4

BANKING STANDARDS

TABLE 18

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE FROM DISTRICT AVERAGE, 1019-1025, OF
RATIOS OF ToTAL DEPOSITS TO EARNING ASSETS FOR ALL MEM-BER
 BANKS, BY YEARS AND FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS

FEDERAL RESERVE
DISTRICTS

Boston. ..............
New York....... ...
Philadelphia. . ..
Cleveland. . .. 3
Richmond..... :
Atlanta. .......... ..
Chicago. .....ovnunenn
St. Louis. ............
finneapolis.........
{ansas City.....
Dallas. .......... ...
San Francisco. .........

PERCENTAGE

~r.oM DISTRICT AVERAGE, 1910-1925
1919 | 1020 i 1021 © 1022 ' 1023 ! 1924 | 103s

«
J
<

re

JT
- =
$a at
. of

~-3.6¢
40.58
+1.7¢
+x.00
4-0.8¢
497
BA

" 10
+0.19
+5.87
+4.6
4-4.03
“+4. 8

+ 5.24
+ 7.85
+ 7.18
+ 4.00
+ 7.01
+ 9.908
+ 8.77
+ 0.76
+ 9.63
+13.95
+13.67
4 8.00

Iy

Jy

The variation in the ratios of total deposits to earning assets,
as indicated by Table 17 and Chart 5, suggests the necessity of
further study in order to determine the norms and tendencies, if
any, in the ratios when the districts and the years are considered
separately. The first approach to this analysis is contained in
Table 18, which shows, for each district, the signs and the percentage
 differences of the ratios for the individual years from the
corresponding ratios for the period 1919-1925, inclusive.
Table 18 indicates that in 1919, 1920, and 1921, all districts?
were below, and in 1923, 1924, and 1925 all were above the levels
established by their respective averages for the seven-year period
1919-1925. In 1922, the ratios in five districts were high, while in
seven they were low. The relative consistency among the several
districts, with respect to position,
 is summarized in Table 19. TaBLE 19
If the seven-year average ratio
in each district is taken as a
standard by which to gauge
yearly district levels, then it is
apparent, generally, except for
the year 1922, that what is
true for one district is true
for them all. And yet there is
no mathematical reason why
2 Except Minneapolis, in 1919.