Working Paper No. 262

The 1966 Financial Crisis: A Case of Minskian Instability?
byL. Randall Wray
The Jerome Levy Economics InstituteThe so-called credit crunch of 1966 has long been recognized as the first significant postwar financial crisis,and one that required the first important intervention by the Federal Reserve Bank to prevent spread of a crisis.
Thus, the events of 1966 play a significant role in Hyman P. Minsky's analysis of the early postwar transition
from a "robust" financial system toward a "fragile" financial system. To some extent, 1966 proved to be thefirst verification of the "financial instability hypothesis" that Minsky had been developing since the late 1950s,
and the events of that year would stimulate further development of his thinking. Similarly, Martin Wolfson
begins his analysis of US financial crises with an examination of the 1966 crisis. However, in a recent paper,
Professor Dickens argues rather persuasively that during the three-quarters of a year that preceded the "credit
crunch" of 1966, there was an "intra-class" conflict over the direction of monetary policy, with the large New
York banks favoring a coordinated policy of higher interest rates but lower interest rate ceilings on time
deposits, while large regional banks preferred to retain the ceilings out of fear they would otherwise lose
deposits to the New York banks. (Dickens 1998) Professor Dickens goes on to argue that the tight money
policy was adopted as an alternative to incomes policy as a means of fighting inflation, representing a victory ofWall Street over the Administration (and, by implication, of "capital" over "labor") by confirming theindependence of the Federal Reserve Bank to place price stability over full employment as the top priority. He
concludes that the 1966 financial crisis did not result from rising financial fragility that increased susceptibility
to "shocks" such as higher interest rates, but rather from divergent class interests. Thus, according to Dickens,the 1966 crisis cannot be used as evidence in support of Minsky's financial instability hypothesis (FIH).
While some readers may not be convinced by Dickens's frequent and easy resort to attribution of beliefs,
desires, motivations, and conspiracies to "Wall Street", "New York Banks", "Regional Banks", and otherloosely defined characters involved in the story, I do not intend to critique his analysis of the events
surrounding August 17, 1966. However, I am troubled by the belief that this political economy story issomehow inconsistent with Minsky's financial instability hypothesis, or, more importantly, that Minsky's
analysis cannot be applied to the 1966 credit crunch. After all, Minsky had argued that "The crunch of 1966
was the first serious financial disruption of the postwar era". (Minsky 1986, p. 91) Thus, while I am reluctant
to get into debates about what Minsky really said or meant, I will use this opportunity to show that the events
surrounding the credit crunch of 1966 are indeed consistent with Minsky's analysis. I will also correct what I
take to be some errors regarding monetary theory and policy, in general, that are frequently made in analyses ofthe financial events of the early postwar period.
The Credit Crunch of 1966
Minsky argued that the "credit crunch" of 1966 was the first financial trauma since the 1930s that involved arun on a financial instrument or institution without a specific case of a failure or fraud. (Minsky 1986, p. 87)
According to Minsky, the long expansion of the 1960s progressed as spending by nonfinancial corporations
grew rapidly, fueled in part by external funds provided by banks. As he shows, net external funds as a percent
of purchased physical assets grew from less than 4% in 1961 to more than 20% by 1966. (Minsky 1986, p.
88) Worried about inflation, the Fed began to raise interest rates. The discount rate was raised from 4 percent
to 4.5 percent in December 1965 where it remained for the rest of 1966, however, the fed funds rate was raised
rapidly throughout the year, as Figure 1 shows. In addition, the Fed raised reserve requirements on time
deposits and lowered ceiling interest rates on small time deposits in July. The higher reserve requirements
would effectively raise the cost of making loans (since reserves are a non-earning asset), while the lower ceilingrates would force banks to turn to higher-cost, non-regulated sources of funds (by inducing"disintermediation"–see below). Finally, after April the Fed directed that reserve growth should be restricted
and tried to discourage discount window borrowing; Minsky reports that by July and August, the "window was
so tightly administered that there was no increase in borrowing by member banks, and the money-market
banks believed that the discount window was effectively closed to them." (Minsky 1986, p. 90) Leaving aside
the political economy analysis of the class conflicts, there appears to be no dispute over these matters:monetary policy was tightened significantly on the belief that banks could be pressured to reduce lending thatwas fueling the expansion.
The controversy is over the nature of the crisis. According to Dickens, the crisis was not caused by financial
instability. A very simple explanation of the financial instability approach to the 1966 crisis runs as follows.
The tight money policy raised market interest rates above regulated deposit rates so that banks could not retain
deposits; in order to continue to provide loans to nonfinancial firms, banks were forced to sell-off government
bonds, disrupting bond markets. The Fed was then forced to intervene, opening the discount window to banks
and easing monetary policy to save bond markets. Dickens disputes this account because, first, while the large
New York banks did lose time deposits, they were able to borrow in Eurodollar markets to offset the loss;
second, there was really no danger of a forced sell-off of bonds since banks had access to Eurodollars; andthird, Fed easing occurred after the crisis had abated. Thus, the 1966 crisis did not unfold in a mannerconsistent with Minsky's FIH.
However, this simple account of the crisis is not Minsky's. But before turning to Minsky's explanation, we
need to examine some monetary theory and policy issues.
Disintermediation, Asset Management, and Horizontal Leveraging
Far too much ink has already been spilled on disintermediation and the supposed move from asset
management to liability management in the early 1960s, which plays a role in the accounts of the 1966 crisis
provided by Dickens, Minsky, and Wolfson. It is worth the effort to try to dispel some myths.
First, it is critical to understand that bank deposits are liabilities; while this may seem too obvious to warrant
mention, casual discussion of bank operations often neglects to consider that a deposit makes a bank liable forsomething. For what is the bank liable? High powered money (HPM–reserves or cash). Deposits are simply a"horizontal" leveraging of HPM–a promise to deliver high powered money according to the contractual
agreement (on demand in the case of demand deposits, on a specific future date in the case of a time deposit).
Effectively, the bank is short HPM, betting it will be able to obtain the necessary HPM in a timely manner at a
not-too-prohibitive cost. Reserve requirements are simply minimum HPM balance requirements, much as
many readers are forced to maintain a thousand dollars in their checking accounts. These in no direct way
constrain the bank's ability to "make loans", although they raise the bank cost of shorting HPM (much ascompensating balance requirements raise the cost to a firm of taking out a bank loan–shorting bank money),thus, may increase the return that must be obtained on assets to make them desirable. When a bank fails tomeet the minimum HPM balance required, the Fed automatically books the "fail" as a loan of reserves (muchas "overdraft" facilities routinely protect depositors of UK banks; American depositors can usually purchaseoverdraft insurance). In any case, a bank "makes a loan", that is, purchases an asset, by "creating a deposit",that is, shorting HPM.
As deposits are liabilities, banks could care less about retaining them. However, when a check is written on ademand deposit, or when a maturing time deposit is not rolled-over, the bank is subject to a reserve, HPM,
clearing drain. Since banks do not keep significant excess HPM balances, a clearing drain will cause a bank tofall below minimum HPM balance requirements. An individual bank will thus try to "purchase" HPM balancesfrom the Fed, "borrow" fed funds, "sell" certificates of deposit, or "repo" government bonds to meet minimum
balance requirements. In the aggregate, the only "net" source of HPM is the government, either the treasury or
the central bank. When the treasury buys goods or services or provides transfer payments, it writes a check on
the Fed, which ends up as a bank deposit of HPM at the Fed; when the Fed buys assets (government bonds,
foreign currency, or commercial bank IOUs) it credits a bank deposit of HPM. In other words, any time thetreasury or central bank spends, HPM is created. On the other hand, tax payments destroy HPM as bankdeposits at the Fed are debited. Furthermore, treasury or central bank sales of government bonds also drainHPM, thus, reduce bank deposits at the Fed. The excess of government purchases over tax receipts (or "deficit
spending") generates an equivalent net injection of HPM.
All else equal, government deficit spending generates excess reserves (or, HPM deposits in excess of minimum
balance requirements); bond sales by the government thus are required to offer an interest-earning alternative to
non-interest-earning excess reserves. Over the very short run (e.g. a day or two), the central bank ensures thatthe banking system as a whole has just the right amount of HPM to meet minimum balance
requirements–mainly through open market sales and purchases of government bonds, although the discountwindow is also used–in order to maintain orderly overnight (fed funds) markets. In other words, regardless of
its announced policy, the central bank always chooses a short-term (overnight) interest rate target and thenensures that the quantity of reserves is just sufficient to allow banks to meet minimum balance requirements.
Over the longer run, it is primarily the treasury that supplies the right amount of bonds to drain excess reserves
from the system. The treasury and central bank develop complex, coordinated operating procedures to ensurethat the banking system is continuously supplied with the correct quantity of reserves. (See Bell 1998 andWray 1999.)
Previous to the development of the fed funds market (created in the mid 1950s, but maturing in the early
1960s), individual banks used government bond sales or purchases to adjust HPM balances. A sale of a bondby a bank to a bond dealer would result in an HPM debit of the dealer's bank's reserves and a credit to the
HPM reserves of the selling bank. Purchase of a bond would debit the bank's HPM reserves and lead to acredit of HPM to the bond dealer's bank. Thus, banks effectively used the bond dealers as "middlemen" toshift bank reserves from those with excessive balances to those who were deficient. Apparently this is what has
led to the widespread belief that banks "operated on assets", selling out bond positions in order to make loans.
With the development of the fed funds market, banks cut out the middlemen to market excess reserves, or,
HPM balances, directly. This transparency led many economists to believe that something of fundamental
importance had changed–that banks had "discovered" liability management, so that they would no longer needto sell bonds before making loans. While it is possible that many bankers may have believed themselves to be
subject to reserve constraints such that they would, indeed, need to sell assets to obtain the reserves supposedly
required to make loans, it is clear from balance sheet analysis that this was an imaginary constraint. Banks
always "operated on liabilities".
From the perspective of the bank, loans to customers generate long positions in IOUs; similarly, its holdings ofgovernment bonds are long positions in securities. A bank is not forced to liquidate its long position in bonds
in order to obtain a long position in IOUs. Rather, it simply needs to short HPM to go long in IOUs. There aremany factors which may go into determining the willingness of a bank to take long positions in IOUs andshort positions in HPM. Obviously, one of the most important factors is the existing differential between theinterest rate it expects to earn on the IOUs and the rate it must pay to short HPM (or, equivalently, to get
depositors to go long in "bank money"). However, the bank must also factor into the analysis other costs(minimum HPM balances that have to be maintained against some of its short positions; capital requirements
against its long positions–which reduces the return on capital). More importantly, because the short positionscommit the bank to delivering HPM in the future (for the most part, on uncertain dates), it must be concernedwith the future terms on which HPM can be obtained. This is why the expected course of interest rates will be(perhaps imperfectly) reflected in today's quotes. A "panic" or market break can occur when it is feared that
HPM may not be obtainable on reasonable terms in the future–in which case banks won't go short to take longpositions.
None of this should be interpreted to mean that the quantity of HPM acts as a constraint on bank ability tolend. When all is said and done, the Fed will supply exactly the quantity of reserves it requires banks to hold.
The question is over the conditions that will be placed on obtaining HPM: what will be the cost of"purchasing" HPM when reserves are needed, and what sorts of hoops will the Fed require a bank to jump
through to obtain them?
When the Fed began to raise interest rates in 1966, market rates were quickly pushed above Regulation Q
ceilings. Market savvy "depositors" liquidated their long positions in regulated deposits and searched for better
returns. This hurt the large New York banks relatively more than it would hurt, say, mid-western thrifts that
relied on small share accounts of mom-and-pop depositors. Deposits tended to "flow out" of New York banks

and into "Eurodollar" accounts of foreign banks, or, more simply, into accounts of foreign branches of US
banks. Note that the deposits do not really flow anywhere. At most, the nominal holder of the US bank deposit
merely shifts from a US household to a foreign commercial bank. In other words, there is no"disintermediation"–only the name of the account holder is changed from John Q. Public to Eurobank (and, inthe case of a transfer to a foreign branch of a US bank, not even the name changes). The foreign commercialbank then holds a long position in dollar deposits which is leveraged as the bank takes long positions in dollar
IOUs, matched by short positions in created dollar deposits.
The problem, then, was not that banks "lost" deposits, but that costs rose. Eurodollar deposits were not covered
by Reg Q (thus, raised costs) but did not require minimum HPM balance requirements (legally required
reserves) until 1969 (which offset some of the increased cost). In addition, banks innovated to provide
Americans with deposit accounts that circumvented Reg Q, but these, too, promised higher interest
rates–especially in comparison with zero-interest-earning checking accounts. Not only were costs higher, butthere was no way to know how high the Fed was going to push interest rates, and there was every indicationthat the Fed was going to erect more hoops for the banks to jump through. As Dickens indicates, fiscal policy
remained expansive and the administration's success at informal wage and price controls was questionable atbest. As a result, it was reasonable for "the market" to conclude that monetary policy, alone, would be
responsible for inflation-fighting, and that meant that interest rates could rise sharply higher. In such an
expectational environment, banks were reluctant to "short" HPM to go long in IOUs and securities. Somemight even have tried to liquidate some long positions in securities to continue to service valued customers(providing additional loans) without increasing short positions. However, while sales of bonds by an individualbank could increase its own deposits of HPM, this could not increase system-wide HPM deposits unless thesales were to the Fed.
Figure 2 shows that commercial bank holdings of US government securities remained at a level ofapproximately $60 billion from 1955 through 1969. In other words, there is no evidence of a general trend forbanks to "operate on assets", selling securities in order to make loans. There is a small cyclical component,
however: banks tended to buy government securities around the 1958 and 1960 recessions (shaded in the
figure)–probably because the demand for loans falls (and bank willingness to lend to the private sector
probably falls as well)–although the effect is not large (and in the case of the 1960 recession, is evident only
after the midpoint). Figure 2 also shows that there was a strong, long-term increase of bank holdings of state
government and municipal securities from 1961 through 1968. The only break of that trend occurs between thethird and fourth quarters of 1966–when bank holdings actually fell by almost half a billion dollars (see Table 1
for details). Note that bank holdings of US government securities also declined in 1966, falling rather sharply
from the first through the third quarters (see Table 1 for details).
This certainly seems consistent with the Wolfson (1994) story, according to which banks chose to continue toservice their customers rather than to buy government securities. As Table 1 shows, between the fourth quarterof 1965 and the third quarter of 1966, banks sold $6 billion of US government securities, in addition to the$440 million municipal securities sold between the third and fourth quarters of 1966. Banks also sold off$340 million of corporate and foreign bonds between mid 1965 and midyear 1966, adding further support tothe view that banks were trying to reduce securities while maintaining lending to customers. However, Dickens
is quite correct to argue that banks were not forced by disintermediation to sell bonds–banks did not lose any
deposits to disintermediation. In Figure 3, it is clear that commercial bank loans grew strongly over the entire
period, regardless of the relatively constant holdings of government bonds–there is no evidence that banks
sold-off bonds in order to make loans. Figure 4 adds the fed funds rate to the same picture, which indicatesthat tight money episodes reduce bank willingness to buy bonds–the fed funds rate spiked in 1957, 1960, 1966
and 1969, and in every case bank holdings of US government securities fell sharply. This probably has more
to do with the uncertainty generated by tight policy over the terms on which HPM can be obtained, as well aswith the unexpected capital losses that might accrue to bonds if the Fed should persist in interest rate hikes.
Thus, while banks do not have to sell bonds to make loans, during tight money periods they choose not toincrease bond holdings, and, indeed, reduce bond holdings by several billion dollars in such periods. In 1966,
this led to a disorganized municipal market that forced the Fed to intervene.
Minsky's FIH and the 1966 Crisis

According to Minsky, the US economy emerged from WWII with a "robust" financial system with apredominance of "hedge" financing. As Charts 1-3 show, bank balance sheets were flush with US government
securities–about 40% of total banking credit in 1955. This was a consequence of conservative financial
practices (due in part to supervision and regulation, but also to memories of the Great Depression and to"evolutionary" forces that had eliminated risk-lovers during the 1930s), of the tremendous government deficitsof WWII (and the consequent issue of government bonds), and of the lack of opportunity to lend to the private
sector (due to war-time controls, temporary nationalization of industry, and large household savings).
Gradually, as the private sector began to grow and as memories of the Great Crash receded, balance sheet
leveraging increased. Nonfinancial firms increased borrowing, committing larger portions of expected income
flows to debt service; financial firms, including banks, financed this activity by increasing the ratio of loans(and other riskier assets) to government securities. As is obvious from Chart 1, the major change to thecomposition of bank credit was the rapid, sustained decrease of the importance of US government securities
and the similarly rapid and sustained increase of the importance of loans. As Chart 3 shows, US government
securities fell to less than a fifth of bank credit by 1966; in contrast, bank loans (excluding mortgages andconsumer credit) rose rapidly from 24% of bank credit in 1955 to 33% by 1966. Financial innovations allowedbanks to increase HPM leverage ratios–that is, to issue more liabilities without increasing reserve requirements.
Furthermore, banks, especially, moved from reliance on relatively stable demand deposits (which, while payable
on demand are actually quite predictable) to greater reliance on time deposits (which, except for passbook
savings accounts, are unstable)–as Minsky shows, demand deposits made up approximately 70% of total bankliabilities in 1952, but this had already fallen to about 40% by 1966.
As discussed, fear of inflation led the Fed to increase interest rates over the course of the expansion; the fed
funds rate rose from less than 2% in 1961 to 5.75% in 1966, causing market rates to rise sharply (the six
month CD rate peaked at nearly 6.15% in mid 1966). While banks can always eventually adjust to higher rates,
rising rates reduce profitability because assets are generally longer-term than liabilities. This is particularly trueof thrifts–whose problem in 1966 was not so much that Reg Q limited the interest rate they could pay on
deposits but rather that they could not "afford" to pay market rates given their return on mortgage assets.
Similarly, as noted above, the problem faced by commercial banks was not "disintermediation" but rising costsof issuing liabilities and uncertainty regarding the future course of interest rates. Finally, while banks could
continue to provide loans to their customers, the loans required higher interest rates and thus required thatborrowers would devote ever-higher portions of expected income flows to debt service. Given all these factors,
but especially uncertainty over exactly how high the Fed would push interest rates, banks reduced their demand
for government bonds–including US treasuries as well as municipal bonds. By late August, the large New
York banks had withdrawn altogether from the municipal new issues market. (Minsky 1986, p. 89)
As Minsky argues "By the end of August, the disorganization in the municipals market, rumors about thesolvency and liquidity of savings institutions, and the frantic position-making efforts by money-market banks
generated what can be characterized as a controlled panic. The situation clearly called for Federal Reserve
action." (Minsky 1986, p. 90) There is no doubt that the Fed was concerned about a potential mass bankwithdrawal from the muni market. As Dickens, Minsky and Wolfson all note, the Fed sent a letter on
September 1 to all member banks emphasizing that "[f]urther substantial adjustment through bank liquidationof municipal securities or other investments would add to pressures on financial markets". (Quoted in Wolfson
1994, p. 38) Effectively, the Fed announced it would open the discount window to all banks that would
continue to hold muni bonds so long as they could show they were constraining business lending. As Dickens
notes, the muni market had begun to recover a day or two before this letter was sent, indicating to him that theletter was superfluous. However, this in no way proves that Fed intentions had nothing to do with thewillingness of bond dealers to take inventories of munis before the letter was sent. While we don't have the
Smoking Guns to indicate exactly what the Fed did in the days prior to posting the letter, Dickens's political
economy approach should suggest that it is highly unlikely that the Fed would have sent the letter without first
consulting with the large New York banks (who would have informed their bond dealers).
What we have, then, is a robust post-war expansion during which liquidity is stretched. Fearing inflation, theFed tightens monetary policy to the point at which profitability of at least some financial institutions isthreatened. Growing uncertainty causes a run out of a portion of the securities market. The Fed enters as lenderof last resort to stop the run, and within a few months, it is forced to loosen money policy. The financial crisis
is quickly relieved, although the conditions placed on the lender of last resort intervention (that is, thatborrowing banks must show they are attempting to reduce loans to private business) cause a sharp reduction of
investment ("gross private domestic investment decreased at an annual rate of 26 percent between the fourth
quarter of 1966 and the second quarter of 1967" (Minsky 1986, p. 90)). This was accompanied by a large
decline of the rate of growth of bank credit, which had been growing at about 8% per year from December
1965 through July 1966, but the rate of growth fell to 1.5% per year between July and December 1966.
(Minsky 1966, p. 89) However, a recession did not result because government spending more thancompensated for the fall of investment; "big government" maintained aggregate demand. Thus, as Minsky
always argued, the two most important roles for government ("big bank" intervention as lender of last resort,and "big government" spending to provide a floor to aggregate demand) came into play to stop the 1966
"crunch" from generating a recession. The economy continued to expand, new financial practices emerged andwere validated, leverage ratios increased, memories of the Great Depression faded, and markets came to expectthat big government and the Fed would come to the rescue as needed. The 1966 credit crunch was followed byextremely tight money policy at the end of the 1960s, then by the "liquidity squeeze" and commercial paper runof 1970, the bank failures of 1973-5, the silver crisis of 1980, the LDC debt crisis of 1982, the saving and loan
fiasco of the mid 1980s (and similar banking problems throughout the world), the 1987 stock market crash, thebond market crash of 1994, the Asian meltdown of 1997-?, the stock market crash (?) of 1998-9, the Russiandefault and hedge fund crisis of 1998, and the coming Great Crash of 1999 (or 2000?). Sounds downright
Minskian. That 1966 crisis was only a minor speedbump on the road to Minskian fragility.

References
Bell, Stephanie, 1998, "Can Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?", Working Paper #244, The
Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
Dickens, Edwin, 1998, "A Political-Economic Critique of Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis: The Caseof the 1966 Financial Crisis."
Minsky, Hyman P., 1986, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Ranlett, John G., 1977, Money and Banking, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wolfson, Martin H., 1994, Financial Crises: Understanding the Postwar U.S. Experience, second edition,
Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Wray, L. Randall, 1999, Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability,
Edward Elgar, Aldershot.

Figure 1: Federal Funds Rate and Interest Rates on Certificates of Deposit
Source: Federal Reserve BoardFigure 2: U.S. Commercial Bank Government Debt: 1955 - 1970

Figure 3: Commercial Bank Loans and Holdings of Government Debt

Figure 4: Commercial Bank Holdings of Government Debt and the Federal Funds Rate

Chart 1: The Composition of Commercial Banking Credit

Chart 2: The Composition of Commercial Banking Credit

Chart 3: The Composition of Commercial Banking Credit

Table 1: Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Data

U.S.
Other Municipal Corporate
DATE Government
and
Other
Agency Securities Foreign(yr/qtr) Securities Treasury Agency Securities
Bonds
Bonds
6401
65.64
61.50
4.14
4.14
30.76
1.22
1.22
6402
63.66
59.32
4.34
4.34
31.42
1.30
1.30
6403
65.02
60.71
4.31
4.31
32.68
1.28
1.28
6404
68.20
62.99
5.21
5.21
33.53
1.26
1.26
6501
64.38
59.04
5.34
5.34
34.89
1.32
1.32
6502
62.07
56.85
5.22
5.22
36.54
1.37
1.37
6503
61.31
55.93
5.38
5.38
37.89
1.24
1.24
6504
65.34
59.55
5.79
5.79
38.66
1.12
1.12
6601
61.36
55.43
5.93
5.93
39.61
1.03
1.03
6602
60.06
53.50
6.55
6.55
40.61
1.03
1.03
6603
59.34
53.61
5.73
5.73
41.44
1.08
1.08
6604
62.26
56.16
6.09
6.09
41.00
1.13
1.13
6701
64.48
57.83
6.65
6.65
43.40
1.41
1.41
6702
61.84
54.23
7.61
7.61
46.87
1.61
1.61
6703
68.04
60.09
7.95
7.95
48.05
1.78
1.78
6704
71.60
62.47
9.13
9.13
50.01
1.87
1.87
6801
70.63
61.20
9.43
9.43
51.33
1.92
1.92
6802
67.93
58.60
9.33
9.33
52.63
1.98
1.98
6803
72.27
62.54
9.73
9.73
55.44
2.03
2.03
6804
74.89
64.47
10.43
10.43
58.57
2.13
2.13
6901
68.61
58.51
10.10
10.10
58.76
2.15
2.15
6902
64.19
54.04
10.14
10.14
60.08
1.72
1.72
6903
62.53
53.20
9.33
9.33
59.72
1.65
1.65
6904
64.80
54.71
10.09
10.09
59.18
1.59
1.59

Total
168.62165.68169.59177.66
171.63168.64168.37177.37170.32
169.33168.01173.86181.13181.52
195.64206.08205.86201.78213.77223.05210.38202.03
197.41202.05