NORMS AND TRENDS IN EXPENSES 125
and 1924, showing this to be true. That is, years in which the
amounts were high or low were substantially the same in all
districts.
2. The yearly district amounts were below the yearly levels for
the country during the full seven years in Boston, New York, and
Philadelphia; they were above these levels during all of the years
in Atlanta, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and
San Francisco. In the other three districts (Cleveland, Rich-
mond, and Chicago) the amounts were at times above and at times
below the yearly levels. That is, in all but three districts the
positions of the amounts relative to the country averages were
either positive or negative during the seven years. This condi-
tion is not surprising for such districts as Atlanta and Dallas, for
instance, in which the amounts differ widely from those charac-
terizing the country as a unit, but it is interesting in the case of
St. Louis. where differences are small.
Trends
I. For the country as a whole, the trend of “other” expenses
in relation to earning assets was upward when the entire period
of seven years is considered. It was markedly so between 1919
and 1921, the rate being accelerated between 1920 and 1921.
Following 1921, the trend is downward for one year, then essen-
tially horizontal—no change—then upward between 1923 and
1924, and then downward at approximately the same rate as be-
tween 1921 and 1922.
2. The movement and rate of change for the country as a
whole are generally followed in Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Atlanta, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Dallas. They are deviated
from in Cleveland, Richmond, Chicago, Minneapolis, and San
Francisco, the characteristic rise from 1919 to 1921 and the fall
from 1921 to 1925 being uncertain in Cleveland and Richmond,
and differently timed in Chicago, Minneapolis, and San Francisco.
Yet here, as in the case of the other items of expense, there are
similarities among the different districts in the changes from year
to year and over the whole term of years. These are the rule
rather than the exception; they point to the presence of common
problems or common methods of meeting them in the discharge of
banking functions by the banks in the different districts.
