SERIES CORRELATED WITH DEPOSITS 205 
TABLE 126 
NET PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCES FROM DISTRICT LEVELS FOR RATIOS 
CORRELATED WITH CORRESPONDING DIFFERENCES IN RATIOS 
oF TIME Deposits To ToTAL DEPOSITS AND OF 
INVESTMENTS TO EARNING ASSETS, 1910-1925 
NET PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCES FROM 
DistrIiCcT LEVELS 
RaTI0S: 
Time Deposits 
to 
Total Deposits 
Above 
District Levels 
Below 
District Levels 
Average 
RATIOS: 
Investments 
to 
Earning Assets 
\verage..... “ 
Above District 
Levels. .... 
3elow District! 
Tevels. . 
\verage...... 
Above District 
Levels. .... 
Below District 
Levels... .. 
\verage...... 
Above District 
Levels...... 
Below District] 
Levels... ... 
Number 
of 
District-| 
Years 
x 
20 
< 
RarTIO0S! 
Gross Earnings 
to 
Earning Assets 
+0. 87 
—1 8% 
+4.48 
— 
—6.01 
Ia 86 
0.04 
-3-34 
+2 77 
Ratios: 
Total Expense 
to 
Earning Assets 
+2. ¢c2 
+0.34 
+c a1 
—4.44 
~-0.097 
40.77 
—0.421 
—3.33 
+3.39 
RaTIOS: 
Net Earnings 
to 
Earning Assets 
—2. 80 
—-7.06 
L + ¢K 
+6.53 
+4.63 
+8.33 
+o0.39 
-—1.48 
+4.8¢ 
ings and on total expense may be measured by methods other 
than those which relate to the respective positions of the series 
above or below their several district average levels. Ratios of 
time deposits, as of other series, whether high or low, change 
[rom year to year. Are such changes, in each of a number of 
series, functions of similar changes in time deposits? The an- 
swer to this question is found in the detail of Table 12%, from 
which it is evident that functional relationships obtain. More- 
over, these are of the same kind as those observed when the 
deviations of the respective series from district types were cor- 
related 20 
The relations between ratios of time deposits to total deposits 
and of total expense to gross earnings, summarized in Table 121 
for district differences, and in Table 127 for year-to-year changes, 
are graphically illustrated in Chart 45. This chart, drawn ac- 
cording to the method described on page 154, shows in general 
that (1) relative to the respective district averages, the two 
series of ratios were similarly placed at the same time, and (2) 
20 See Table 121, page 108.