical accom­plishments, particularly in alloys, and refining methods -for instance, the cracking process, introduced in 1914. It was the World War which, more than anything else, crystallized the significance of the oil industry in the consciousness of mankind. After that the "struggle for oil" became more than a struggle between oil concerns; it became a struggle between nations, which, of course, still goes on. It is more than a coincidence that the recent events in the German Rhineland came shortly after Hitler declared in effect that Germany was capable of meeting her requirements for oil products through her chemical industries using coal as the raw material. The history of and trends in l"nited States oil produc· tion and refining must be left for a later article, and, likewise, the relative position of the American oil in­dustry in the rapidly changing world set-up of produc­tion, refining and consumption. It must be sufficient in this place to note that in pro­duction and refining of oil, national attention is center­ina more and more upon the Gulf Southwest and upon 0 Te xas in particular: and that the rapid and widespread expansion of the oil and gas industrv in the Gulf South­west has created a major economic region in the struc­ture of American inclustn-the Southwestern oil region. It mav be of interest her~ to quote from The .New York Time; March 22. l 93G: "The resenes in the California fields 'were not n;aterially increased last vear and many persons in the trade belieYe that henceforth the influence of California in the oil markets along the Atlantic Coast will decrease gradually." EL:\IER H. ]oH:\"SO'<. Cotton Cotton is now beset with two major uncertainties. The most immediate and pressing one is the indecision of ,the Government relative to disposing of the 4,500,000 bales it controls through the 12 cent loan and the few hundred thousand bales in the Producers' Pool. The second uncertainty pertains to probable acreage and ( production of the new crop, and that is dependent on the liberality of terms under the new farm program !which have not yet been announced. The unfortunate thing about the first of the uncer­tainties is there is a Yery tight spot cotton situation because of the very small supply of American cotton outside Government hands. In fact there were less than 3,500,000 bales outside of mill and Government stocks on March 1 to cover consumption and exports for at least five months. The result is, merchants are forced to turn down sales; and, I am told, there are some cancellations of sales previously made. For o\'er two months now the Government has been negotiating as to the best way to sell, and may continue these tactics until the foreign buyers are driven to take foreign cotton and the opportunity to sell is gone. The cotton will be left hanging over the market to beat down the farmers' price next fall. Why does not the scarcity of available Amer­ican cotton raise its price? There are two fundamental reasons, available foreign cotton at present prices and potential production. The new cotton program under soil conservation will be radically different in purpose if carried out accord­ing to purposes stated in the law from the dead A.A.A. because of an amendment added in the House to make parity income the goal of farm relief instead of parity price as the Administration had interpreted the A.A.A. A determined attempt to reach parity income with 1909-14 will certainly demonstrate the fallacies of the old A.A.A. scarcity program to get parity price. Essen­tially, parity income can be nothing short of parity price times parity production. A. B. Cox. Total supplies of cotton in the L'nitedCOTTO:\ States, :\larch 1 were 9,713,000 bales asBALA:\CE compared with 10,811,000 bales last year. SHEET The net decline this year in supplies of cotton in the l"nited States and of American cotton in European ports and afloat to Europe was 1,040,000 bales. During the past seven vears, the average change in the index price of cotton per 100,000 bales change in supply has been 18.69 points. When the present price is calculated in terms of the abo,·e change in supply and the anrage supply-price relations, the spinners ratio margin of 112, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics wholesale index of 80.6, the price of middling %-inch spot cotton in :\ew Orleans should be about 14.35 cents. When the above calculations are made in terms of average percentage changes, the indicated price is 13.08 cents. The most important reasons for the calculated price being under the actual price are, perhaps, increased supplies of foreign cotton and large potential production. SPl:\:\ERS Prices of both cotton and yarn remained MARGE\ remarkabh-steady during February. What changes there were, were in the nature of ad,·ances. The spinners ratio margin aYeraged 172 as compared with 112 for January and 155 for February 1935. The pence margin declined slightly from 4.44 d in January to 4.38 d in February. The pence margin in February 1935 was 3.90 d. Prevailing margins con· tinue to indicate a high rate of consumption. Retail Trade and Credit Al\'ALYSIS OF TEXAS RETAIL SALES FOR FEBRuARY 1936 The Texas retail sales report for February shows a 19.1 per cent increase over the same month of last year, greater than the increase for January and almost equali.1g the increases of :\ovember and December 1935. Analyzed by size of cities, the increase is greatest in the five largest cities. San Antonio, Dallas, and El Paso pull the increase up, and Houston holds it down, this city showing little change from February 1935. In the population group of 50,000 to 100,000, Beaumont, Port Arthur and Austin show comfortable increases, while Waco acts violently in reverse, showing practically a 20 per cent decrease from last year. Only three cities reporting show a loss for February, and Waco's is the greatest. Stores in towns with a population of less than 2,500 hold up very well with an increase of 12.5 per cent. This figure is supported by the 9 per cent increase re­ported by country general stores. Texas rural areas make a much better showing than do those of the entire United States, the Department of Commerce index of rural sales for February registering only a 2.5 per cent increase over the same month of 1935. Comment on Analysis by Types of Stores Analyzed by types of stores, the general pattern of the last few months repeats itself in February. Building continues apace, represented by a lumber and building material dealer increase of 30.6 per cent and a hard­ware store increase of 22.9 per cent. The fact that home interiors are getting attention is shown by a radio store increase of 23.2 per cent, a furniture store increase of 15.8 per cent and a household appliance store increase of 15.2 per cent. Motor vehicle sales are holding up well with an in­ crease of 26.3 per cent over February 1935. Texas has a much better record of buying than the industry has of producing, United States car and truck production for February being slightly less than that of a year ago. Texans are buying clothes, the apparel group showing an increase of 21.4 per cent; however, the luxury, jew­ elry, eased off to a moderate 8. 7 per cent increase. In the routine of daily life, the greatest single phe­ nomenon is filling station sales, which are 25.2 per cent over those of 1935. The State is not only buying more cars, but it is certainly driving them. Later in the year, the sales of this group should show the definite effect of the Centennial Exposition and make an interesting index of the effectiveness of the exposition effort. Drug stores improved their position over January, showing February sales of 13.8 per cent more than those of a year ago. It is noted again, that this is an interesting index of general well-being. Variety stores for the Cnited States as a whole show a decrease of 3 per cent from February 1935, but this does not tell anything about Texas in particular. General observation would indicate that variety and drug store sales should show something of the same pattern of ups and downs. The staple, food, does very well, showing an inc'.·ease of 4.1 per cent over 1935. This coincides with national experience, the Department of Commerce report on chain store sales for February showing a 3 per cent increase over last year. Comment on the Break-down by Districts The various districts of the State show percentage changes which are closer together this month than in January, and the figures resemble something of the pat­ tern of December 1935. District 1-N repeats the condition it has shown for the last four months. The cities show increases. but not the outside area. . District 1-S is again high up on the list of increases, Lubbock reporting the extraordinary increase of 81.5 per cent. This district has consistenth· been near the top in district increases for four out. of the last fi\·e months. District 2 shows another month of substantial increase. with the general area doing better than the two cities: This district has been Yen consistent in reporting im· proYement o\·er last year. District 3 dropped off Yery markedh· from its J anu­an· position. This drop is common both for Bro1rmrnod and the balance of the area as well. District 4 again staYs close to the State aYera!le. as it has for fi\·e months, but it shows considerable inte;·nal differences. The outside areas sho11· no increase. while the cities, as a whole, do YerY well. Dallas and Paris show 28.9 per cent and 63.6 per cent increases, respec­tiveh·; \\;aco and Greem·ille show decreases of 19.9 per cent and 13..5 per cent, respectiYel~-. District .5 has had a consistent record of inc:rease for three months, with the outside areas doing better than the three cities. District 6 has had a great rnriety of experience dur­ing the last five months. This month it shows a good increase, both in El Paso and the balance of the area. The spring marketing season for wool and mohair and the high prices this year should begin to make themselves felt. District 7 shows San Angelo with a 4-1-.2 per cent in­crease, but the balance of the area shows onh· a .5..J-per cent up1rnrd change. The comment under Di;:;trict 6 will apply to this district also. District 8 stands at the top of the district increases again, mostly because of the San Antonio and Corpus Christi increases of 59.0 per cent and 68.2 per cent, respectiYely. The outside areas report onh a modest 8.1 per cent increase. District 9 is pulled down again by Houston, which reported only a l.l per cent increase. The outside area shows about the same modest increase as the outside areas of District 8, 7.3 per cent. District 10 has had much the same pattern for the last five months. The outside areas to the northwest repre­senting cattle, show a nice increase of 16 per cent: Browns1·ille and Harlingen, repre~enting the 'alleY dis· trict, show decreases of 2. 7 per cent and 0.-J. pt'r cent, respectively. Percentage Change February 1936 from Districts February 1935 8 ······-·-·-------------------··-·-·--·-··---------+ 36.l 2 --···------------------_____________________+30.3 1-S --·-----------·--------------------..-··---·---+ 27 .6 5 ---------..... ----·-·---------·--------------!-26.7 6 --------------------·······----_________________+ 21.8 7 --·--·-····-···--·-·----··-----------··-----+ 21.0 ENTIRE STATE -----------····---------------·------_+ 19.1 4 -----------------------------····-----------+ 152 10 -----·····--·--------··---·--------·--·---+ 10.0 1-N ----··---------···---·--------------------+ 9.8 3 .. ----------------------··-·-----------------+ 6.1 9 ------------···---------·---··--····--·----·----+ 5.7 Comments on Retailing There has been some question as to our general use of the term:-convenience, shopping, and specialt.i goods in pre\ iou~ articles in the RE\'I E\\ . These three terms are well e~t .ih !i shed in the field of marketing and selling and ha\ e done much to clarih retail thinking. This classification of goods is based on a general ob­:-en ·atiou of the actions and habits of ultimate consumers. or retail customer;;. The classification is not theoreticai or didactic. hut is the summan of an intellirrent and careful ohserrntion of human habits. Becaus~ women are fun:ed, or choose, to do most of the buying, it is their buying habits which arc particularly reflected. Con·renience goods are those ,,·hich the customer wishe" lo pror·ure with the least effort, goods she wants a~ immediateh a1·ailahle as possible to her residence or point of use. The most repetitise artic:les of purchase are foods. prepared and consumed three times a day. Because food consumption is so continuous, because the storage space available in the modern home is so small, and ber:au;;e so many of the food products are perishable, 1rnmen are forced into a daily routine of buying and procuring. a time and energy consuming process. So, naturalh , the buyer wants these products made available close to the home. CrJT1i-e11ience goods can be pun·e\·ed by a small neigh­borhood store with a small inventory and still satisfy the purchaser, because there is little problem of variety and choice in these goods. For the most part, they are standardized and branded, and are goods with which the buver has had much experience. Even if they are new and unknown, there is not much at stake for they are of low unit value, and a buyer can afford to take a chance, at least once. In this classification of goods there is always a chance of a new product or brand being tried on recommendation of the retailer, and sub­stitution is always possible because the ;ten: is of too small 1·alue to warrant the extra effort of going to another ;;ource or of objecting loo strenuously to the retailers' importunities. In the neighborhood center, stores offering the follow­ing types of convenience goods and services may be found: grocery, meat, dairy, bakery, and drug : barber shop;; and dry cleaning establishments I convenience service:" I : and, in larger cities, perhaps a small "5 and 10" and a neighborhood "mo1·ic" (convenience amuse­ment J. Of course, there are rnam· grocery stores away from residen<:e areas, but these, for the most part, are the result of automobile convenience. There may be large neighborhood centers between the residential areas and the ·'down town" section, in which case they pro­\·ide a \ ariety of choice among the various stores with the eco1;01111 of a single stop and a wider choice of the specialty or luxury items. Grocen· stores "down town" are also the result of automobile convenience, usually on the outskirts of the important retail district. (In a small town, the one center is everything mixed up, con­venience and shopping.) Drug stores in the residential areas cannot operate as close to the residence districts as grocen-stores, because the need for their products is not so regular or repetitive. Hence, there are fewer of them, and they do not go much beyond neighborhood centers. "Down town," the drug stores have a traffic convenience: that is, people drop into them because the,· are there. For this reason, one may see two or thr~e drug stores on as many corners of the same inter­section, all doing well. It means that there is traffic enough to support all of them and that they have been located with careful regard to density of traffic. Drug stores develop practically no traffic; their mission is to serve what already exists. The second classification, shopping goods, is just what the name suggests, a group of commodities which the buyer wishes to inspect and compare with others before making the purchase-goods for which she is willing to make a considerable effort, both to get and to estimate as to desirability and price. It is obvious that this group represents goods of rather high unit value, purchased sporadically, and goods which have great importance other than price. The basic com­modity in this classification is 1rnmen's apparel-dresses, coats, suit~, accessories, millinery, shoes, neckwear, and underwear. These goods are unstandardized, subject to changing fashion, and must he right as to style, color, fit, and becomingness. The only way to make a satisfac­tory purchase in this classification is to search, try-on, and compare goods under consideration with others in the same store and those in other stores. As a matter of fact, a shopper might not have any idea of what to pur­chase until after the offerings of the stores are inspected. Variety and volume of inventory are important in this type of purchasing because they make possible the satis­faction of a wide selection-the feeling that the final choice must be right because such a broad display has been inspected. Other items are important in this classification, such as children's clothes, which are purchased by women and are subject to the same process as that described above, although not to so great an extent. Other shopping goods are such unstandardized lines as furniture and house fur­nishings. Few buyers know much about furniture and rugs, and it is only by wandering around furniture stores that a potential buyer can come to any decision as to type, style, color, wood, and price. The high unit cost of the purchase makes the purchaser feel that any effort required is necessary and worth while, and the sporadic habit of purchase makes it impossible for buyers to edu­cate themselves very much over a period of time. House furnishings, draperies, shades, etc., are perhaps a little better known, but they also present a great problem of looking and comparing in order to determine the best decorative scheme. Jewelry store products, silver flat ware and hollow ware, gifts, ornaments, etc., are real shopping goods, whether bought for personal use or for gifts. The process is the slow one of looking and comparing with price, usually an important element in the decision. Piece goods, silks, woolens, linens, cottons, and domestics, sheets, table linen, blankets, and comforts, are in this same classification, even though brand may be somewhat of a short-cut to the decision, as in the case of sheets and blankets. It is obvious that on the whole the shopping goods group revolves around the department stores and the attendant specialty stores handling apparel, millinery, shoes, hosiery, children's wear, jewelry, and furniture. It is equally obvious that if these stores are adequately located, they will be close enough so that shopping and comparison may be made from store to store with the greatest saving of time and energy. It is this factor of trical equipment, refrigerators, Yacuum cleaners, radios, location unity which makes shopping in some cities easy and pianos. Regarding these products there is often and satisfactory, and in other cities so difficult and much conYersation among friends concerning the merits fatiguing. Of course, it is impossible to pile stores on of the various brands which theY own-e,·en when thev top of each other for customers' convenience, but retail are ill-equipped to ha,-e opinion's or attitudes regarding centers should avoid becoming unduly spread out, as so these goods. The retail location of the stores earning many of them have. specialty goods is not so important as is the location The last group, specialty goods, are those goods "-hich of stores selling shopping goods, but it is best for general haYe some special attraction other than price which efficienc~-that they be moderateh-close to the retail causes a buyer to make the effort to go to them wher-. centers. ever they are. In this group there are two factors which E. G. :3:'.IITH. are important, goods hard to ernluate, and men. :\Ien dislike shopping and try to buy on the basis of expe· COTTON MANUFACfURING IN TEXAS rience. All specialty goods are branded and recogniz­Feb. Feb. Jan. 1936 1935 1936 able. All such goods are bought on the basis of the Bales of Cotton Used ___ --2,840 1.81-2.426 buyer's past experience, some other person's experience Yards of Cloth: conveyed to him, or some attitude of mind built up by Produced __________ 2,974,288 2.43-1,172 2,999,821 advertising. These are usually good., of high unit rnlue, Sold _ _________ 2,541,875 1.571.596 2,553.-52 and the purchase is somewhat of a ·'repeat" mechanism. Unfilled Orders______ 3,505,226 3,281.093 3,766,057 One basic commodity in this group is apparel which Active pindles _________ 87.800 86.356 87.116 men tend to buy on the basis of bran( and experience­Spindle Hours________ 23,397 17,778 20,895 suits, coats, shoes, hats, belts, unden,·ear, etc. :\on: Compiled from reports from 11 Texas cotton mills to the Other goods in the classification are automobiles, elec-Business Research. RETAIL SALES OF I DEPENDE:'\T STORESIT IN ~EW :\1EXICO, Ol(LAHO:\L<\. A~D TEXAS Total umber of Firms Reporting Change in Sales :\umber Percentage Change From February, 1935 From January, 1936 of in Dollar Sa1es Leu Leu Firms Feb. 1936 Feb. 1936 In De· Than 1% In· De· Than I % Re­from from creas\" crease Change crease crease Change porting F eb. 1935 Jan . 1936 TOTAL (New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Com­ bined) ____ --·· ______ --·-··--·---------·--------------------------------656 254 24 477 408 49 934 -18.2 3.5 NEW MEXICO ---·------·--_______ -----------------------------32 23 3 27 30 1 58 -23.3 1.6 OKLAHOMA ______________ --------------------------------170 58 9 87 135 15 237 -12.7 3.7 TEXAS ___ ------·----------_ ------·-·------------------454 173 12 363 243 33 639 -19.l 5.2 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL _________ -----------------------------------64 13 42 31 4 77 -21.-1 -5.8 Famliy Clothing________ ------------------------------------13 2 8 7 15 -27.7 -4.5 Men's and Boys' Clothing _______________________________ 27 5 11 19 2 32 -25.7 -4.5 Shoe Stores --------------------------------------------------------7 7 7 -19.8 -17.8 Women's Specialty Shops_________________________________ 17 6 16 5 2 23 -18-3 -10.7 AUTOMOTIVE -----------------------------------70 21 2 54 38 1 93 -26.2 9.3 Filling Stations ..._______ -------------·-----------------------22 4 1 16 10 1 27 -25.2 2.4 Motor Vehicle Dealers__________________________________________ 48 17 1 38 28 66 -26.3 9.6 COUNTRY GENERALA D FAR 1ERS' SUPPLIES 53 39 · 2 58 32 4 94 8.+ 1.8 Country General Stores________________________ -------------51 37 1 54 31 4 89 -9.0 1.5 Farmers' Supply Stores_____ ------·--···-------·--__________ 2 2 1 4 1 5 -u 9.7 DRUG STORES ----··· ______________________ -··-------121 28 4 87 56 10 153 -13.8 2.1 FOOD-------------------84 45 4 82 43 8 133 +.l 2.3 Grocery Stores ____ ··-----------------------------------13 16 3 20 9 3 32 -1.3 2.2 Grocery-and-Meat Stores ------------------·---------·----71 29 1 62 34 s 101 -5.0 2.3 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD _______________ ., 13 9 10 10 22 -16.l 4.6 Furniture Stores -----------·-----------------------------­8 .5 ;) 7 1 13 -15.8 1.7 Household Appliance Stores -··--·--------------------3 2 3 1 1 5 -15.2 -15.l Radio Dealers _______________ -----------------------2 2 2 2 4 -23.2 -17.9 JEWELRY STORES -------------------------------­3 3 4 1 8 -8./ 4.5 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE___________ 31 9 18 21 1 40 -28.5 6.0 Hardware Stores _____ ------------------------------------------13 4 8 9 17 -22.9 5.4 Lumber and Building Material Dealers___________________ 18 5 10 12 1 23 -30.6 9.4 RESTAURANTS -·-·----------·----------··---------------­11 4 6 8 1 15 -24.4 0.8 ALL OTHER STORES -----------------------­2 2 3 1 4 -2.1 -16.8 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POP LATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of-OVER 100,000 POPULATIO -------------------109 25 2 8.3 46 7 13C -2.J..2 9.2 50,000-100,000 POPULATION ------------------51 16 2 4.5 18 6 69 -6.2 0.5 2,500-50,000 POPULATION ·-------------------178 73 4 136 10;; 14 255 -19.3 4.4 LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION_ ______________________ 116 59 4 99 74 6 r9 -12.5 1.6 1JRetail sale! other than those of department stores. NoTE: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Business Re~earch, coOperati!...;. \\:th the United ::=tate~ 1epanment of Commerce. ANNUAL CREDIT RATIOS Because of the fact that the annual credit report (see table, page 9) is somewhat different from the annual reports published in the past, a brief statement of the method used and the meaning of the ratios for each year shown on the report is given below, in the hope that it may be of assistance in interpreting the report. It is to be borne in mind that this report, just as the monthly credit report (see table, page 9) is based on data which cover open credit only and do not include installment credit. ( 1) "Ratio of Credit Sales to l\et Sales" is obtained by dividing credit or charge sales by total net sales. The ratio shows what part of the total volume of sales is handled by open credit-to what extent reliance is placed on open credit accounts in securing trade. (2) "Ratio of Net Losses to Credit Sales" is obtained by dividing net losses by credit or charge sales. Net losses are the gross amount of accounts which, at the end of a particular year, are considered worthless (which are, for that reason, charged as bad debts to the profit and loss account) minus all collections during the particular year on all previous charge-offs. This ratio should be the true indicator of the value of credit business, inasmuch as it reflects directly the loss by reason of the credit business. Please note, however, that the ratio for any one year cannot be considered alone; the ratios for successive years must be viewed collec­tively to grasp the full picture of conditions. The rea­son is that the numerator of the ratio (net losses) takes RETAIL SALES OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT STORES Number Percentage Change in Dollar Sales of Stores Feb. 1936 Feb. 1936 Year·to·date 1936 Report-fr om from from ing Abilene _----------------------3 Austin -------------------------3 Beaumont ----------------------3 Dallas -------------------------3 Fort Worth __________________ 5 Houston -----------------------5 All Others __________________ 2.4 STATE _________________________46 Feb. 1935 Jan . 1936 Year-to-date 1935 + 27.7 + 19.3 + 19.4 + 11.9 + 4.5 + 12.5 + 22.4 - 0.6 + 21.5 +20.7 + 23.5 + 18.6 +20.5 + 13.8 + 16.4 + 12.7 0.1 + 10.0 + 9.6 - 1.1 + 9.6 + 14.9 + 6.3 + 13.l NoTE: Prepared from reports from Texas department stores to the Bureau of Business Research. RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES TEXAS Total Number of Firms Re· porting TOTAL TEXAS__________________________ 639 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY PRODUCING AREAS: DISTRICT 1-N _____________ ______ _ 36 Amarillo ----------------------------------6 Pampa ____ ---------------------------_ 4 Plainview ------------------------------8 All Others_______________ _________ 18 DISTRICT 1-S______________________ __ 14 Lubbock -----------------------------­7 All Others ------------------------------7 DISTRICT 2 ----------------------------55 Abilene ______ ----------------------------4 Wichita Falls ------------------------­6 All Others -----------------------------_ 45 Percentage Change in Dollar Sales Feb. 1936 Feb. 1936 from from Feb. 1935 Jan. 1936 + 19.1 + 5.2 + 9.8 -2.4 + 3.9 + 15.9 + 8.2 -18.2 +27.1 + 5.1 + 0.3 + 5.8 +27.6 0.6 + 81.5 + 2.7 + 5.3 2.8 + 30.3 2.7 + 11.8 6.5 + 22.7 -10.4 +35.1 + 1.2 Total Number of Firms Re­ porting DISTRICT 3_____________________________ 14 Brownwood ----------------------------3 All Others ----------------------------11 DISTRICT 4___ ________________________ 156 Cleburne -------------------------------8 Corsicana --------------------------------7 Dallas ------------------------------35 Fort Worth --------------------------15 Greenville ----------------------------4 Paris _____ -----------------------------· 4 Temple -------------------------------7 Waco -----------------------------------14 All Others____________________________ 62 DISTRICT 5________________________ __ __ 72 Longview -------------------------------5 Marshall ------------------------------4 Tyler -------------------------------------7 All Others ------------------------------56 DISTRICT 6 __________________ _________ 30 El Paso_____ ---------------------------_ 21 All Others ------------------------------9 DISTRICT 7____________________________ 19 San Angelo______________________________ 5 All Othe1s ---------------------------14 DISTRICT 8______________________________ 106 Austin __ -------------------------------19 Corpus Christi ________________ ______ 10 San Antonio________________________ 29 All Others-----------------------------48 DISTRICT 9______________________ _______ 97 Beaumont ------------------------____ 14 Galveston ____ -----------------------8 Houston -------------------------------36 Port Arthur__________________________ 12 All Others -------------------_________ 27 Brownsville ---------------------------6 Harlingen --------------------------6 All Others --------------------__ _____ 28 '!Retail sales other than those of department stores. Percentage Change in Dollar Sales Feb. 1936 Feb. 1936 from from Feb. 1935 Jan. 1936 + 6.1 + 2.5 + 7.5 + 8 .8 + 4.6 3.6 + 15.2 + 4.7 + 15.6 + 3.6 + 3.2 +54.9 +28.9 + 2.4 + 6.0 + 10.9 -13.5 -3.7 + 63.6 + 31.2 + 13.9 + 5.5 -19.9 + 2.6 -0.2 -2.8 + 26.7 + 4.1 -8.0 -3.1 + 25.7 + 13.2 + 49.9 + 2.3 + 24.2 + 4.5 + 21.8 + 26.3 + 23.8 + 33.3 + 13.5 + 2.6 + 21.0 + 13.0 + 44.2 + 12.1 + 5.4 + 13.9 + 36.1 + 7.4 + 14.9 -8.6 + 68.2 + 4.7 + 59.0 + 13.3 + 8.1 + 6.0 + 5.7 + 4.0 +20.0 + 8.7 + 7.1 -3.3 + 1.1 + 7.3 + 20.2 + 10.3 + 7.3 9.4 + 10.0 + 2.1 -2.7 5.8 -0..4 + 4.1 + 16.0 + 3.9 NOTE: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Business Research. coOpera ting with the United States Department of Commerce. into account collections not only on one year's charge­successiYe years must be Yiewed collectiHh-. The reason offs, but on all previous charge-offs. is the same. The rnlue of this ratio lies onh-in its (3) "Ratio of Collections During Year on All PreYious reflecting the policy which retail stores adopt i;1 charg­Charge-offs to Charge-offs at End of Preceding Year" is ing uncollected credit accounts to their profit and loss obtained by dividing those collections by the gross amount items. The lower the ratio, the more liberal are the of accounts which, at the end of the preceding year, stores in retaining the statue of unpaid accounts as were considered worthless (which were, for that reason, outstandings on open credit: co1H"erseh-, the higher the charged as bad debts to the profit and loss account) . ratio, the more consen·atiYe are the stures in charging The ratio for any one year in this instance, as in the to their profit and loss accounts unpaid acr·otrnts on second, cannot be considered alone; but the ratios for which collection is doubtful. CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES FOR THE YEARS 1935, 1934, 1933, 1932, A:\D 1931 (Expressed in Per Cent) Ratio of Collections during Year on All Previous !\umber of Stores Ratio of Credit Sales Ratio of ~et Losses Charge-offs to Charge-offs at Reporting to ~et Sales to Credit Sales End of Preceding Year 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1935 1934 1933 1Q32 1931 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 All Stores ______________________________________________________ 44 43 41 39 37 61.7 60.4 61.3 60.8 62.5 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 27.1 23.3 16.4 13.8 22.7 Stores Grouped by Cities: Austin ---------------------------------------------------3 3 3 3 3 57.1 56.7 56.7 58.7 62.0 0.4 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.3 37.6 23.9 15.7 12-9 18.5 Dallas ________________ ---------------------------------8 8 8 8 8 68.0 66.1 67.0 65.8 67.4 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.7 1.2 34.4 25.9 18.9 13.1 22.0 Fort Worth___________________________________________ 4 4 3 3 3 56.8 59.1 58.4 57.9 57.8 0.9 1.1 2.4 2.2 0.8 19.6 8.7 4.4 9.5 9.1 Houston _ ------------------------------------------5 5 5 5 5 64.0 62.7 62.l 62.8 65.2 1.1 0.8 1.7 1.8 12 48.6 27.5 12.7 15.6 18.6 San Antonio ---------------------------------------3 3 n n n57.o 53.4 n n 1 i.o 2.3 n I n 9.7 24 .6 r Waco --------------------------------------------4 3 3 3 n59.9 58.2 56.6 54.5 I 1.1 0.7 0.3 4.2 51.7 94.2 46.8 37.6 All Others _________ -------------------------17 17 19 17 18 54.3 51.0 54.8 54.5 57.1 2.0 2.6 1.3 0.7 1.9 17.2 20.l 18.4 13.4 36.2 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume over $500,000) ____ ------------------____ 11 10 9 9 9 60.9 60.1 61.3 60.2 61.5 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.4 18.6 12.7 10.4 12.8 21.4 Department Stores (Ann ual Volume under $500,000) _ ------------------------11 11 11 10 10 56.3 54.0 53.0 53.3 55.6 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.9 2.0 26.9 37.1 28.0 18.8 31.6 Dry Goods-Apparel Stores ----------------4 4 4 4 4 58.2 57.4 55.9 61.3 61.9 0.4 1.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 13.l 28.9 31.3 5.2 17.9 Women's Specialty Shops_________ __ __ 7 7 6 6 4 64.4 62.7 65.7 65.6 68.7 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 42.3 27.3 9.5 10.2 12.4 Men's Clothing Stores -----------------------11 11 11 10 10 66.8 64.l 62.6 63.5 65.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 3.3 1.2 73.3 68.7 27.6 19.l 25.5 5tores Grouned According to Volume of Net Sales during 1935 : $3,750,000 down to Sl,000,000___________ 13 12 12 12 12 60.l 61.7 62.5 58.8 62.0 0.8 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.3 24.6 17.8 10.5 14.9 18.6 $1,000.000 down to $275,000 ---------n 13 11 11 11 53.6 51.3 54.1 56.2 56.3 0.5 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.7 29.6 21.4 18.6 8.6 20.7 Less than $275,000 ----------------------------18 18 18 15 15 58.5 57.5 55.7 56.8 59.l 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.1 30.2 42.5 17.3 8.3 12.4 rLe~s than three (3) stores reporting; included in "All Others." \' on;: The data are reported to the Bureau of Business Research by Texas retail stores. FEBRUARY CREDIT RATIOS I 1 TEXAS RETAIL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) :\'umber of Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Stores Credit Sales Collections to Credit Salaries Reporting to Net Sales Outstandings to Credit Sales 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 All Stores ---------------------------------------------------------------------55 55 61.8 61.4 39.1 34_9 1.5 1.6 Stores Grouped by Cities: Abilene ----------------4 4 55.9 54.1 35.9 25.7 2.3 2.8 Austin ---------------------------------------------3 3 58.2 57.9 40.0 39.2 1.3 1.4 Beaumont ---------------------------------------------------------3 3 62.8 60.2 40.6 35.3 1.7 2.0 Dallas ----------------------------------------------------8 8 68.1 68.3 37.8 34.4 1.3 1.4 Fort Worth -------------------------------------------------6 6 59.4 57.4 34.8 31.8 1.6 1.7 Houston -------------------------------7 7 62.6 59.0 42.3 37.8 1.8 1.8 San Antonio______________________ -----------------------------------------------3 3 54.6 59.0 50.2 37.7 1.0 1.1 Waco ----------------------------------------4 4 61.2 62.5 33.5 31.6 1.9 1.9 All Others --------------------------------------------17 17 55.8 56.3 37.3 34.8 2.2 2.5 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) __ _ ________ 17 17 60.8 59.9 40.2 35.2 1.4 1.6 Department Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) ____ 14 14 59.2 58.5 35.3 29.7 2.2 2.5 Dry Goods-Apparel Stores___________________ 4 4 61.1 61.0 30.l 29.4 2.5 2.5 Women's Specialty Shops_____________________________________ 9 9 64.5 67.9 36.7 35.1 1.1 1.1 Men's Clothing Stores___________________________________ 11 11 67.1 65.0 39.4 38.0 1.9 1.9 Stores grouped according to Volume of Net Sales during 1935: $3,750,000 down to $2,250,000 ______ _ ________________________________ 7 7 60.7 64.7 42.2 35.8 1.1 1.2 $2,250,000 down to $1,000.000__________ ____________________________ 10 10 59.8 58.6 38.5 37.8 1.4 1.7 $1,000,000 down to $275,000 ---------------------------------------------16 16 56.8 54.0 42.4 37.2 2.0 1.8 Less than $275,000________________________ ___ _____________________ 22 22 61.3 56.6 35.8 35.6 3.2 3.5 NoTE: The ratios 11hown for each year. in the order in which they appear from left to right, are obtained by the following computations: (1) Credit sale1 divided by net sales. (2) Collections during the month divided by the total of accounts unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the credit department divided by credit sales. The data are reported to the Bureau of Business Research by Texas retail atorea. PETROLEUM CEMENT Daily Average Production (In TI10usands of Barrels) On Barrels) Feb. Feb. Jan. 1936 1935 1936 Feb. Feb. Jan . 1936 1935 1936 Texas Plants- Coastal TexasU--------------------------216,750 175,700 205,9rn Production ----------------------------375 221 260 East Central Texas_____________________ 48,100 51,650 45,490 Shipments ---·------------------------397 229 395 East Texas_______________________________ 435,300 435,000 433,270 Stocks -----------------------·-----------586 717 6081 North Texas_____________________________ 56,550 57,150 56,700 United States- Panhandle ---------------------------------_ 58,400 61,650 58,810 Prnduction ---------------------·-----·--3,454 3,053 3,630 Southwest Texas_________________________ 70,200 59,100 67,540 Shipments -----------------------------3,156 2,9511 3,889 Stocks ___________________________________22,985 West Central Texas__________________ 25,050 25,750 25,370 21,8991 22,6861 West Texas________________________________ 160,850 150,200 14-9,690 Capacity Operated __________ ____ 16.4% 14.9% 16.1% STATE ----------------------------------__ 1,071,200 1,016,200 1,042,780 tRevised. UNITED STATES_________________ 2,772,950 2,522,200 2,816,510 :Non:: From U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of :\fines. Imports ---------------------------------------131,929 125,536 120,857 LUMBER iHncludes Conroe. NOTE: From American Petroleum Insthute. (In Board Feet) New Development in Texas Feb. Feb. Jan. Feb. Feb-Jan. 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 1936 Southern Pine Mills: Permits for new wells_________________________ l,055 924 1,0:>5 Average Weekly Production Wells completed _________________________________ 775 788 1,012 peer Unit_____________________________________ 273,272 229,216 277,576Oil Wells________________ _____________________________ 564 587 770 Average Weekly Shipments Gas Wells______________________________________________ 24 per Unit___________________________________ 275,990 16 37 229,564 280,715 Initial Production (in thousands of Average Unfilled Orders per barrels) ------------------------------------------968 2,488 1,462 Unit, End of Month __________.__________ 810,333 540,845 830,914 NOTE : From The Oil Weekly. NoTE: From Southern Pine Association. Gasoline sales as indicated by laxes collected by the State Comptroller were: January, 1936, 79,147,000 gallons; January, TEXAS CHARTERS 1935, 71,947,000 gallons; December, 1935, 78,406,000 gallons. Feb. Feb. Jan. 1936 1935 1936 BUILDING PERMITS Domestic Corporations: Feb. Feb. Jan. Capitaliza tion II ---------·-------___ ·-_$2,531 $1,679 $1,690 1936 1935 1936 Number --------------------------------------------14 7 147 141 Abilene _______________________________$ 5,135 S 6,170 s 10,390 Classification of new corporations: Amarillo ________ ------------------4.3,295 3,900U 43 ,334 Banking-Finance _____________ _________ _ 3 Austin ---------------------·------------456,432 176,54-0 265,124U Manufacturing -----------------------------20 31 7 17 7 14,269 219,838 Beaumont ---------------------------35,525U Merchandising _______ ---------------·--_ 30 33 38 Big Spring -------------------------2,855 845 4,925 Oil --------------------------------·------------47 40 37 Brownwood ---------------------------150 115 275 Public Service______________________________ 2 1 2 Cleburne ------·------------------------2,800 9,350 3,250 8 13 Real Estate-Building-------------··· 10Corpus Christi______________________ 257 ,060 23,487 125,530 Transportation ---------------------· 2 3 5 Corsiana ------------------------------2,350 8,870 4,166 All Others_____________________________________ 33 24 22 Dallas -------------·---------------------2,402,312 309,179 1,221,095 Number capitalized at less than Del Rio__________________________________ 3,050 4,125 2,200 $5,000 ---------------------------------------62 54 50 El Paso_______________________ ____ ________ 53"171 42,390 43,093 Number capitalized at $100,000 or Fort Worth___________________________ 284,975 49400, 582,400 more _----------------------------------------4 1 3 Galveston --------------------------19,013 5o'.3oou 25,561 Foreign Corporations (Number) ___ _ 29 23 35 Harlingen ----------------------------3,060 5,840 1,570 Houston ____ ---------------------------3,728,738 443,179 793,921 il ln thousands. NOTE : Compiled from records of the Secretary of State. Jacksonville ------------------------11,150 5,320 7,610 Laredo -----------------------------400 2,150 4,125 COMMODITY PRICES Longview -------------------------------32,168U 16,665U 19,455 Lubbock ____ ---------------------------148,138 16,505 40,355 Feb. Feb. Jan. McAllen -------------------------------32,000 2,400 7,450 1936 1935 1936 4,712 12,425 WHOLESALE PRICES: Marshall ---------------·------------------6,129 5,375 10,095 U. S. Bureau of Labor Palestine --------------------------------9,935 9,940 Statistics (1926 = 100) ____________ 80.6 79.5 Pampa -----------------------------------rn,500U 16,200 80.6 Paris --------------------------------------1,260 2,575U 10,740 The Annalist (1913 = 100) ______ { 126.5 124.3 128.3t Port Arthur___________________________ 48,344 3-1,247 25,409 74.0U 74.0IT 75.8tU 7,000 FARM PRICES: Ranger ------------------------------------6,000 San Angelo ____________ ----------------19,323 10,967 5,625 U.S. Department of Agricul-San Antonio_________________________ 149',0'12 45,241 244,389U ture (191Cf.-14 = 100) ______________ 109.0 111.0 109.0 San Benito______________________________ 3,136 6,325 1,124 U.S. Bureau of Labor Sherman -------------------------------4,365 (1926 = 100) -----------­ 4,949 7,915 Statistics 79.5 79.1 78.2 Snyder -------------------------------­ 3,500 RETAIL PRICES: Sweetwater ---------------------------5,713 3,295 1,913 Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor 70,831 81,553 Statistics, 1923-25 = 100) ________ 80.6 79.7 81.7 Tyler ----------------------------------78,165 Waco --------------------------------39,896 13,834 27,753 Department Stores (Fairchild's Wichita Falls__________________________ 18,575 69,859 12,995 Publications, Jan. TOTAL ________________________________ $7,924,130 $1,476,309 $3,888,043 1931=100) ----------------------------88.3 86.6 88.3 iIDoes not include public works. tRevised. NoTE: Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the ~On gold basis based on exchange quotations for France, Switzerland, Bureau of Business Research. Holland; Belgium included to March 12, 1935. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 11 .. ----=---------~_-:-=_-----=---· __-_=:-_=:-_--o:--:-.. -----·-··--· -­ FEBRUARY SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CO VERTED TO A RALL-CAR BASIS§ TotalCattle Calves Hogs Sheep 1936 193511 1936 193511 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 193511 Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU-----------------271 311 25 46 64 120 14 15 374 492 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth ___________ 581 653 99 151 11 13 12 30 703 847 TOTAL SHIPMENTS ________ ------------------------------852 964 124 197 75 133 26 45 1,077 1.339 TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPlVIENTS OF LIVE STOCK JA UARY 1, 1936, TO ~1ARCH 1, 1936 Cattle Calves Hogs Sheep Total 1936 193511 1936 193511 1936 193.5 1936 1935 1936 193511 Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU-----------------5,977 5,003 1,128 l ,123 1,194 798 425 295 8,724· 7,219 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth _____________ 1,351 1,816 249 357 20 50 51 88 1,671 2,311 TOTAL SHIPMENTS_______________ -----------------------. 7,328 6,819 1,377 1,480 1,214 848 476 383 10,395 9,530 §Rail -car Basis: Cattle, 30 head per car ; calves, 60; hogs, 80; and sheep, 250. lllncludcs shipments of Government purchased cattlo and calves. ~Fort ·worth shipments are combined with interstate forwardings in order that thf' bulk of market disappearance for the month may be shown. NOTE: These data arc furnished the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railway officials through more than 2,500 station agents, representing every livestock shipping point in the State. The data arc compiled by the Bureau of Busin ess Research. COTTON BALANCE SHEET FOR THE NlTED STATES AS OF MARCH 1 (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Final Ginnigs Carryover Imports Report Consumption Exports Balance Aug. 1 to March U March 20§ Total to Marnh 1§ to March 1 Total March 1 1928-1929 --------------------------·--------------------------·-2,536 246 14,297 17.079 4.012 6_190 10.232 6_847 1929-1930 ------------------------·-------------·--------------·-----2,313 215 14,548 17,076 3.809 5,293 9.102 7,974 1930-1931 -------------·------------------------------------------4,530 41 13,756 18,327 2,894 4,912 7.806 10.521 1931-1932 ____________________ ___________________________________ 6,369 56 16,629 23,054 3.077 5,925 9.002 14-052 1932-1933 ----------------------------------------·------·--------9,682 75 12,710 22,467 3.253 5,597 8.850 13.617 I 033-1934----------------------·----·----·----------------------------8,176 81 12,660 20,917 3-400 5,548 3_943 11,969 1934-1935_________________________ ___ ________________________________ 7,746 65 9,469 17280 3,255 3_165 6,420 10,860 1935-1936________________________________________________________ 7,138 74 10,417 17,629 3,524 4,392 7,916 9.713 Th !! cotton year begins August I. •In 500-pound bales. §Running bales. counting round hales as half bales. Non:: The figures liave been revised in accordance with the revisions made by the United States Bureau of the Census. BANKING STATISTICS (! n Millions of Dollars) Feb. 1936 Feb. 1935 Jan. 1936 Dal1as United Dallas United Dallas United District States District States Dislrict States DEBITS to individual accounts_____________________________________________________________________________________ 636 32,198 576 27,420 688 35.011 Condition of reporting member banks on­F eb. 26, 1936 Feb. 27, 1935 Jan. 29, 1936 AsSETS: Loans and investments-total._______ .... _____ ------------______________ ---·-----------------------------428 21,006 413 19,581 435 20,995 Loans to brokers and dealers: 1n New York City ---·-·-·------------·----____ -·--------·-------·-------------------------------·-------898 5 740 893 Outside New York Ci tY-------·---·--------·-·---------------------------------------------------------------2 171 1 172 2 171 Loans on securities to others (except banks) ___ _ _ ------·------------------------------40 2,048 t 2,193 40 2,064 Acceptances and commercial paper bought _______________ --------______ -----------------------2 349 3 445 2 360 Loans on real estate________________________________________ -----------------------------------------------------_ 21 1,146 23 1,123 21 1,142 Loans to banks__________ -----------------·-·---·----·--·-------____________ -·----------------------------·-·----------1 66 ++ 118 1 65 Other loans ----------------------------------------------·-··----------------·-------·----------------------·-------·-----------120 3,281 ++ 3,270 123 3,304 U. S. Government direct obligations ______ -------------------·-----------------·--···-----·------------145 8,690 161 7,791 146 8,655 Obligations fully guaranteed by U. S. Government _--------------------------------------------49 1.201 24 731 52 1,172 Other securities ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------48 3,156 41 2,998 48 3,169 Reserve with Federal Reserve Banks _________ ------··--·------·-··-------------------------------80 4,788 86 3,643 79 4,843 Cash in vault -------------------·---------------------------------------------------·------------------------------10 371 9 314 9 353 Due from Domestic banks·----·-----·--------------------------------------------------------------------------185 2,368 :t 2.074 182 2,366 Other assets-net -·---· --------------·---------·-·----------------·-----------·------·-------------------------------·---28 1,351 ++ 1,548 28 1,336 LIABILITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted ---------------·-·--·--------------------------·--------------------------·------------323 14,090 :i: 11,793 326 14,017 4,900 + 4,878 119 4,888 Time deposits ---------------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------119 + U. S. Government deposits------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21 510 52 1,098 23 604 Inter-bank deposits: Domestic banks ----------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------·--------187 5,662 4,828 184 5,621 Foreign banks ____________ -----·-----·--------------·----------------------------------------------------____ _ 395 172 427 Borrowings ·--------------------------------------------·-----·--------------------------------------------------------3 11 2 Other liabilities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 820 897 5 829 Capital account ---------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------76 3,504· 3,483 76 3,505 ?Not available. NoTE: From Federal Reserve Board. STOCK PRICES TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES Feb. Feb. Jan. Feb. Feb. Jan. 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 1936 Standard Indexes of the Securities Number --------------------------------------------------18 19 28 Markets: Average Weekly Number________________________ 5 5 7421 Stocks Combined____ ______________ _ 106.7 67.8 101.7 Liabilitiesll ______________________________________$248 $184 $154 351 Industrials --------------------------121.5 80.0 116.0 Assets II -------------------------------------------$ 83 $ 68 $ 61 33 Rails -----------------------------------49.6 3D 45.2 Average Liabilities per Failure ll --------------$ 14 $ 10 $ 6 37 Utilities _____ ----------------------103.0 54.5 99.1 ll!n thousands. NOTE : From Standard Statistics Co., Inc. NOTE : From Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. MARCH EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS CLASSIFIED BY CITIES AND EMPLOYMENT GROUPS Pay Rolls Ending Nearest Fifteenth of Month No. of Worken Percentae:e Change Average Weekly Wage Estab-from from per Worker lish-March March Feb. March Feb. March March Feb. men ts 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 1936 Abilene -------------------20 1,189 1,121 1,204 + 6.1 -1.2 Amarillo -------18 544 457 4,94 + 19.0 + 10.l Austin ------------------19 530 568 535 6.7 0.9 Beaumont --------------------------------62 3,936 3,970 3,776 0.9 + 4.2 Brownsville______________________________________________________ 7 83 85 85 -2.4 2.4 Corpus Christi_____________________________________________________________________ 6 219 217 219 + 0.9 0.0 Dallas -------------177 8,542 8,222 8,209 + 3.9 + 4.1 Denison -------10 956 605 959 + 58.0 0.3 El Paso ----------------60 2,069 1,799 2,055 + 15.0 + 0.7 Fort Worth _____ 77 2,761 2,724 2,633 + 1.4 + 4·.9 Galveston ----------15 521 510 518 + 2.2 + 0.6 Houston -------------------------195 12,354 12,003 12,458 + 2.9 0.8 Laredo -----------------------12 200 198 196 + 1.0 + 2.0 Lubbock ----------------------------------------------------------------------6 250 216 195 + 15.7 + 28.2 Port Arthur--------------9 8,448 7,091 8,654 + 19.1 2.4 San Angelo ------------6 93 93 94 0.0 1.1 San Antonio ------------------------------------------------139 3,131 3,039 3,052 + 3.0 + 2.6 Sherman ------------------------------------13 721 681 702 + 5.9 + 2.7 Waco -----------------------------------------38 1,599 1,627 1,568 -1.7 + 2.0 Wichita Falls ------------------------------28 956 803 823 + 19.1 + 16.2 All Other Cities______________________________________________________ 438 14,235 13,583 13,991 + 4.8 + 1.7 STATE __________________ 1,355 63,337 59,612 62,420 + 6.2 + 1.5 Bakeries ---------------19 757 737 754 + 2.7 + 0.4 $19.09 $18.57 $18.57 Brick, Tile, Terra Cotta _________~----------------------------------11 430 314 361 + 36.9 + 19.1 11.72 9.19 11.18 Cement Plants 8 1,065 995 943 + 7.0> + 12.9 21.34 19.36 21.06 Commercial Printing______________________________ 27 510 521 518 -2.1 -1.5 23.26 24.21 24.75 Confectioneries___________________________________________________ 9 257 283 27& -9.2 -5.9 12.30 14.88 12.04 Cotton Compresses_____________________________________________________________ 7 690 646 812 + 6.8 -15.0 18.60 15.82 19.62 Cotton Oil Mills______________________________________ 13 388 509 473 -23.8 -18.0 16.06 13.64 15.75 Cotton Textile Mills________________ ________________________________________ 5 786 815 783· -3.6 + 0.4 10.05 9.30 10.71 Crude Petroleum Producin 19 636 591 523 + 7.6 + 21.6 28.34 26.69 28.06 Flour Mills-------------------------------------------------------------------------6 405 481 396 -15.8 + 2.3 18.40 17.51 18.32 Food Products___________________________________________________________________________ 10 3.U 303 310 + 2.6 + 0.3 18.50 16.03 18.35­ Forest Products___________________________________________________________________ 5 285 264. 282 + 8.0 + 1.1 16.14 14.50 15.30 Foundries, Machine Shops_____________________ 30 1,89£ 1,542 1,826 + 23.1 + 3.9 24.64 22.40 23.78 Furniture Manufacturing ----------------------7 433 431 411 + 0.5 + 5.4 17.38 16.26 17.32 Hotels ------------------------------------------26 1,633 1,578 1,563 + 3.5 + 4.5 11.28 11.65 11.77 Ice -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 599 675 582 -11.3 + 2.9 19.75 18.02 19.75 Insurance_________________________________________________________________________________ 6 66 65 66 + 1.5 0.0 25.17 25.38 25.14 Laundries, Dry Oeaning_______________________________ 17 806 700 791 + 15.l + 1.9 13.53 13.59 13.19 Meat Packing, Slaughtering_________________________ 7 804 859 827 -6.4 2.8 21.31 19.74 20.96 Men's Oothing Manufacturing_____________________ _________ 12 1,34.S 1,390 1,326 -3.2 + 1.4 10.12 11.76 10.16 Millwork ----------------------------------------------------15 468 388 445 + 20.6 + 5.2 18.74 17.58 Z0..63 Newspaper Publishing ------------------------------16 1,630 1,54·2 1,620 + 5.7 + 0.6 31.22 30.44 30.45 Paper Box Manufacturing__________________________________________________ 6 240 291 253· -17.5 5.1 16.23 15.08 15.96 Petroleum Refining ---------------------------33, 18,085 16,050 17,952 + 12.7 + 0.7 27.17 26.73 27.91 Power and Light Companies__________________________ 330 7,34·9 7,289 7,450· + 0.8 1.4 28.07 27.86 28.04 Quarrying --------------------------------16 684 572 536 + 19.6 + 27.6 15.57 21.14 15.71 Retail Stores ------------------------------------------------314 7,606 7,552 7,495 + 0.7 + 1.5 19'.81 18.69> 19.62 Saw Mills -----------------------------------------------10 1,803 1,722 1,814 + 4.7 0.6 13.82 11.4-0 14.36 Service-Business, Personal_____________________________________________________ 22 694 687 745 + 1.0 6.8 17.19 16.79 19.72 Steam Railroad Car Shops_______________________________________________________ 17 2,501 2,135 2,4..55 + 17.1 + 1.9 27.21 26.20 26.52 Structural lorn Works______________________________________________________________ 10 594 574 558 + 3.5 + 6.5 22.05 19.01 21.99 Wholesale Stores --------------------------------206 4,171 4,015 4,120> + 3.9 + 1.2. 26.34 25.20 25.90 Women's Clothing Manufacturing_____________________________ __________ 9 542 470 423· + 15.3 + 28.1 11.62 13.07 11.60 All Other Industries________________________________________________________ 100 2,866 2,626 2,734 + 9.1 + 4.8 19'.63 17.74 19.08 STATE -------------------------------------------------------1,355 63,337 59,612 62,420 + 6.2 + 1.5 $23.06 $22.18 $23.25 TOTAL WEEKLY PAY ROLLll ---------------------------------------$ 1,461 $ 1,322 $ 1,451 + 10.5 + 0.7 Jlln Thousands. NoTE: Prepared from reports from Texas industrial establishments to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.