NORMS AND TRENDS IN EXPENSES 113
trends, but these will be more readily seen by consulting Chart 25.
Summarized, they are as follows:
Norms
1. The amounts in all districts in 1919, 1920, and 1921 are
below, in 1923, 1924, and 1925 above, and in 1922 predominantly
above, the respective seven-year district averages. That is, years
which are low or high in one district are low or high in others.
To this general rule, the exceptions—four in number and oc-
curring in 1922—do not relate to any one geographical area.
2. The amounts in Districts 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 (Philadelphia,
Richmond, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas) are below the country’s
average, while those in Districts 4, 9, and 10 (Cleveland, Minne-
apolis, and Kansas City) are above this level for each of the seven
years. Those in the other districts are at times above and at
times below the country average. It is of interest to note, how-
ever, that “high” or “low” districts are not generally contiguous,
and that for contiguous districts the amounts which are continu-
ally above or below the country average for the seven years do
not show similar dispersion.
Trends
1. For the country as a whole, and almost without exception
for the separate districts, the trend of interest on deposits, ex-
pressed in units of earning assets, was upward from 1919 to
1925. For the twelve districts combined, and in eight of the
twelve districts separately, there was a slight downward trend
between 1919 and 1920, but this was interrupted in 1920, so that
for the balance of the period all but five of the year-to-year
changes were upward, the exceptions being those in Boston and
New York in 1923 as compared with 1922, Dallas in 1924 as
compared with 1923, and New York and Minneapolis in 1925 as
compared with 1924.
2. For all districts combined, and almost without exception in
each of the separate districts, the upward trend was greatest be-
tween 1920 and 1922. Moreover, it was generally least between
1922 and 1923, although to this generalization the 11.63% in-
crease for Dallas and the 3.92% decrease for New York are con-
spicuous exceptions.
