NORMS AND TRENDS IN DEPOSITS

J3

TABLE 39

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCES OF DISTRICT AVERAGES OF RATIOS OF
DEMAND Deposits 10 ToraL DEPOSITS FOR ALL MEMBER
Banks, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, FROM AVERAGES
FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE
PERCENTAGE DrrrerENCFe ¥roM THE COUNTRV'e AVERAGES

FEDERAL
RESERVE
DISTRICTS

Boston. . ....
New York. .
Philadelphia.
Cleveland. ...
Richmond. . .
Atlanta.....
Chicago. . ..
St. Louis. . .
Minneapolis.
Kansas City.
Dallas. .....
San Francisce

Average
1010-25)

+ 6. 7¢
+19.0/
— 2.4¢
—15.06
—12.50
~ F.31

+
+:
-Y7.%¢

1010

8f
+7.
. 58
Ud

1020

+10.0¢
+:7.9¢
+ =-&

1021

+ 8.2:
+21 2
— 0.1
—r2.8:
— ~~ ns

Tw
~10.04

1022

+ 7.10
420.31
— 90
—_—r xr

—- 10. 2t

1023

+ 6.40
+17.99
= 44
a

—106.60

© 1024

o7
+ Ss. 2
baf.04
-

T-4-4
-316.82

3925

+ 2.30
+rr.0%
- oe
fa
7

vod
-20. 40

in Table 38, it is also of interest to know that the average net percentage
 decline for ratios above their district seven-year averages
is more than three times as large as is the average net percentage
decline for ratios below these standard levels. That is, the downward
 change is larger for ratios which are high than it is for those
which are low, in spite of the fact that, in the nature of the case,
percentage changes are larger
when computed on small than
when computed on large bases.
Table 34 shows that the
percentages of demand deposits
to total deposits vary widely
in the different districts. It is
not apparent from this table,
however, by what amounts the
respective ratios differ from
district to district, nor by
what amounts the respective
district averages deviate from
those for the country. The
latter facts are summarized in
Table 39, the differences being
expressed in percentages. Even
a casual inspection of this table