EXPENSES IN DISTRICTS I AND II 287 
groups, one in 1924 and one in 1925, the ratios increase with 
increasing earning assets. The amounts in Tables 161 and 162 
are averages; they do not disclose the variations of the ratios 
each year for (1) the entire district, (2) a given volume (earning 
assets) group, or (3) a given city-size group. Further presenta- 
tions with them in mind are, therefore, required. Table 163 serves 
this purpose. It shows the distribution of the ratios for the banks 
classified as to size of city of location and as to amounts of 
earning assets. Both parts of the table agree in indicating that 
the ratios vary and that the larger the city and the greater the 
amount of earning assets, the less the variation. Not only do 
these facts obtain for the combined years, but they hold also 
for the individual years for which data are available. Different 
as are the averages and the distributions of the ratios for the 
entire district and for the several groups of banks as classified, 
there are nevertheless clearly defined norms and trends char- 
acteristic of the years for banks in each of the groups and for 
the groups of banks for each of the years. These are of interest 
in themselves and in the manner in which they resemble similar 
norms and trends of the ratios for individual banks in District 
2, and for all member banks by districts. 
If the average ratio of total expense to earning assets for the 
banks in each city group and in each volume group for the period 
1922-1925 is taken as a standard, and if the percentage amounts 
by which the yearly ratios for the banks in each of the respective 
wroups deviate from this standard are determined, the details 
given in Table 164 are secured. This table shows that (1) the 
ratios for all banks, for those in each of the city groups, except 
one, and in each of the volume groups, were low in 1922; (2) 
they were low in 1923 for all banks and for those in all but three? 
of the city and volume groups; and (3) they were high through- 
out the various groups in 1924 and 1923, the only exceptions to 
the rule being the city group 120,000 and over, which was low 
in 1924, and the volume group $5,000,000 and over, which had 
he average ratio in each of the years. 
Consistency of this sort, obviously, is not due to the manner 
of making the comparison. Differences from averages are, of 
In one city group the ratio in 1923 was the same as that for the period 1922- 
102%, inclusive.