NORMS AND TRENDS IN DEPOSITS 67

former relating to the year-to-year changes in ratios of time deposits
 to total deposits, and the latter to ratios of demand deposits
to total deposits.
Table 47 shows consistency among the respective districts in
the direction of change characterizing the ratios of time deposits
to total deposits. Table 48 indicates as striking consistency in
the positions held by districts relative to the averages for the
country as a whole. Boston, New York, Kansas City, and Dallas,
 for the entire seven years, are below, while the remaining
districts (except Philadelphia, in 1920) are above the country’s
averages. If, as determined in this manner, districts are relatively
 low in one year, they are low throughout all of the years;
conversely, if they are high, they remain high. Such a condition
might be accounted for by the wide differences between the district
 ratios and those for the country, or by similarities of change
from year to year. It will be seen later that it is primarily due
to the uniformities of the rates of change. An explanation for
such similarity will be offered in due course.
The signs in Table 48 are, of course, the opposite of those in
Table 39. That is, those districts which have high or low ratios
of time deposits to total deposits have low or high ratios of demand
 deposits to total deposits, and vice versa.
Chart 14 graphically presents the ratios of time deposits to
total deposits for the respective years and districts. It is drawn

TABLE 48

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCES OF DISTRICT AVERAGES OF RATIOS OF
TiMe Deposits 10 ToraL Deposits For ALL MEMBER
BANKS, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, FROM AVERAGES
FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE

FepERAL
RESERVE
DISTRICTS

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

Average
1919-25)

=TI.7¢
~39.1(
Ls.1c
Lio.96
“5.71
11.10
r3o0.of
} 8.99
t50.80
—18.16
—45.27
F36.56

PERCENTAGE DIFFFRENCES *20M THE COUNTRY’ AVERAGES

—

1010

10320

1021

1022

1023

1024

1928

-..53
—53.72
+ 4.66
+46.14
+31.03
$19.67
60.3:
$rs5.c
+8» -
—-—46.5.

+13.18

6
LI
Zihas
~ x
+34. ]
be.

—+(.12
~46.46
+ 0.29
+27.01
kc6. 58
+s Ra

—~14.4
-~40.88
+ 3.82
430.58
+30.52
t14.52
19.44
+10.7-+53.

—16.84
—42.33
+38.8

-I11.7¢ — 6.66
—33.14 =—32.51
t 32.64 + 7.34
+126.57 +28.50
24.7 ‘aaz.01
L. Ray 4 8.af
Par,61  'eal3n
sot kgf
+45.87 +c 31
—19.04  =—1%. go
—43.28 —42.94
430.58 . +28.72

-— ©. 48
-31.62
+11.50
+129.33
424.17
+ 3.96
+18.14
+ 6.99
+34.80
—324.12
—43.70
+33.8%

“*
5¢
-. .28
+48.15%

2
"00
~r5.31
—44.17
+43.38