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 per- 
centage 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 down- 
ward 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