ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

1972

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A preliminary report, highlighting the Corporation's operations 

during 1972, was published and submitted to the Congress on 

March 30, 1973.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LETTER OF T R A N S M I T T A L

F E D E R A L DEPOSIT IN S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T IO N

W ashington, D.C., July 20, 1973

SIRS: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 17(a) of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is pleased to submit 

its annual report for the calendar year 1972.

Respectfully yours,

FRANK WILLE

Chairman

TH E P R ES ID E N T OF TH E S EN A TE

TH E S PEAKER OF TH E HOUSE OF R E P R E S E N T A T IV E S

III

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chairm an............................................................................Frank Wille

D ire c to r................................................................. Irvine H. Sprague*

Comptroller o f the C urrency.................................William B. Camp*

OFFICIALS

Assistant to the Chairman .....................................Robert E. Barnett

Assistant to the Director ..............................................Alan R. Miller

Assistant to the Director .....................................Albert J. Faulstich

(Comptroller o f the Currency)

General Counsel (A ctin g )......................................... Reford J. Wedel

Director, Division of Bank Supervision................. Edward J. Roddy

Chief, Division o f Liquidation ...................................John J. Slocum

Director, Division o f Research................................ Paul M. Horvitz

Controller...........................................................Edward F. Phelps, Jr.

Director, Office of Management

Systems and Financial A u d its..........................Robert E. Barnett

Secretary ........................................................................E. F. Downey

Special Assistant to the Chairman ..........................Paul M. Rooney

Executive Assistant to the B o a rd............... Timothy J. Reardon, Jr.

December 31, 1972

*M r. Sprague resigned fro m the Board of Directors, effective February 15, 1973; Mr. 

Camp resigned as C om p troller of the Currency, effective March 23, 1973.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONS

REGIONAL DIRECTORS

Atlanta

Lewis C. Beasley

2 Peachtree St., N.W., Suite 3030 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Boston

Mark J. Laverick 

2 Center Plaza, Room 810 

Boston, Massachusetts 02108 

Chicago

John J. Early

164 West Jackson Blvd., Rm. 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Columbus

John R. Curtis

37 West Broad Street, Suite 600 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Dallas

Quinton Thompson 

300 North Ervay Street,Suite 3300 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Madison

Bernard J. McKeon 

110 E. Main Street, Room 715 

Madison, Wisconsin 53703 

Memphis

Roy E. Jackson

165 Madison Avenue, Suite 1010 

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Minneapolis

Roger B. West

109 South 7th Street, Suite 710 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 

New York

Claude C. Phillippe 

345 Park Avenue, 21st Floor 

New York, New York 10022 

Omaha

Burton L. Blasingame 

1700 Farnam Street, Suite 1200 

Omaha, Nebraska 68102 

Philadelphia

Charles E. Doster 

5 Penn Center Plaza, Suite 2901 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 

Richmond

James A. Davis 

908 E. Main Street, Suite 435 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

St. Louis

Robert V. Shumway 

720 Olive Street, Suite 2909 

St. Louis, Missouri 63101 

San Francisco

Walter W. Smith

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3600 

San Francisco, California 94104

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

M a i n O f f i c e : 550 1 7t h S t r e e t , N. W., W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. 2 0 4 29

Digitized for FRASER 

VI

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONTENTS

Banking offices— bank performance— 1972................................. xi

Deposit insurance participation and coverage............................ xii

PART ONE 

OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION

Deposit insurance disbursements................................................ 3

Supervisory activities.................................................................... 6

Administration of the Corporation.............................................. 21

Finances of the Corporation......................................................... 23

PART TWO

MERGER DECISIONS OF THE CORPORATION

Bank absorptions approved by the Corporation........................ 39

Bank absorptions denied by the C orporation............................ 180

PART THREE 

LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS

Federal legislation (summary)— 1972 ......................................... 209

Rules and regulations of the Corporation (summary)— 1972 .. . 209

PART FOUR

STATISTICS OF BANKS AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE

Number of banks and branches .................................................. 216

Assets and liabilities of banks.......................................................237

Income of insured banks .............................................................259

Banks closed because of financial difficulties;

deposit insurance disbursements..............................................275

VII

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TABLES

DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS:

1. Protection of depositors of insured banks requiring disbursements by

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1934-1972 ................. 4

2. Analysis of disbursements, recoveries, and losses in deposit insurance

transactions, January 1, 1934-December 31, 1972 .......................... 5

SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES:

3. Bank examination activities of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1971 and 1972 ........................................................................ 9

4. Cease-and-desist orders and actions to correct specific unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law or regulations, 1972 ............... 10

5. Actions to terminate insured status of banks charged with unsafe or

unsound banking practices or violations of law or regulations,

1936-1972 ............................................................................................. 11

6. Mergers, consolidations, acquisitions of assets and assumptions of

liabilities approved under section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act during 1972 ................................................................. 16

7. Approvals under section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act

during 1972— banks grouped by size and in States according to 

status of branch banking...................................................................... 17

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CORPORATION:

8. Number of officers and employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, December 31, 1971 and 1972 ..................................... 22

FINANCES OF THE CORPORATION:

9. Statement of financial condition, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, December 31, 1972 .................................................................... 23

10. Statement of income and the deposit insurance fund, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, year ended December 31, 1972 ................. 24

11. Determination and distribution of net assessment income, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, year ended December 31, 1972 . . . 26

12. Sources and application of funds, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, year ended December 31, 1972 ................................................ 26

13. Income and expenses, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, by

year, from beginning of operations, September 11, 1933, to 

December 31, 1972, adjusted to December 31, 1972 ...................... 28

14. Insured deposits and the deposit insurance fund, 1934-1972 ............... 30

V III

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES:

Explanatory note ..............................................................................................216

101. Changes in number and classification of banks and branches in the

United States (States and other areas) during 1972 ........................ 218

102. Changes in number of commercial banks and branches in the United

States (States and other areas) during 1972, by S ta te ....................220

103. Number of banking offices in the United States (States and other

areas), December 31, 1972

Grouped according to insurance status and class o f bank, and

by State or area and type o f o ffic e .................................................. 222

104. Number and deposits of all commercial and mutual savings banks

(States and other areas), December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by class and deposit siz e ...................................231

105. Number and deposits of all commercial banks in the United States

(States and other areas), December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by size o f bank and State .................................232

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF BANKS:

Explanatory note ..............................................................................................237

106. Assets and liabilities of all commercial banks in the United States

(States and other areas), June 30, 1972

Banks grouped by insurance status and class o f bank .............239

107. Assets and liabilities of all commercial banks in the United States

(States and other areas), December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by insurance status and class o f bank .............243

108. Assets and liabilities of all mutual savings banks in the United States

(States and other areas), June 30, 1972, and December 31, 1972 

Banks grouped by insurance sta tu s ............................................247

109. Assets and liabilities of insured commercial banks in the United

States (States and other areas), December call dates, 1962, 1968- 

1972 .................................................................................................. 249

110. Assets and liabilities of insured mutual savings banks in the United

States (States and other areas), December call dates, 1962, 1968- 

1972 .................................................................................................. 252

111. Percentages of assets and liabilities of insured commercial banks

operating throughout 1972 in the United States (States and other 

areas), December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by amount of deposits ..................................... 254

112. Percentages of assets and liabilities of insured mutual savings banks

operating throughout 1972 in the United States (States and other 

areas), December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by amount o f deposits ..................................... 255

113. Distribution of insured commercial banks in the United States

(States and other areas), December 31, 1972

Banks grouped according to amount o f deposits and by ratios

o f selected items to assets or deposits..............................................256

IX

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INCOME OF INSURED BANKS:

Explanatory note ..............................................................................................260

114. Income of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and

other areas), 1964-1972 .................................................................... 262

115. Ratios of income of insured commercial banks in the United States

(States and other areas), 1964-1972 ................................................ 264

116. Income of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and

other areas), 1972

Banks grouped by class o f bank ................................................265

117. Income of insured commercial banks operating throughout 1972 in

the United States (States and other areas)

Banks grouped by amount of deposits ..................................... 267

118. Ratios of income of insured commercial banks operating throughout

1972 in the United States (States and other areas)

Banks grouped according to amount o f deposits......................269

119. Income of insured mutual savings banks in the United States (States

and other areas), 1968-1972 ............................................................. 271

120. Ratios of income of insured mutual savings banks in United States

(States and other areas), 1968-1972 ................................................ 273

BANKS CLOSED BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES;

DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS:

Explanatory note ..............................................................................................276

121. Number and deposits of banks closed because of financial difficulties,

1934-1972 ......................................................................................... 277

122. Insured banks requiring disbursements by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during 1972 .........................................................278

123. Depositors, deposits, and disbursements in insured banks requiring

disbursements by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

1934-1972

Banks grouped by class o f bank, year o f deposit payoff or

deposit assumption, amount o f deposits, and State........................279

124. Recoveries and losses by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

on principal disbursements for protection of depositors, 1934- 

1972 .................................................................................................... 282

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANKING OFFICES— BANK PERFORMANCE— 1972

On December 31, 1972, there were 13,950 commercial banks 

and 486 mutual savings banks in operation in the United States. 

During the year, the number of commercial banks increased by 118, 

the largest annual net gain since 1964. Commercial bank branches 

established during 1972 totaled approximately 1,500, about the 

same number as in 1971.

Commercial banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation increased by 121 during 1972, to a total of 13,733. 

The number of national banks rose by 14, while State member 

banks of the Federal Reserve System declined by 36, and insured 

nonmember commercial banks increased by 143. Of 245 commercial banks that were established during the year, 167 were organized 

as insured nonmember banks, while 68 nonmember banks were 

eliminated through mergers. An additional net gain of 40 insured 

nonmember banks resulted from insured banks changing their 

supervisory classification, mainly by conversion from State member 

to insured nonmember status. Banks insured by the Corporation on 

December 31, 1972, included 326 mutual savings banks.

Additional details of changes in numbers of banks and branches 

during 1972 are contained in tables 101-103 of this report.

Insured commercial banks experienced record deposit increases 

in 1972. The deposit increase of almost $78 billion (14.4 percent) 

was well distributed among all major deposit categories. Although 

market interest rates rose throughout most of 1972, levels attained 

did not inhibit growth of time and savings deposits, and as 9 result, 

insured commercial banks experienced substantial gains in savings 

deposits, consumer certificates of deposit (CDs), and large-denomination negotiable CDs. At the same time, monetary authorities 

made sufficient reserves available to enable such banks to post substantial gains in demand deposits. The large deposit increases enabled insured commercial banks to finance sizeable loan increases 

while still adding significantly (by 8.6 percent) to total investments. 

While the loan increases were large in all major categories, percentage gains were considerably greater in real estate and consumer 

loans than in commercial and industrial loans.

Because average rates earned on loans and investments were 

somewhat lower in 1972, compared to 1971, the gain in operating 

revenue by insured commercial banks was considerably less than the 

percentage gain in total assets. (The figures are also somewhat 

affected by the fact that the December-to-December asset change of 

$97 billion overstates the increase in average assets outstanding 

between 1971 and 1972.) Total operating revenue of insured 

commercial banks increased by 10.7 percent in 1972, and net current operating earnings after taxes increased by 10.3 percent. 

Because security gains were somewhat less in 1972 than in 1971,

X I

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

the year-to-year gain in net income was somewhat lower (8.0 percent). Thus, while insured commercial banks experienced a sizeable 

gain in earnings in 1972, the ratio of earnings to average outstanding assets was down slightly from the relatively high levels of the 

past few years. The ratio of net income to equity capital (12.25 

percent in 1972) declined by 14 basis points from the 1971 level.

Deposits of all mutual savings banks increased by $10.2 billion 

(12.5 percent) in 1972, compared to a $9.9 billion (13.7 percent) 

increase in 1971. The 1972 increase was the largest dollar gain 

experienced by savings banks in a single calendar year, and it 

occurred despite the fact that financial market conditions tightened 

and short-term interest rates increased. Toward the end of the year 

these conditions were contributing to a slower increase in savings 

inflows into mutual savings banks. A large share of the increased 

funds available to savings banks went into securities which increased 

by 21.1 percent. State, county, and municipal obligations more 

than doubled as increased tax rates on mutual savings banks heightened the attractiveness of such tax-free investments. A t the same 

time, real estate loans increased by 9 percent, somewhat slower 

than the percentage rise in deposits. The fact that yields on highquality money market instruments rose faster than mortgage rates 

undoubtedly contributed to the heavy emphasis on securities by 

savings banks.

During 1972, savings banks were able to invest their new funds in 

assets with a gross yield substantially higher than the average rates 

of interest paid on deposits. The ratio of current operating income 

to average total assets for insured mutual savings banks increased by 

21 basis points, to 5.57 percent, in 1972. Average interest payments 

on time and savings deposits increased to 5.22 percent in 1972, 

from 5.12 percent in 1971, as more banks began offering time 

deposits as well as regular savings accounts. Even after deduction 

for the larger tax liability, net income to total assets was 0.58 

percent in 1972, about 11 basis points above the comparable figure 

in 1971 and 33 basis points above that in 1970.

DEPOSIT INSURANCE PARTICIPATION AND COVERAGE

Incorporated banks and trust companies that are engaged in the 

business of receiving deposits may participate in Federal deposit 

insurance. On December 31, 1972, 98.4 percent of all commercial 

banks in the United States, and over two-thirds of all mutual savings 

banks, participated in Federal deposit insurance. Of 217 noninsured 

commercial banks (including nondeposit trust companies) in operation, one or more operated in each of 39 States, and 10 or more 

were in each of five States. All except one of the noninsured mutual

X I I

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPOSIT INSURANCE PARTICIPATION AND COVERAGE

savings banks were located in Massachusetts and were covered by 

that State's deposit insurance program.

Effective December 23, 1969, by amendment to the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, the maximum amount of insurance available 

to each depositor on accounts held in the same right and capacity in 

each insured bank was raised from $15,000 to $20,000. A survey of 

deposits conducted by the Corporation on June 30, 1972 (see also 

p. 30) showed that, in all insured banks, deposits totaling $633.2 

billion were held in 244.5 million deposit accounts. Of these accounts, 98.7 percent contained balances of $20,000 or less, and 

thus were fully protected by Federal deposit insurance (see Chart 

A). In all insured banks, insured deposits amounted to 60.9 percent 

of total deposits, for insured commercial banks the comparable 

figure was 56.3 percent, and for FDIC-insured mutual savings banks 

it was 94.4 percent.

The size structure of the various types of deposit accounts in 

commercial banks is shown in Chart B. Nearly 81 percent of savings 

deposits, but only 43 percent of the demand deposits of individuals, 

partnerships, and corporations, were held in accounts of $20,000 or

X I I I

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

less. In contrast, approximately 38 percent of the deposits in I PC 

demand accounts were held in accounts of $ 100,000 or more, as 

compared to about 30 percent of other IPC time accounts. Nearly 

84 percent of the deposits in accounts of States and political subdivisions, and an almost equal percentage in "all other" accounts, 

were in accounts of $100,000 or more. Higher proportions of deposits in large accounts to total deposits in some categories compared to mid-1970 appear to reflect importantly the substantial 

increases that occurred during the 2-year interval in large negotiable 

certificates of deposit outstanding.

Differences in the size structure of accounts are reflected in substantial differences in the proportions of deposits protected by Federal deposit insurance, shown in Chart C. The highest proportion of 

insured to total deposits was the 91.6 percentage applicable to savings deposits. This high degree of protection was reflected also in 

the fact that insured savings deposits accounted for nearly 43 percent of total insured deposits. In the case of IPC demand deposit 

accounts, 54.7 percent of the deposits were covered. Only 12 percent of the deposits of States and local governments were insured; 

however, these deposits are frequently protected by the posting of 

collateral, in addition to the coverage of Federal deposit insurance.

X IV

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPOSIT INSURANCE PARTICIPATION AND COVERAGE

C hart C

INSURANCE OF DEPOSITS BY TYPE OF ACCOUNT

A ll Insured Banks, June 3 0 , 1972

Type of Account

D em and, IP C

S a v in g s

O th er T im e , IP C

S t a te s and

P o litica l

Su b d iv isio n s

A ll o th e r4

I

Insured deposits 

S': Noninsured deposits

* Includes drafts, uninvested trust funds, U.S. Gov't, and interbank deposits.

Deposits (Billions of dollars)

XV

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION

PART ONE

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS

Protection of depositors in failing banks. The principal methods 

that have been used by the Corporation to protect depositors in 

failing insured banks are directly paying off insured deposits, and 

assisting in the absorption of failing institutions by other banks. In 

the latter case, all deposits are made available in full immediately 

upon transfer of the accounts to the absorbing bank, subject to any 

time requirements applicable to the original deposit contract.

In deposit payoff cases, upon notification by the chartering authority that an insured bank has been closed, the Corporation sends 

its claim agents at the bank to begin preparations for the payment of 

insured deposits. On the basis of claims presented by depositors and 

the records of the bank, the total amount of deposits held in the 

same right and capacity by each depositor is determined. From this 

total, any matured debt owed by the depositor to the bank may be 

deducted, and the net amount is paid by the Corporation, subject 

to the maximum insurance per depositor established by law. In 

recent years, payment of insured deposits has usually begun within 

5 to 7 days following the closure of the bank.

Section 13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act authorizes 

the Corporation to assist financially in the absorption of an insured 

bank in financial difficulty by another insured bank whenever, in 

the judgement of the Corporation's Board of Directors, it will reduce the risk or avert a threatened loss to the Corporation. This 

assistance may take the form of the purchase of assets or the granting of a loan secured by the assets of the distressed bank. In addition, the Corporation is authorized to guarantee an insured bank 

against loss by reason of its assuming the liabilities and taking over 

the assets of another insured bank.

Bank failing in 1972 — liquidation activities. The Corporation 

disbursed funds to protect depositors in one bank— Surety Bank and 

Trust Company, Wakefield, Massachusetts— which failed in 1972. 

The single case was the lowest number of failures in any calendar 

year since 1962. Involved in the bank's financial difficulties were 

severe loan losses and a large embezzlement. Surety Bank closed on 

May 19, 1972 (see table 122), and payment of insured deposits 

began on May 27. The bank had 23,650 depositors or accounts 

(adjusted to December 31, 1972), and 23,566 of these had received 

payment of their deposits, or had them made available, in full. 

Total deposits were $20.5 million, and by the end of the year 

$17.4 million had been recovered by depositors. The Corporation 

disbursed $16.1 million (including estimates of any disbursements 

after December 31, 1972) in settling depositors' claims and, as liquidating agent, is liquidating the assets of the bank.

Section 11 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act provides that 

the Corporation shall be appointed receiver for all national banks

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

that are placed in receivership, and shall accept appointment as 

receiver for closed State banks when such appointment is authorized by State law and is tendered by the State authorities. The 

Corporation's Division of Liquidation is responsible to the Board of 

Directors for the liquidation of the assets of closed insured banks as 

well as for the liquidation of assets acquired when Corporation 

funds are provided to facilitate the assumption of deposits in a 

failing bank. At the end of 1972, the Division of Liquidation was 

handling 56 liquidation cases. During the year it was able to effect 

collection of $98 million on assets of closed banks held by the 

Corporation either directly or as receiver.

Since 1934, there have been 496 failures of insured banks requiring the Corporation's disbursements (table 1). In 294 cases, the 

banks were closed and their assets liquidated; in 202 cases, the 

failing banks were absorbed by, or merged into, other insured banks 

with the Corporation's financial assistance. As of December 31,

Table 1. PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF INSURED BANKS REQUIRING 

DISBURSEMENTS BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

1934-1972

Item

All cases 

(496 banks)

Percent

Deposit 

payoff cases 

(294 banks)

Deposit 

assumption cases 

(202 banks)

amount

Number of depositors or accounts-total1...............

Full recovery received or available......................

From FDIC2 ..................................................

From offset4 ..................................................

From security or preference5 .......................

From asset liquidation6 ................................

Full recovery not received as of December 31,

1 9 7 2 ................................................................

Terminated cases...........................................

Active cases....................................................

Amount of deposits (in thousands)-totai ............

Paid or made available............................................

By FDIC2.........................................................

By offset8. ......................................................

By security or preference9 ...........................

By asset liquidation10. ..................................

Not paid as of December 31,1972 ...................

Terminated cases...........................................

Active cases11 ...............................................

1,799,571

1,792,366

1,745,723

40,703

3,047

2,893

7,205

3,412

3,793

$ 1 ,083,84312

1,059,116

971,040

18,532

34,109

35,435

2 4 ,72712

2,355

22,372

100.0

99.6

97.0

2.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

100.0

97.7

89.6

1.7

3.1

3.3

2.3

.2

2.1

584,162

576,957

530,3143 

40,703 

3,047 

2,893

7,205

3,412

3,793

$381,069

356,342

268,2667 

18,532 

34,109 

35,435

24,727

2,355

22,372

100.0

98.8

90.8 

7.0

.5

.5

1.2

.6

.6

100.0

93.5

70.4

4.9

8.9 

9.3

6.5

.6

5.9

1.215.409

1.215.409

1.215.409

100.0

100.0

100.0

$702,774

702.774

702.774

100.0

100.0

100.0

1 Number of depositors in deposit payoff cases; number of accounts in deposit assumption cases.

2Through direct payment to depositors in deposit payoff cases; through assumption of deposits by other insured banks, facilitated 

by FDIC disbursements of $374,644 thousand, in deposit assumption cases.

inclu de s 59,776 depositors in terminated cases who failed to claim their insured deposits (see note 7).

inclu de s only depositors with claims offset in full; most of these would have been fully protected by insurance in the absence of 

offsets.

5Excludes depositors paid in part by FDIC whose deposit balances were less than the insurance maximum.

6The insured portions of these depositor claims were paid by the Corporation.

71ncludes $231 thousand unclaimed insured deposits in terminated cases>(see note 3).

inclu de s all amounts paid by offset.

9 I ncludes all secured and preferred claims paid from asset liquidation; excludes secured and preferred claims paid by the Corporation.

1 °lncludes unclaimed deposits paid to authorized public custodians.

111nqludes$13,779 thousand representing deposits available, expected through offset or expected from proceeds of liquidations.

12Does not include an estimated $2.7 million of letters of credit in litigation.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS 5

1972, the Corporation had disbursed $715.7 million in these cases 

(table 2). From these disbursements and other sources, about 97.7 

percent of all deposits in the failed banks had been paid or made 

available. Losses to the Corporation resulting from these disbursements, including estimated amounts in active cases, were $74.5 

million.

Aid to operating insured bank. On January 18, 1972, the Corporation announced that a financial assistance program designed to 

rehabilitate the Bank of the Commonwealth, Detroit, Michigan, had 

been developed jointly by the Corporation, the Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System and the Michigan State Bank Commissioner, and concurred in by the board of directors of the bank. 

The authority for the Corporation's action was section 13(c) of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which provides for assistance to 

operating banks upon a finding that (a) but for the contemplated 

assistance the bank is in danger of closing and (b) the bank is 

essential in providing adequate banking service to the community. 

This authority, which was enacted as an amendment to the Act in 

1950, was used by the Corporation for the first time in 1971.

Bank of the Commonwealth was organized in 1916, and at the 

close of business on December 31, 1971, had 57 offices in Metropolitan Detroit and total resources of about $1.3 billion. The finding of Bank of the Commonwealth's essentiality to the community 

considered the bank's service to the black community in Detroit, its 

contribution to commercial bank competition in Detroit and the 

upper Great Lakes region, and the effect its closing might have had

Table 2. ANALYSIS OF DISBURSEMENTS, RECOVERIES, AND LOSSES 

IN DEPOSIT INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS,

JANUARY 1, 1934— DECEMBER 31, 1972 

(In thousands)

Type of disbursement Disbursements Recoveries1 Losses

All disbursements-total.................................................................................................... $715,729 $641,246 $74,483

Principal disbursements in deposit assumption and payoff cases-total.............. 642,810 579,071 63,739

Loans and assets purchased (202 deposit assumption cases):

Total December 31, 1972...............................................................................

Estimated additional ......................................................................................

374,644 332,820

26,821

175,473

43,957

57,473

15,003

Deposits paid (294 deposit payoff cases):

To December 31, 1972 ..................................................................................

Estimated additional ......................................................................................

267,221

945

48,736

Advances and expenses in deposit assumption and payoff cases-total.............. 64,282 6,809

Expenses in liquidating assets:

Advances to protect assets............................................................................. 38,182

19,291

1.904

4.905

'38,182

19,291Liquidation expenses......................................................................................

Insurance expenses ...........................................................................................

Field payoff and other insurance expenses in 294 deposit payoff cases. . . .

(2)

(2)

1.904

4.905

Other disbursements-total......................................................................................... 8,637 4,702 3,935

Assets purchased to facilitate termination of liquidations:

To December 31, 1972....................................................................................

Estimated additional.........................................................................................

8,125 3,593

1,109

(2)

3,423

Unallocated insurance expenses........................................................................... 512 512

11 Excludes amounts returned to closed bank equity holders and $11.8 million of interest and allowable return received by FDIC. 

2Not recoverable.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

on public confidence in the nation's banking system.

The Corporation agreed to lend up to $60 million in senior capital maturing April 1, 1977, to Bank of the Commonwealth to 

replenish the bank's capital as potential losses in its existing assets 

structure were taken. Actual draws on the commitment, however, 

were expected to be substantially less than the full amount authorized; as of December 31, 1972, a total of $35.5 million had been 

advanced by the Corporation under the agreement.

SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation exercises general 

supervisory responsibilities over insured State-chartered commercial 

banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System, and 

over insured State-chartered mutual savings banks. State-chartered 

member banks, all of which are insured by the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, are supervised by the Federal Reserve. All 

State banks are also supervised by the banking authorities of their 

respective States; national banks are chartered and supervised by 

the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Holding companies that control one or more banks are required, 

under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (as amended), to be 

registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. To form a holding company as defined under the Act, or to 

expand a company through the acquisition of banks or bank-related 

businesses as permitted under the Act, the prior approval of the 

Board of Governors is required.

Chart D shows the structure of supervision of commercial banks 

in the United States as of December 31, 1972 (see table 104). 

Banks over which the Corporation exercises general supervision together with the State authorities represented over 57 percent of 

commercial banks in the United States, but also represented a much 

smaller percentage of the total assets of all of these banks. In recent 

years, the number of insured nonmember banks has increased relative to other supervisory classes of banks. During the period 

1960-1972, shown in Chart E, the number of new insured nonmember banks considerably exceeded the number of these banks 

ceasing operations because of mergers; also, a large net gain of 

banks in this class resulted from conversions from member to nonmember insured status.

While all States in 1960 through 1972 experienced an increase in 

the number of banking offices, some States that permit branching 

had declines in the numbers of banks, as shown in Chart F.

Examinations. Examinations provide the Corporation with essential information for carrying out its supervisory responsibilities and 

for evaluating its risks as insurer of depositors. The Corporation

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES

C h a rt D

SUPERVISIO N OF C O M M E R C IA L BAN KS 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

D ecem ber 31, 1972

NUMBER OF BANKS

1 3 ,9 5 0

ASSETS OF BANKS

$ 7 4 6 B IL L IO N

Examined by and reporting to:

C om ptroller of the Currency 

Ej&jSjii State authorities and Federal Reserve

I I State authorities and FDIC 

I I State authorities only

C hart E CHANGES IN NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL 

BANKS IN THE UNITED STATES

D ece m b e r 31, 1 9 6 0 — D e ce m b e r 31, 1972

SUBTRACTIONS

M e rg e rs

National

State member, FRS 

| :: :j Nonmember insured 

| | Noninsured

N ew

B an ks

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Chart F CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL BANKS AND BRANCHES, 

BY STATE, December 31, 1960-Decem ber 31, 1972

INCREASE

900 1,800

1,800

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES 9

regularly conducts examinations of all insured nonmember banks to 

determine their current condition, to evaluate bank management, 

and to discover and obtain correction of unsafe or unsound practices or violations of laws and regulations. Although the Corporation is empowered under section 10(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to examine any insured bank for insurance purposes, it 

receives the reports of examinations conducted by other Federal 

supervisory agencies and thus rarely makes its own examinations of 

any Federal Reserve member bank.

At the present time, in 10 States the Corporation and State 

authorities conduct joint examinations, that is, examinations in 

which State and FDIC examiners work as a single team and make 

one report of examination. In three other States most of the 

examinations are on a joint basis. The Corporation has continued to 

encourage the use of joint examinations where State law lends itself 

to, and the State authorities are in agreement with, this procedure.

In addition to regular examinations, the Corporation conducts 

special examinations and investigations in connection with applications from insured nonmember banks for proposed new branches, 

proposed mergers, and various other actions requiring the Corporation's approval (table 3). In recent years, the numbers of these 

special examinations and investigations conducted each year have 

increased considerably faster than regular examinations.

A summary of a Policy Statement, issued on August 11, 1972, 

detailing a change in examination policies regarding certain investments of insured nonmember banks, may be found on pages 213- 

214 of this report.

Cease-and-desist and termination-of-deposit-insurance proceedings. The Corporation usually attempts to gain correction of a violaTable 3. BANK EXAM INATION AC TIVITIES OF 

THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

IN 1971 AND 1972

Activity

Number

1972 1971

Field examinations and investigations-total ............................................................................... 19,626 19,173

Examinations of main offices— t o ta l........................................................................................ 8,177 8,217

Regular examinations of insured banks not members of Federal Reserve System . . . 8,009 7,971

Reexaminations or other than regular exam inations...................................................... 148 226

Extrance examinations of operating noninsured ban ks.................................................. 16 14

Special examinations........................................................................................................ 4 6

Examinations of departments and branches........................................................................... 7,738 7,513

Examinations of trust departments.................................................................................... 1,748 1,506

Examinations of branches........................................................................................... 5,990 6,007

Investigations............................................................................................................................... 3,711 3,443

New bank investigations................................................................................................. 280 241

State banks members of Federal Reserve Systern....................................................... 15 8

Banks not members of Federal Reserve System ......................................................... 265 233

New branch investigations........................................................................................... 976 816

Mergers and consolidations........................................................................................... 220 174

Miscellaneous investigations ............................................................................................... 2,235 2,212

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

tion of law or regulation, or of an unsafe or unsound banking 

practice on the part of an insured nonmember bank, by consultation 

with the bank's management and other appropriate supervisory 

authorities. The bank's failure to take the required corrective action 

may result in the initiation of cease-and-desist or termination-ofdeposit-insurance proceedings. In certain instances, the Corporation 

and a bank may agree, in writing, on a specific corrective program 

to which the bank must adhere. Violation of a written agreement 

can itself be the basis for instituting cease-and-desist or termination-of-deposit-insurance proceedings.

Cease-and-desist proceedings under section 8 (b) of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act are initiated by the issuance of a Notice of 

Charges, and may culminate in an administrative hearing. After the 

administrative hearing, or upon the bank's formal consent to the 

issuance of a corrective order, the Corporation may order the bank 

not only to stop the violation or practice but also to take affirmative action to correct the conditions that had resulted. In 1972 the 

Corporation issued section 8(b) orders against 10 banks. The Corporation also entered into a formal written agreement with one 

bank (see table 4).

Table 4. CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDERS AND ACTIONS TO CORRECT SPECIFIC UNSAFE OR 

UNSOUND PRACTICES OR VIOLATIO NS OF LAW OR REGULATIONS, 1972

Total actions taken: 1971-1972 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Cease-and-desist orders issued in 197 2 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

Cease-and-desist orders outstanding December 31, 1972 ............................................................................................................. 13

Cease-and-desist orders discontinued............................................................................................................................................... 2

Formal written agreements outstanding December 3 1 ,1 9 7 2 ................................................................................................................... 3

1The FDIC's authority tc issue cease-and-desist orders was added in 1966 (12 U.S.C. 1818(b)). The first use of this authority 

commenced in 1971.

Termination-of-deposit-insurance proceedings under section 8 (a) 

of the Act may be initiated by the Corporation upon formal notification to the insured bank, as well as the appropriate Federal and 

State agencies, with a time period designated for the bank to correct the specified unsafe or unsound practices, conditions, or violations. Failure to correct the situation within the specified time 

period may result, following an administrative hearing, in a Board 

of Directors' order to terminate the bank's deposit insurance. In the 

event of termination of insurance, insured funds on deposit at the 

time of termination, less any subsequent withdrawals, continue to 

be insured for a period of 2 years.

In the three termination-of-deposit-insurance cases open at the 

end of 1971, two banks voluntarily complied with the Corporation's corrective orders, and deposit insurance was therefore not 

terminated (see table 5). The corrective period against one bank was 

extended.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES 11

Table 5. ACTIONS TO TERMINATE INSURED STATUS OF BANKS CHARGED 

WITH UNSAFE OR UNSOUND BANKING PRACTICES OR VIOLATIO NS 

OF LAW OR REGULATIONS, 1936-1972

Disposition or status 1936— 19721

Started 

during 1972

Total banks against which action was ta k e n ........................................................................................... 220 5

Cases closed............................................................................................................................................. 215 1

Corrections m ade............................................................................................................. 90 1

Banks absorbed or succeeded by other banks............................................................................. 73

With financial aid of the Corporation.................................................................................... 64

Without financial aid of the Corporation................................................................................ 9

Banks suspended prior to setting date of termination of insured status by Corporation . . . 

Insured status terminated, or date for such termination set by Corporation, for

37

failure to make corrections.................................................................................................. 13

Banks suspended prior to or on date of termination of insured status.............................. 9

Banks continued in operation2 ............................................................................................... 4

Formal written corrective program imposed and 8(a) action discontinued........................... 1

Cease-and-desist order issued and 8(a) action discontinued...................................................... 1

Cases not closed December 31,1972 .................................................................................................. 5 4

Action deferred pending analysis of exam ination...................................................................... 1 1

1 No action to terminate the insured status of any bank was taken before 1936. In 5 cases where initial action was replaced by action 

based upon additional charges, only the last action is included.

20ne of these suspended 4 months after its insured status was terminated.

During 1972, the Corporation initiated five new termination-ofdeposit-insurance proceedings. Section 8(a) action was discontinued 

against one bank when it took the necessary corrective action. At 

the end of the year, termination action against the remaining four 

banks awaited either the completion of the corrective period and 

reexamination or the analysis of the examination report.

Removal proceedings. Removal proceedings under section 8 (e) of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act may be initiated against an 

officer, director, or other person participating in the conduct of the 

affairs of an insured State nonmember bank who violates a law, 

rule, regulation, or final cease-and-desist order or who engages in an 

unsafe or unsound banking practice that constitutes a breach of his 

fiduciary duty and that involves personal dishonesty. The Corporation may take this action if it determines that the conduct will 

cause substantial financial loss or other damage to the bank or will 

seriously prejudice the interests of the bank's depositors.

The Corporation may initiate removal proceedings by serving a 

Notice of Removal on the officer, director, or other person. The 

notice specifies the alleged violation or unsafe or unsound practice, 

and states that the violation or practice is in contravention of the 

individual's fiduciary duty and involves acts of personal dishonesty. 

The notice also specifies a time for an administrative hearing, following which, or upon the individual's formal consent to the issuance of an order, the Corporation may issue an Order of Removal. 

In 1972 the Corporation, with the formal consent of an officer of 

two banks, issued Orders of Removal against the officer.

Suspension proceedings. The Corporation may also suspend or 

prohibit bank personnel from participating in the affairs of a bank

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

by invoking section 8 (g) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. 

Action pursuant to that section may be taken when an officer, 

director, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs 

of an insured State nonmember bank is charged, in an information, 

indictment, or complaint authorized by a U.S. attorney, with the 

commission of, or participation in, a felony involving dishonesty or 

a breach of trust.

Suspension proceedings are initiated by the issuance of a Notice 

of Suspension that is served on the person involved. The Notice of 

Suspension specifies what charges have been brought against the 

individual and further orders the individual to be suspended from 

office or prohibits him from further participation in the conduct of 

the affairs of the bank. Suspension is not subject to judicial review 

and may be lifted. The Corporation may issue a formal Order of 

Removal on the person if he has been found guilty of the offenses 

charged. A finding of not guilty or other disposition of the charges 

does not preclude the Corporation from thereafter instituting removal or prohibition proceedings pursuant to section 8(e). In 1972 

the Corporation issued one Notice of Suspension under section 

8 (g).

Applications for deposit insurance. Nationally chartered banks, 

and State banks admitted to membership in the Federal Reserve 

System, become insured upon certification by the deciding Federal 

supervisory agency that the requirements for admission set forth by 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act have been met. State-chartered 

nonmember banks apply directly to the Corporation for deposit 

insurance.

In 1972, the Corporation approved a total of 185 applications 

for deposit insurance, including six operating banks and 179 proposed new banks. Three applications were denied, two of which 

were subsequently approved after being amended. The number of 

approvals was 26 more than in 1971 (see Chart G). Thirty-five 

banks whose applications for deposit insurance were approved are 

located in Florida, 14 are located in Texas, and 12 in Illinois— all 

unit-banking States. In States where branching is permitted, a total 

of 21 approved applications originated in California, and Virginia.

On August 25, 1972, the Corporation adopted a Statement of 

Policy in regard to legal fees and other expenses incident to applications for insurance and consent to establish branches. A summary 

of this statement is contained on pages 212-213 of this report.

Applications for branches. Before establishing or moving a 

branch office, an insured nonmember bank must have the approval 

of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In section 3(o) of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, a branch is defined as . . any 

branch place of business. . . at which deposits are received, checks

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES 13

paid, or money lent." This definition includes tellers' windows and 

other limited-service facilities that may not be "branches" under 

the laws of some States. E xcluding tellers' w indow s and o th e r such 

limited-service facilities, Statewide or limited-area branching is 

prevalent in 35 States and the District of Columbia, while 15 States 

may be classified as unit-banking States (see chart F).

Branch applications approved by the Board of Directors of the 

Corporation totaled 716 during 1972 (see Chart G). Fourteen applications were denied. Nine of these denials were based primarily on 

management or financial condition, one was denied because of the 

applicant's very limited earnings prospects, and four were denied 

because they appeared substantially anticompetitive under the facts 

presented. An additional 132 applications for limited branch facilities were approved under delegated authority by the Director of the 

Division of Bank Supervision and the Corporation's 14 Regional 

Directors.

Relative concentration of branching is reflected in the fact that 

10 States accounted for over half of all branch approvals by the 

Corporation during 1972. In Missouri, a change, effective in August 

1972, in State law permitting each bank to have one additional 

limited service facility resulted in a substantial increase in applications.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mergers. Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires approval of the Corporation before any merger may be consummated in which the resulting bank is an insured bank that is not 

a member of the Federal Reserve System. This approval is also 

required in any merger of a noninsured institution into an insured 

bank.

The Act, as amended in 1966, provides further that, before approving any proposed merger of an insured bank, the deciding Federal agency must consider the effect of the transaction on competition, the financial and managerial resources of the banks, future 

prospects of the existing and proposed institutions, and convenience and needs of the community to be served. A merger that 

would result in a monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act may 

not be approved. A merger whose effect may be to substantially 

lessen competition in any section of the country, or tend to create a 

monopoly, may be approved, but only if the deciding agency finds 

that these anticompetitive effects are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effects on the needs and convenience of 

the community to be served. Following approval of a bank merger 

by a Federal supervisory agency, the Justice Department may, w ithin a 30-day period (or in emergency cases, within 5 days), bring 

action under the antitrust laws to prevent the merger.

During 1972, the Corporation approved a total of 85 mergers, 

including 40 that involved internal reorganizations that did not decrease the number of operating banks. The number of merged operating banks in approved cases (virtually all became branches of the 

resulting banks) totaled 45, and deposits of these banks totaled 

$1.2 billion. Among the 39 absorbing banks, 28 banks individually 

had deposits of more than $25 million. These included one bank 

with deposits of more than $500 million, 10 with deposits of 

$100-500 million, and 17 banks with $25-100 million.

Four applications for mergers were denied by the Corporation in 

1972. Two of these denials involved banks competing in the same 

local banking market, presenting a clear or probable violation of 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In one of these cases, the elimination 

of significant potential competition between the two banks through 

de novo branching in the same market was also cited, thereby providing a subsidiary reason for the Corporation's action.

In two other denials, the Corporation's decision was based on the 

conclusion that significant potential competition between the two 

banks would be eliminated, or that the proposed merger would have 

significant adverse consequences to the future competitive structure 

of a given State or a given banking market, without overriding 

public benefits based either on banking factors or considerations of 

public needs and convenience. This reasoning was cited as the basis 

in four denials during 1970-1971, including one case in which the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES 15

Corporation's decisions were under court challenge at the end of 

1972.

At issue in this litigation is whether Section 7 of the Clayton Act 

will be interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to extend to the 

factual situations present in cases of this nature, and ultimately, if 

Section 7 is not so extended, whether the banking agencies nevertheless have the discretionary authority to deny proposed merger 

transactions under similar circumstances. These questions have 

grown in importance, particularly as proposals of mergers between 

banks not currently operating in the same banking market have 

increased, reflecting, no doubt, relatively clear restraints on proposed mergers of significant competitors in the same local market. 

However, in only a minority of proposed "market-extension" mergers in the past 2 years has the Corporation found a significant loss 

of potential competition between the two banks involved sufficient 

to cause a denial of the applications.

Mergers approved by the Federal supervisory agencies under Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act during 1972 are 

shown in tables 6 and 7, and in Chart H for 1960-1972. (The 

merger statistics used in this section do not include corporate reorganizations of individual banking institutions, such as banks in 

process of forming one-bank holding companies, which do not have 

the effect of lessening the number of existing operating banks— see 

table 6, note 1). The text of the Corporation's decision in each case 

which it approved or denied in 1972 may be found on pages 33-206 

this report.

Regulation of bank securities. The Securities Exchange Act of 

1934, as amended in 1964, requires the registration and the filing of 

certain reports by all banks having 500 or more stockholders and 

more than $1 million in assets. Nonmember insured banks submit 

the required reports to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

During 1972, the Corporation received securities registration 

statements from 29 banks, bringing the year-end total of registered 

nonmember banks to 243, compared to 229 a year earlier. Additions included one registered bank that withdrew from the Federal 

Reserve System and three banks that converted from national to 

State charters. Termination of the registration of 19 banks resulted 

primarily from these banks' merging into other operating banks or 

becoming subsidiaries of bank holding companies.

In addition to registration statements, banks submit annual reports, and other financial reports, and copies of documents used in 

soliciting shareholder proxies. In the case of any insured bank, the 

directors, officers, and large stockholders report their transactions 

in the bank's stock. Also, other persons who have acquired, or who 

are attempting by tender offer to acquire, a sizeable part of a registered bank's outstanding shares file required information. Copies

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Table 6. MERGERS, CONSOLIDATIONS, ACQUISITIONS OF ASSETS AND 

ASSUMPTIONS OF LIABI LITIES APPROVED UNDER SECTION 18(c) 

OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT DURING 1972

Offices operated

Banks Number of 

banks

Resources 

(in thousands)

Prior to 

transaction

After

transaction

A LL CASES1

Banks involved................................................................................ 212 $32,914,917 2596 2607

Absorbing banks....................................................................... 1002 29,871,6823 22513 26073

Absorbed banks ....................................................................... 112 3,043,235 345

National................................................................................ 36 1,014,875 99

State member FRS ........................................................... 11 217,373 15

Not member FRS .............................................................. 62 1,797,410 228

Noninsured institutions.................................................... 34 13,577 3

CASES WITH RESULTING BANK 

A NATIONAL BANK

Banks involved................................................................................ 114 26,953,872 2037 2048

Absorbing banks....................................................................... 54 25,195,150 1840 2048

Absorbed banks ....................................................................... 60 1,758,722 197

National................................................................................ 24 678,100 57

State member FRS............................................................. 9 208,111 13

Not member FRS................................................................ 27 872,511 127

CASES WITH RESULTING BANK 

A STATE BANK MEMBER OF THE 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Banks involved................................................................................ 14 1,188,384 96 96

Absorbing banks....................................................................... 7 1,054,141 80 96

Absorbed banks ....................................................................... 7 134,243 16

National................................................................................ 4 116,113 13

State member FRS ........................................................... 1 5,612 1

Not member FRS .............................................................. 2 12,518 2

CASES WITH RESULTING BANK 

NOT A MEMBER OF THE 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Banks involved................................................................................ 84 4,772,661 463 463

Absorbing banks....................................................................... 39 3,622,391 331 463

Absorbed banks ....................................................................... 45 1,150,270 132

National................................................................................ 8 220,662 29

State member FRS ........................................................... 1 3,650 1

Not member FRS .............................................................. 33 912,381 99

Noninsured institutions..................................................... 34 13,577 3

10mitted are corporate reorganizations and other absorptions involving banks that prior to the transaction did not individually 

operate an office in the United States, and some mergers of banks within the same holding company.

2The number of absorbing banks is smaller than the number of cases because a few banks participated in more than one case. 

3Where an absorbing bank engaged in more than one transaction, the resources included are those of the bank before the latest 

transaction, and the number of offices before the first and after the latest transaction, 

includes two savinas and loan associations.

of these public filings of State-chartered insured banks are made 

available, at a nominal charge, by the Corporation.

Changes in bank ownership and loans secured by bank stock. 

Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended in 

1964, requires the chief executive officer of any insured bank to 

report to the appropriate Federal regulatory agency any change in 

the bank's outstanding voting stock resulting in a change in control 

of the bank. When any insured bank makes a loan secured by 25 

percent or more of the outstanding stock of an insured bank (except stock held for more than 1 year or for newly organized banks), 

the lending bank is required to file a report with the Federal agency 

having primary supervisory responsibility for the bank whose stock 

secures the loan. Each insured bank is required to report promptly

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES 17

Table 7. APPROVALS UNDER SECTION 18(c) OF THE FEDERAL 

DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT DURING 1972,

BANKS GROUPED BY SIZE AND IN STATES 

ACCORDING TO STATUS OF BRANCH BANKING

Absorbing banks Absorbed banks

Number of banks by 

size (resources in $m il)1

Number

of

banks

Number

of

branches

Resources

(in

thousands)

Number of banks by size 

(resources in $mil)

- 5 5-1 0 10-25 25-100

Over

100

Total-U.S. 100 112 233 $3,043,235 25 30 32 17 8

- 5 ....................... 4 6 21 124,236 3 2 0 0 1

5 - 1 0 ....................... 3 3 5 35,959 1 1 0 1 0

10 - 2 5 ....................... 10 10 20 162,915 4 4 1 0 1

25-100 ....................... 39 42 47 644,674 9 14 12 6 1

100-500 ....................... 32 37 109 1,487,399 7 6 12 9 3

Over 500 ....................... 12 14 31 588,052 1 3 7 1 2

(A) Statewide

branching2 30 40 140 1,035,845 6 12 16 2 4

- 5 ....................... 2 3 21 114,440 1 1 0 0 1

1 0-25 ....................... 1 1 19 109,960 0 0 0 0 1

25-100 ....................... 8 11 17 147,138 1 5 4 1 0

100-500 ....................... 10 14 63 402,721 4 3 6 0 1

Over 500 ....................... 9 11 20 261,586 0 3 6 1 1

(B) Limited-area

branching2 69 71 93 2,004,870 18 18 16 15 4

- 5 ....................... 2 3 0 9,796 2 1 0 0 0

5 - 1 0 ....................... 3 3 5 35,959 1 1 0 1 0

1 0 - 2 5 ....................... 8 8 1 50,435 3 4 1 0 0

25-100 ....................... 31 31 30 497,536 8 9 8 5 1

100-500 ....................... 22 23 46 1,084,678 3 3 6 9 2

Over 500 ....................... 3 3 11 326,466 1 0 1 0 1

(C) Unit

banking2 1 1 0 2,520 1 0 0 0 0

10-25 ....................... 1 1 0 2,520 1 0 0 0 0

1See table 6, note 1.

2For the purpose of describing branching patterns, 19 States and the District of Columbia were included in group A, 16 in group 

B, and 15 in group C. It should be noted that for other purposes the classification of some States might differ from that used here.

to the appropriate Federal regulatory agency any changes or replacements in the chief executive officer or directors occurring in 

the 12-month period following a change in control. The report must 

include a statement of the past and current business and professional affiliations of the new chief executive officer or officers. The 

Corporation received 460 notices of change in control involving 

insured nonmember banks during 1972.

Truth-in-lending. The Truth-in-Lending Act (Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act) requires the disclosure of the terms of 

consumer credit used for personal, family, household, and agricultural purposes, and it regulates consumer credit advertising. The 

Corporation has the responsibility for administrative enforcement 

of the Act for insured banks that are not members of the Federal 

Reserve System.

Checking for compliance with the requirements of the Truth-inLending Act is a part of all regular examinations of State nonmember banks. When a violation is found, the Corporation ordinarily will seek voluntary corrective action. If it becomes apparent 

that voluntary compliance is not forthcoming, the Corporation has 

the authority to initiate administrative proceedings to issue a ceaseDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

and-desist order against further violations, and ultimately, to terminate the deposit insurance of the bank. In addition, situations involving possible criminal violations of Federal laws are routinely 

referred to the Department of Justice. The Corporation refers 

Truth-in-Lending complaints and violations to other Federal and 

State enforcement agencies in accordance with established procedures.

The Act authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to exempt from the requirements of disclosure any 

class of credit transactions within any State upon the Board's determination that applicable State laws are substantially similar to the 

Federal law, and that adequate provision for enforcement exists. In 

any State exempted from the Federal law under these provisions, 

while the Corporation continues its concern with the enforcement 

of Truth-in-Lending as a part of its regular examination procedures, 

primary enforcement rests with the State authorities.

Bank security. As provided by the Bank Protection Act of 1968, 

nonmember insured banks are subject to Corporation rules that 

establish minimum standards for installation, maintenance, and 

operation of security devices and procedures to discourage certain 

external bank crimes and to assist in apprehending persons who 

commit these crimes. In early 1969, the Corporation adopted Part 

326 of its rules and regulations, which in part (a) requires the 

designation of a security officer for each insured State nonmember 

bank; (b) requires each bank to submit reports on security devices 

proposed for each banking office; (c) requires the development of a

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SUPERVISORY ACTIVIES 19

security program for each bank; and (d) requires each bank to 

develop a plan for installing, maintaining, and operating appropriate 

security devices in each banking office. The regulation also requires 

each bank to submit compliance reports as of the last business day 

of June of each calendar year, and to submit crime reports follow ­

ing the perpetration of a robbery, burglary, or nonbank employee 

larceny. During 1972, the Corporation received 627 crime reports 

filed pursuant to Part 326.5(d) of its regulations.

Nondiscrimination in lending for housing. Section 805 of Title 

V III of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 makes it unlawful for consumer lenders in granting real estate loans to discriminate on the 

basis of the loan applicant's race, color, religion, or national origin. 

In order to implement the fair housing provisions of Section 805 

for banks under its supervision, the Board of Directors of the Corporation issued a Policy Statement on December 20, 1971. This 

statement, to become effective March 1, 1972, adopted certain 

minimum procedures that, in part, would require insured nonmember banks to publicize, by a prescribed logotype on loan service advertisements, and by lobby notices, that they are equal housing lenders. Following its analysis and evaluation of public comments received in the designated period ending March 1, 1972, the 

Corporation on April 25, 1972, issued an amended statement of 

policy. This amendment deferred the effective date of the nondiscrimination requirement from March 1 to May 1, 1972, and 

prescribed a redesigned logotype and lobby poster. Additional information on these actions by the Corporation are contained on 

pages 209-210 of this report.

On September 15, 1972, the Corporation issued, for public comment, proposed new regulations that would incorporate the provisions of its earlier Policy Statement, and among other things 

would also require banks to request racial and ethnic data from loan 

applicants, to state the reasons a loan was denied, and to appoint a 

fair housing officer to be responsible for the bank's civil rights 

compliance program under Title V III. Interested parties were 

invited to comment on the proposed regulations by November 1. In 

accordance with a subsequent announcement, a public hearing on 

these proposals was held in Washington, D.C., on December 19 and 

20, 1972.

Corporation training activities. The Corporation's formal training 

programs for bank examiners, which are conducted at its modern 

training center, include three divisions of the Bank Examination 

School. These divisions consist of a basic course dealing with the 

fundamentals of banking and bank accounting, for new trainees; a 

second course emphasizing accrual accounting, audit techniques, 

and bank operations, with a portion devoted to examinations of 

computerized banks, for assistant examiners; and a program centerDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 0 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

ing on credit analysis, asset appraisal, bank management simulation, 

and corporation policies and objectives, for senior assistant examiners. In addition, specialized training offered includes an advanced 

course in examining computerized banks and two courses (basic and 

advanced) in examining trust departments. Approximately 800 

examiners from the Corporation, State banking departments, and 

foreign central banks participated in these programs during 1972. 

The participation by the State banking departments involved approximately 100 examiners under a joint program sponsored with 

the Conference of State Bank Supervisors.

Enrollment of employees in training courses outside the Corporation during 1972 included 94 in graduate and specialized banking 

schools, and others at the American Institute of Banking and in 

miscellaneous programs sponsored by government agencies and private organizations.

Publications and statistical reports from banks. A report of assets 

and liabilities is submitted each quarter, and a report of income and 

expenses each year, by every insured bank to the appropriate Federal supervisory agency. The Corporation, which obtains this information from insured banks that are not members of the Federal 

Reserve System, has additional responsibilities for assembling and 

publishing the statistics for all banks. The Corporation obtains semiannual information on assets and liabilities, but not income, of 

noninsured banks. A supplement to the midyear Raport of Condition in 1972 gathered information on the maturity distribution of 

obligations of States and political subdivisions held by banks.

Data reported at midyear and at the end of the year are aggregated for the nation and each State and are published in Assets and

Liabilities—Commercial and Mutual Savings Banks. Income data for 

insured banks are published in the issue of the booklet that contains 

the year-end Report of Condition.

Beginning with the December 1972 Report of Condition and the 

1972 Report of Income, the Corporation makes available on request, at a nominal charge, the full reports of condition and income 

of insured nonmember commercial banks and FDIC-insured mutual 

savings banks. Previously, only the front of the Report of Condition— a simplified balance sheet— had been available for individual 

insured banks. The Corporation's revised policy, involving an 

amendment to Part 309 of its rules and regulations, is discussed on 

pages 213-214 of this report.

During 1972, the Corporation continued its program of supplying a selected group of operating and report of condition statistics 

to each reporting bank. Comparative statistics are assembled for the 

year-end data in Bank Operating Statistics. Included are figures for 

the nation, States, different size groups of banks within each State, 

and smaller areas within States where branching is limited. ComDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CORPORATION 21

parable summary data for mutual savings banks are available upon 

request to the Division of Research.

In conjunction with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Comptroller of the Currency, the fourth survey of trust assets held by commercial banks was conducted in 

1972. The results of the survey were published in Trust Assets o f

Insured Commercial Banks-1972.

During the year, the Corporation continued its monthly surveys 

of mortgage rates and mortgage lending activity. The report form of 

the survey of interest rates on conventional 1-family nonfarm mortgages was revised in 1972, and the sample of banks updated. 

Another survey collects detailed data on acquisitions and dispositions, as well as outstanding balances, of construction and long-term 

mortgage loans of a selected panel of insured commercial banks and 

mutual savings banks.

Interest rates paid on savings and other time deposits held by 

individuals and businesses at insured nonmember commercial banks 

and FDIC-insured mutual savings banks were surveyed during 1972, 

as previously, on a quarterly basis. Information based on each of 

the surveys was sent to every reporting bank. The data were included in statistics that were published in summary form by the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

The Corporation sponsored independent research that resulted in 

publication of Time-Sharing in Commercial Banks in 1972. This 

69-page book considers the current use of time-shared computers in 

both large and small banks.

During the past year, the Corporation encouraged research in 

banking and related fields by awarding four fellowships in banking 

and related fields to doctoral candidates. The successful applicants 

were selected on the basis of the importance of their proposed 

research, the relevancy of their research to the interests of the 

Corporation, and the expected ability of the applicants to complete 

their projects successfully.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CORPORATION

Structure and employees. There was no change in the membership of the Corporation's Board of Directors during 1972. The 

terms of office of Chairman Frank Wilie and Director Irvine H. 

Sprague, both for 6 years, began on April 1, 1970, and September 

27, 1968, respectively. Comptroller of the Currency William B. 

Camp, an ex officio member of the Board, began a second 5-year 

term of office on February 1, 1972.

Corporation officials, Regional Directors, and Regional offices, 

are listed on pages v and vi.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Corporation's employment at the end of 1972 totaled 2,619 

(see table 8). This number was 12 more than a year earlier; howTable 8. NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES 

OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

DECEMBER 31, 1971 AND 1972

Unit

Total

Washington

office

Regional and other 

field offices

1972 1971 1972 1971 1972 1971

2,6191 2,6071 670 644 1,949 1,963

D irectors................................................ 3 3 3 3 0 0

Executive Offices.................................. 27 45 27 45 0 0

Legal D ivisio n ....................................... 79 63 72 59 7 4

Division of Bank Supervision.............. 1,923 1,908 120 102 1,803 1,806

Division of L iq u id a tio n....................... 211 230 84 88 127 142

Division of Research........................... 84 182 84 182 0 0

Office of the C ontroller....................... 185 176 173 165 12 11

Office of Management Systems 

and Financial Audits .................... 107 - 107 - 0 -

11ncludes 150 nonpermanent employees on a short-term appointment or when actually employed basis in 1972, and 133 in 1971. 

Nonpermanent employees include college students participating in the work-study program, clerical workers employed on a 

temporary basis at banks in process of liquidation, and other personnel.

ever, the total excluding persons temporarily employed (primarily 

in liquidations) was slightly below 1972.

Almost three-quarters of the Corporation's employees are assigned to the Division of Bank Supervision, where over 90 percent 

of personnel are employed in field offices. Field bank examiners 

resigning from the Corporation during 1972 totaled 138, including 

38 who left to join banks. For the first time in many years, no 

examiners left because of entry into the armed forces, though 37 

examiners were on active duty at the close of the year. The turnover rate for field examiners was 8.7 percent, compared to 7.0 

percent in 1971.

New office. During 1972, the Office of Management Systems and 

and Financial Audits was established. The office was staffed almost 

completely by transfer of Office of the Auditor personnel formerly 

assigned to the Executive Offices, and the Information Services 

Branch, previously located in the Division of Research. At present, 

the office consists of (1) an information services branch, which 

provides the Corporation with systems analyses, system design, and 

programming support for computer based information systems; (2) 

a computer center branch, which operates the FDIC computer 

system; and (3) a financial audits branch, which performs the Corporation's internal financial audit functions and audits banks being 

liquidated by the Corporation.

The new office was created to organize the Corporation's information-processing activities independent of other divisions or 

offices, and it has been expanded to provide analyses of present and 

proposed systems to Corporation management regarding the cost

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINANCES OF THE CORPORATION 23

and effectiveness of these systems. Further planning includes studying the potential of this office in providing staff support to the 

Board of Directors and other divisions and offices in other management systems activities, including, for example, organization 

studies, manpower and work load analyses, and manual systems 

analyses.

FINANCES OF THE CORPORATION

Assets and liabilities. As of December 31, 1972, the assets of the 

Corporation totaled $5,456 million (see table 9). Cash and U.S.

Table 9. STATEMENT OF FINA N C IA L CONDITION, 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

DECEMBER 31, 1972 

(In thousands)

ASSETS

C ash.................................................................................................................................

U.S. Government obligations:

Securities at amortized cost (face value $5,254,103; cost $5,237,675).........

Accrued interest receivable....................................................................................

Assets acquired in receivership and deposit assumption transactions:1

Subrogated claims of depositors against closed insured banks.........................

Net insured balances of depositors in closed insured banks, to be subrogated

when paid-see related lia b ility .........................................................................

Equity in assets acquired under agreements with insured banks.......................

Assets purchased o u trig h t......................................................................................

Less reserves for losses.............................................................................................

Assistance to operating insured banks.........................................................................

Miscellaneous assets........................................................................................................

Land and office building, less depreciation on building...........................................

T otal assets.............................................................................................

LIABILITIES AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND2

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities....................................................................

Earnest money, escrow funds, and collections held for others................................

Accrued annual leave of employees.............................................................................

Due insured banks:

Net assessment income credits available July 1,1973 (see table 11)................

Other assessment credits available im m ediately..................................................

Net insured balances of depositors in closed insured banks-see related asset . . .

Total liabilities........................................................................................

Deposit insurance fund, net income accumulated since inception (see table 10).

Total liabilities and deposit insurance fu n d ......................................

$ 5,405

$5,253,340

79,640 5,332,980

$ 75,167

945

30,944

5,109

$ 112,165

40,279 71,886

37,000

1,287

7,094

$5,455,652

$ 3,250

1,579

2,618

$ 280,272

8,273 288,545

945

$ 296,937

5,158,715

$5,455,652

1 Reported hereunder is the book value of assets in process of liquidation. An analysis of all assets acquired in receivership and 

deposit assumption transactions, including the assets that have been liquidated, is furnished in table 2.

2Capital stock was retired by payments to the U.S. Treasury in 1947 and 1948.

NOTE: These statements do not include accountability for the assets and liabilities of the closed insured banks for which the 

Corporation acts as receiver or liquidating agent.

Government securities valued at amortized cost amounted to 

$5,338 million, including $80 million in interest receivable. Net

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

assets acquired in receivership and deposit assumption transactions, 

consisting mainly of the subrogated claims of depositors against 

closed insured banks, together with assistance to operating insured 

banks, totaled approximately $109 million. The Corporation's land 

and office building at the headquarters location, less depreciation 

on the building, were valued at $7.1 million.

On December 31, the Corporation's liabilities, amounting to 

$297 million, consisted very largely of net assessment credits due 

insured banks. About 97 percent of the assessment credits were to 

become available on July 1, 1973, with the remainder available immediately.

The deposit insurance fund, which is the difference between the 

Corporation's total assets and its liabilities, amounted to $5,159 

million on December 31. The fund comprises the financial resources 

that are initially available to the Corporation for deposit insurance 

operations. Section 14 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act provides that the Corporation may borrow from the U.S. Treasury, and 

the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to lend, up 

to $3 billion if in the judgment of the Corporation's Board of 

Directors the funds are required for insurance purposes. Thus far, 

the Corporation has not had occasion to use this borrowing authority.

Table 10. STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1972 

(In thousands)

Income:

Deposit insurance assessments:

Assessments earned in 1972......................................

Less net assessment income credits to insured banks...........................................................

$468,758

280,206 $ 188,552

Adjustments of assessments earned in prior years................................................................ 260

Net income from U.S. Government securities.............................................................................

Other incom e....................................................................................................................................

$ 188,812 

277,003 

1,484

Total in c o m e ........................................................................................................................... $ 467,299

Expenses and losses:

Administrative and operating expenses:

Salaries........................................................................................................................................

Travel expenses.............................................

Office rentals, communications and other expenses......................

$ 36,494 

7,542 

5,574 $ 49,610

Provisions for insurance losses:

Applicable to banks assisted in 1972................................

Adjustments applicable to banks assisted in prior years....................

$ 11,000 

-13,046 -2,046

IMonrecoverable insurance expenses incurred to protect depositors-net................................ 879

Total expenses and losses.................................. $ 48,443

Net addition to the deposit insurance fu n d -1 9 7 2 ................................................................................. $ 418,856

Deposit insurance fund, January 1 ,1 9 7 2 .................................................................................................. 4,739,859

Deposit insurance fund, December 3 1 ,1 9 7 2 , net income accumulated since inception............ $5,158,715

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINANCES OF THE CORPORATION 25

Income and expenses. The Corporation's income in calendar year 

1972 was $467 million (see table 10), of which nearly three-fifths 

was interest received on holdings of U.S. Government securities. 

The remainder was derived almost entirely from assessments paid 

by insured banks. Expenses and losses were slightly over $48 million, thus the addition to the deposit insurance fund was $419 

million in the year.

Insured banks pay assessments to the Corporation in January and 

July of each year, for deposit insurance during the ensuing 6 

months. The deposit base for assessments becoming due is the average of total assessable deposits for the immediately preceding semiannual period. Assessable deposits are the deposits— with several 

adjustments— stated in the two immediately preceding Reports of 

Condition submitted by each insured bank at quarterly intervals to 

one of the Federal supervisory agencies. The deposits are decreased 

by 1 percent of adjusted time and savings deposits and 16 2/3 

percent of adjusted demand deposits; deposits are adjusted downward for cash items in possession drawn on the bank that are not 

charged against deposit liabilities and for funds included in reported 

deposits that are accumulated and assigned for payment of personal 

loans. Deposits are adjusted upward to include uninvested trust 

funds required to be stated separately in the bank's Report of Condition, and for other deposits received but not reported or offset 

against cash items in possession drawn against the bank.

The basic assessment rate that has existed since 1935 is 1/12 of 1 

percent annually of assessable deposits. Each insured bank derives 

its semiannual payment for deposit insurance by multiplying onehalf the annual basic rate times its deposit assessment base, and 

deducting from the resulting amount the assessment credit available 

on that date. Thus, the assessment paid in cash is the total assessment due less the available credit.

The credit available to each insured bank represents its pro-rata 

share of the total credits available to insured banks on any assessment date. These credits represent a portion of the Corporation's 

net assessment income— total assessments earned less expenses and 

provisions for insurance losses— for the calendar year ending the 

preceding December 31. The portion of the Corporation's net assessment income credited to insured banks to be applied against 

future assessments— established at 60 percent in 1950 when provision for the credit was enacted into law— was increased to 66 2/3 

percent effective December 31, 1961.

The net assessment rate in 1972 (based on gross assessments 

earned by the Corporation in 1972 less the assessment credit granted during that year) was 1/30 of 1 percent of total assessable deposits in insured banks. Because the credits to insured banks which

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Table 11. DETERMINATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF 

NET ASSESSMENT INCOME,

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1972 

(In thousands)

Determination of net assessment income:

Total assessments that became due during the calendar ye ar...................................... $468,758

Less:

Administrative and operating expenses....................................................................

Net additions to reserve to provide for insurance losses:

Provisions applicable to banks assisted in 1972..................................................

Adjustments to provisions for banks assisted in prior years...........................

$ 11,000 

-13,040

$ 49,610 

-2,040

Nonrecoverable insurance expenses incurred to protect d ep ositors-net........... 879

Total deductions............................................................................................... $48,449

Net assessment income for 1 9 7 2 .................................................................................................... $420,309

Distribution of net assessment income, December 3 1 ,1 9 7 2 :

Net assessment income for 1972:

33 1/3% transferred to the deposit insurance fund ...............................................

66 2/3% credited to insured banks.............................................................................

$140,103

280,206

T o ta l............................................................................................................................. $420,309

Allocation of net assessment income credit among insured banks, December 3 1 ,1 9 7 2 :

Percentage of 

total assessment becoming 

due in 1972

Credit for 1972 ...................................................................................................................

Adjustments of credits for prior years.............................................................................

$280,206

66

59.7762

.0141

T o ta l........................................................................................................................ $280,272 59.7903

are charged to the Corporation's liabilities on December 31 become 

available initially the following July 1 (carryover or unused credits 

are available on the ensuing December 31), cash flow to the Corporation from assessments comes largely at the beginning of each 

year.

Table 12. SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS, 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1972 

(In thousands)

Funds provided by: Percent

Net deposit insurance assessments................................................................................................ $ 188,812 14.6

Income from U.S. Government securities, less amortized net discounts................................ 274,453 21.1

Maturities and sales of U.S. Government securities.................................................................... 697,604 53.7

Collections on assets acquired in receivership and deposit assumption transactions........... 93,450 7.2

Increase in assessment credits due insured b a n k s ...................................................................... 43,793 3.4

Total funds provided ............................................................................................................ $1,298,112 100.0

Funds applied to:

Administrative, operating and insurance expenses, less miscellaneous credits....................... $ 48,870 3.8

Acquisition of assets in receivership and deposit assumption transactions........................... 57,127 4.4

Purchase of U.S. Government securities...................................................................................... 1,177,582 90.7

Net changes in other assets and liabilities.................................................................................... 14,533 1.1

Total funds applied ............................................................................................................... $1,298,112 100.0

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINANCES OF THE CORPORATION 27

The determination and allocation of net assessment income in 

1972 are shown in table 11. Sources and uses of income in 1972 are 

shown in table 12 and Chart I.

C h a rt I

SOURCES AND USES OF INCOME 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

1972

N e t

A s se s sm e n t

Incom e

4 0 .4%

SOURCES USES

Income and the deposit insurance fund, 1933-1972. Net assessments have provided more than 55 percent of the total income 

received by the Coporation since 1934 (see table 13); since 1961, 

however, interest from U.S. Government securities has provided 

most of the Corporation's income. Total expenditures, including 

interest of $81 million on the initial capital of the Corporation, 

have amounted to about 11 percent of the Corporation's total 

income. The accumulated net income represents the deposit insurance fund.

At the end of 1972, the estimated amount of insured deposits 

was $419.8 billion (see table 14), or 60.2 percent of total deposits 

in banks insured by the Corporation (Chart J). Ratios of the deposit

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

insurance fund, both to insured deposits and to total deposits in 

insured banks, declined slightly in the year.

Audit. Each year, an audit of the financial transactions of the 

Corporation is conducted by the General Accounting Office. A continuous internal audit is provided by the Financial Audits Branch, 

Office of Management Systems and Financial Audits.

Table 13. INCOME AND EXPENSES, 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

BY YEAR, FROM BEGINNING OF OPERATIONS, 

SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, TO DECEMBER 31, 1972 

ADJUSTED TO DECEMBER 31, 1972 

(In millions)

Year

Income Expenses and losses Net 

income 

added to 

deposit 

insurance 

fund4

Total

Deposit

insurance

assessments1

I nvestments 

and 

other 

sources2

Total

Deposit 

insurance 

losses and 

expenses

Interest 

on capital 

stock3

Administrative

and

operating

expenses

1 9 3 3 -7 2 .. $5,793.0 $3,212.6 $2,580.4 $634.3 $74.4 $80.6 $479.3 $5,158.7

1972 467.1 188.6 278.5 61.5 11.9 49.6 405.6

1971 415.3 175.8 239.5 61.6 14.7 46.9 353.7

1970 382.7 159.3 223.4 46.6 4.4 42.2 336.1

1969 335.8 144.0 191.8 34.7 1.2 33.5 301.1

1968 295.0 132.4 162.6 29.1 .1 29.0 265.9

1967 263.0 120.7 142.3 27.3 2.9 24.4 235.7

1966 241.0 111.7 129.3 19.9 .1 19.8 221.1

1965 214.6 102.2 112.4 22.9 5.2 17.7 191.7

1964 197.1 93.0 104.1 18.4 2.9 15.5 178.7

1963 181.9 84.2 97.7 15.1 0.7 14.4 166.8

1962 161.1 76.5 84.6 13.8 0.1 13.7 147.3

1961 147.3 73.4 73.9 14.8 1.6 13.2 132.5

1960 144.6 79.6 65.0 12.5 0.1 12.4 132.1

1959 136.5 78.6 57.9 12.1 0.2 11.9 124.4

1958 126.8 73.8 53.0 11.6 11.6 115.2

1957 117.3 69.1 48.2 9.7 0.1 9.6 107.6

1956 111.9 68.2 43.7 9.4 0.3 9.1 102.5

1955 105.7 66.1 39.6 9.0 0.3 8.7 96.7

1954 99.7 62.4 37.3 7.8 0.1 7.7 91.9

1953 94.2 60.2 34.0 7.3 0.1 7.2 86.9

1952 88.6 57.3 31.3 7.8 0.8 7.0 80.8

1951 83.5 54.3 29.2 6.6 6.6 76.9

1950 84.8 54.2 30.6 7.8 1.4 6.4 77.0

1949 151.1 122.7 28.4 6.4 0.3 6.1 144.7

1948 145.6 119.3 26.3 7.0 0.7 0.6 5.7 138.6

1947 157.5 114.4 43.1 9.9 0.1 4.8 5.0 147.6

1946 130.7 107.0 23.7 10.0 0.1 5.8 4.1 120.7

1945 121.0 93.7 27.3 9.4 0.1 5.8 3.5 111.6

1944 99.3 80.9 18.4 9.3 0.1 5.8 3.4 90.0

1943 86.6 70.0 16.6 9.8 0.2 5.8 3.8 76.8

1942 69.1 56.5 12.6 10.1 0.5 5.8 3.8 59.0

1941 62.0 51.4 10.6 10.1 0.6 5.8 3.7 51.9

1940 55.9 46.2 9.7 12.9 3.5 5.8 3.6 43.0

1939 51.2 40.7 10.5 16.4 7.2 5.8 3.4 34.8

1938 47.7 38.3 9.4 11.3 2.5 5.8 3.0 36.4

1937 48.2 38.8 9.4 12.2 3.7 5.8 2.7 36.0

1936 43.8 35.6 8.2 10.9 2.6 5.8 2.5 32.9

1935 20.8 11.5 9.3 11.3 2.8 5.8 2.7 9.5

1 9 3 3 -3 4 .. 7.0 (4 )7.0 10.0 0.2 5.6 4.25 -3 .0

1For the period from 1950 to 197-2, inclusive, figures are net after deducting the portion of net assessment income credited to 

insured banks pursuant to provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950, as amended. Assessment credits to insured 

banks for these years amount to $3,125 million.

includes $10.0 million of interest and allowable return received on funds advanced to receivership and deposit assumption cases 

by the Corporation.

3Paid in 1950 and 1951, but allocated among years to which it applies. Initial capital of $289 million was retired by payments to 

the U.S. Treasury in 1947 and 1948.

Assessments collected from members of the temporary insurance funds which became insured under the permanent plan were 

credited to their accounts at the termination of the temporary funds and were applied toward payment of subsequent assessments 

becoming due under the permanent insurance fund, resulting in no income to the Corporation from assessments during the 

existence of the temporary insurance funds.

5l\let after deducting the portion of expenses and losses charged to banks withdrawing from the temporary insurance funds on June 

30, 1934.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
FINANCES OF THE CORPORATION 29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 14. INSURED DEPOSITS AND THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 1934-1972

30 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Year 

(Dec. 31)

Deposits in 

insured banks 

(in millions)

Percentage of 

deposits 

insured

Deposit

insurance

fund

(in

millions)

Ratio of deposit 

insurance fund t o -

Total

deposits

Insured

Insured1 depositsTotal

1972.................... $697,480 $419,756 60.2% $5,158.7 .74% 1.23%

1971.................... 610,685 374,5684 61.34 4,739.9 .78 1.274

1970..................... 545,198 349,581 64.1 4,379.6 .80 1.25

1969 ..................... 495,858 313,085 63.1 4,051.1 .82 1.29

1968 .................... 491,513 296,701 60.2 3,749.2 .76 1.26

1967 .................... 448,709 261,149 58.2 3,485.5 .78 1.33

1966 ..................... 401,096 234,150 58.4 3,252.0 .81 1.39

1965 .................... 377,400 209,690 55.6 3,036.3 .80 1.45

1964 .................... 348,981 191,787 55.0 2,844.7 .82 1.48

1963 ..................... 313,3042 177,381 56.6 2,667.9 .85 1.50

1962 ..................... 297,5483 170,2104 57.24 2,502.0 .84 1.474

1961..................... 281,304 160,3094 57.04 2,353.8 .84 1.474

1960..................... 260,495 149,684 57.5 2,222.2 .85 1.48

1959 ..................... 247,589 142,131 57.4 2,089.8 .84 1.47

1958 .................... 242,445 137,698 56.8 1,965.4 .81 1.43

1957 .................... 225,507 127,055 56.3 1,850.5 .82 1.46

1956 ..................... 219,393 121,008 55.2 1,742.1 .79 1.44

1955 .................... 212,226 116,380 54.8 1,639.6 .77 1.41

1954..................... 203,195 110,973 54.6 1,542.7 .76 1.39

1953 .................... 193,466 105,610 54.6 1,450.7 .75 1.37

1952 ..................... 188,142 101,842 54.1 1,363.5 .72 1.34

1951..................... 178,540 96,713 54.2 1,282.2 .72 1.33

1950 ..................... 167,818 91,359 54.4 1,243.9 .74 1.36

1949 ..................... 156,786 76,589 48.8 1,203.9 .77 1.57

1948 .................... 153,454 75,320 49.1 1,065.9 .69 1.42

1947 .................... 154,096 76,254 49.5 1,006.1 .65 1.32

1946 ..................... 148,458 73,759 49.7 1,058.5 .71 1.44

1945..................... 157,174 67,021 42.4 929.2 .59 1.39

1944 ..................... 134,662 56,398 41.9 804.3 .60 1.43

1943 ..................... 111,650 48,440 43.4 703.1 .63 1.45

1942 ..................... 89,869 32,837 36.5 616.9 .69 1.88

1941..................... 71,209 28,249 39.7 553.5 .78 1.96

1940..................... 65,288 26,638 40.8 496.0 .76 1.86

1939 .................... 57,485 24,650 42.9 452.7 .79 1.84

1938 ..................... 50,791 23,121 45.5 420.5 .83 1.82

1937 ..................... 48,228 22,557 46.8 383.1 .79 1.70

1936 ..................... 50,281 22,330 44.4 343.4 .68 1.54

1935 ..................... 45,125 20,158 44.7 306.0 .68 1.52

1934 .................... 40,060 18,075 45.1 333.0 .83 1.84

1 Figures estimated by applying to the deposits in the various types of account at the regular call dates the percentages insured as 

determined from special reports secured from insured banks.

2December 20, 1963.

3December 28, 1962.

4 Revised.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MERGER DECISIONS OF THE CORPORATION

PART TWO

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANKS INVOLVED IN ABSORPTIONS 

APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

IN 1972

BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 3 3

State To w n or C ity Bank Page

Alabama

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Mobile Alabama Bank of Mobile (change

title to Commercial Guaranty

Bank of Mobile) 150 

Commercial Guaranty Bank of

Mobile 150

Bakersfield California Republic Bank 169

Los Angeles American City Bank 39

Union Bank 39

Quartz Hill Ranchers Bank 169

San Rafael Bank of Marin 146

Eucalyptus Bank 77 

New Bank of Marin (change title

to Bank of Marin) 146

The Redwood Bank 77

Sebastopol Bank of Sonoma County 147 

New Bank of Sonoma County 

(change title to Bank of

Sonoma County) 147

Bloomfield Bloomfield State Bank 107 

New Britain New Britain Bank and Trust

Company 107

New Haven Union Trust Company 93 

New London The Winthrop Bank and Trust

Company 93

Atlanta First Georgia Bank 109 

First Georgia Bank (formerly Peoples

American Bank of Atlanta) 109 

Columbus Columbus Bank and Trust Company 148

Muscogee Banking Company 148

Savannah First Bank of Savannah 54

Industrial Bank of Savannah 54

Columbus Bartholomew County Bank (change

title to Irwin Union Bank and 

Trust Company) 165

Irwin Union Bank and Trust 

Company 165

Hiawatha Citizens State Bank and Trust

Company 85

Leona The Farmers Bank of Leona 85

Cave City The H. Y. Davis State Bank 115

Glasgow Citizens Bank and Trust Company 115

Madisonville Peoples Bank and Trust Company 141

The Kentucky Bank & Trust 

Company 80

Mortons Gap Planters Bank 80

Nortonville The Nortonville Bank 141

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

State T o w n or C ity Bank Page

Louisiana Belcher Caddo Trust and Savings Bank 118

Oil City The Oil City Bank 118

Maryland Hyattsville Hampshire Trust Company (change

title to Suburban Trust Company) 67

Suburban Trust Company 67

Massachusetts Athol Colonial Bank and Trust Company 65

Natick First National Bank of Natick 151

Waltham Guaranty Trust Company (change

title to Guaranty— First Trust

Company) 151

Worcester Guaranty Bank & Trust Company 65

Michigan Gladwin The First State Savings Bank of

Gladwin (change title to MidMichigan Bank) 50

Harrison The State Savings Bank of Harrison 50

Hemlock Hemlock State Bank 171

Saginaw First State Bank of Saginaw 171

Mississippi Batesvi Me Bank of Batesvi 1 le 56

Clarksdale Bank of Clarksdale 56

Durant Peoples Bank of Durant 96

Kosciusko Merchants and Farmers Bank 96

Maben Maben Home Bank 153

Starkville Peoples Bank 153

Missouri Butler Butler State Bank 120

New State Bank in Butler (change

title to Butler State Bank) 120

Kansas City Plaza Bank & Trust Company 40

Plaza Bank of Commerce 40

New Jersey Cliffside Park The United National Bank of Bergen

County 71

Linden Community State Bank and Trust

Company 135

Middletown

Township Middletown Banking Company 135

Union City Hudson Trust Company (change

title to Hudson United Bank) 71

New York New York Broadway Savings Bank (change

(Manhattan) title to Prudential Savings Bank) 128

Prudential Savings Bank 128

Ogdensburg The St. Lawrence County Savings

Bank (change title to The North

Country Savings Bank) 98

Potsdam The Potsdam Savings and Loan

Association 98

Rochester Moproe Savings Bank 59

Wayland Wayland Dime Savings and Loan

Association 59

North Carolina Elizabeth City Industrial— Commercial Bank 88

Fuquay-Varina The Fuquay Corporation 78

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 35

State T ow n or C ity Bank Page

Jackson 

Mount Olive 

Rocky Mount

Ohio Marietta

Oregon Coos Bay

Florence 

Klamath Falls 

Redmond 

St. Helens

Pennsylvania Athens

Bethlehem

Bradford

Freeland

Harrisburg

Johnstown

Johnstown

(Benscreek)

Kingston

Lansford

Lebanon

Meshoppen

Scranton

St. Marys

Wilkes-Barre

Williamsport

South Carolina Columbia

Hollywood

Orangeburg

Pageland

Ridgeland

Tennessee Dyersburg

Morristown 

Whites Creek

The Bank of Northampton 174

Southern Bank and Trust Company 78

Peoples Bank & Trust Company 88, 174

The Dime Bank 46 

The Dime Savings Society of Marietta 46

Western Bank 110

Land County Bank 110

Bank of Klamath Country 110

Bank of Central Oregon 110

Bank of St. Helens 110

The Athens National Bank 83

First Valley Bank 48

The Bradford National Bank 44

Citizens' Bank of Freeland 121

Dauphin Deposit Trust Company 74 

Johnstown Bank and Trust

Company 103 

Community National Bank of

Pennsylvania 103

State Bank of Eastern Pennsylvania 48

First Valley Bank 121 

The First National Bank of Lebanon 74 

The First National Bank of

Meshoppen 162

Green Ridge Bank 176 

Penn Security Bank and Trust

Company 176 

Elk County Bank and Trust

Company (change title to First

Laurel Bank) 44

United Penn Bank 162 

Northern Central Bank and Trust

Company 83

First-Citizens Bank and Trust

Company of South Carolina 61 

Exchange Bank (change title to

American Bank & Trust) 156

American Bank & Trust 156, 158

Peoples Bank & Trust Co. 61

Bank of Ridgeland 158

First Bank and Trust Co. 138 

State Bank of Dyersburg (change

title to First Bank and Trust Co.) 138

Bank of Morristown 90 

Morristown State Bank (change

title to Bank of Morristown) 90 

Whites Creek Bank and Trust

Company 42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

State Tow n or C ity Bank Page

Whites Creek State Bank (change 

title to Whites Creek Bank and 

Trust Company) 42

Texas Alamo

Clear Lake City

Conroe 

Fort Worth 

Houston

La Porte

Odessa

First State Bank of Alamo 167

Second State Bank of Alamo (change 

title to First State Bank of 

Alamo) 167

First State Bank of Clear Lake City 79 

Second State Bank of Clear Lake 

City (change title to First State 

Bank of Clear Lake City) 79

Conroe Bank 124

New Conroe Bank (change title

to Conroe Bank) 124

Bank of Commerce 168

Second Bank of Commerce (change 

title to Bank of Commerce) 168 

Airline Bank 139

Airline Commerce Bank (change

title to Airline Bank) 139

Continental Bank 125

Gulfgate State Bank of Houston 68 

Heights State Bank 114

Highland Village State Bank 102

New Continental Bank (change

title to Continental Bank) 125

North Freeway Bank 91

North Freeway Commerce Bank 

(change title to North Freeway 

Bank) 91

Reagan Commerce Bank (change

title to Reagan Bank) 140

Reagan State Bank of Houston 140 

Second Heights State Bank (change 

title to Heights State Bank) 114 

Second Highland Village State Bank 

(change title to Highland Village 

State Bank) 102

South Main Bank 101

3001 Main Street Bank (change

title to South Main Bank) 101

Woodridge State Bank (change title 

to Gulfgate State Bank of 

Houston) 68

La Porte State Bank 106

Second La Porte State Bank (change 

title to La Porte State Bank) 106 

American Bank (change title to

American Bank of Commerce) 166 

American Bank of Commerce 166

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 37

State Tow n or C ity Bank Page

Port Arthur New Merchants Bank (change title

to Merchants Bank) 126

Merchants Bank 126

Wallis Second Wallis State Bank (change

title to Wallis State Bank) 127

Wallis State Bank 127

Willis First State Bank of Willis 178

Second State Bank of Willis (change

title to First State Bank of Willis) 178

Utah Murray Murray State Bank 132

Ogden Commercial Security Bank 102, 132

CSB, Inc. 102

Salt Lake City American National Bank 69

Tracy-Collins Bank and Trust

Company 69

Virginia Falls Church Bank of Virginia— Fairfax (change

title to Bank of Virginia—

Potomac) 149

Goochland Bank of Goochland 53

Goochland Community Bank (change

title to Bank of Goochland) 53

Norfolk Bank of Virginia— Norfolk (change

title to Bank of Virginia—

Tidewater) 160, 161

United Virginia Bank International 92

Onancock Bank of Virginia— Eastern Shore 87

The First National Bank in

Onancock 87

Richmond Bank of Virginia— Central 160

The Bank of Virginia 41

United Virginia Bank 92

Salem The Bank of Virginia of the Southwest 43

Vinton The Bank of Virginia of Roanoke

Valley 41, 43

Virginia Beach Bank of Virginia— Tidewater 161

Winchester The Commercial and Savings Bank 64

The Commercial Bank (change

title to The Commercial and

Savings Bank) 64

Woodbridge Bank of Virginia— Potomac 149

Washington Bellevue Bank of the West 143

Ellensburg Ellensburg State Bank 130

Longview Bank of Cowlitz County 143

Yakima Bank of Yakima 130

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
38 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

BANKS INVOLVED IN ABSORPTIONS 

DENIED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

IN 1972

State Tow n or C ity Bank Page

Pennsylvania Erie Union Bank & Trust Co., Erie 192

Lebanon Lebanon County Trust Company 184

Reading American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa. 184

Titusville The Pennsylvania Bank and Trust

Company 192

South Carolina Chesterfield Bank of Chesterfield 180

Columbia First-Citizens Bank and Trust

Company of South Carolina 180

Vermont Burlington Chittenden Trust Company 188

Hyde Park Lamoille County Bank 188

STATEMENT UPON RECONSIDERATION

Pennsylvania Norristown 

Reading

Continental Bank 

Bank of Pennsylvania

199

199

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION

39

Resou rces 1i n

B a n kin g O ffic e s

\ i n

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

American City Bank 41,623 2 3

Los Angeles, California

to acquire a portion o f the assets

and assume a portion o f the deposit

liabilities o f

Union Bank 3,650* r

Los Angeles

Summary report by Attorney General, September 24, 1971

The closest office of American City Bank to the Long Beach branch of 

Union Bank is at least 20 miles away, with numerous other banking offices in 

the intervening area. Thus, there will be little or no effect on existing competition as a result of this transaction.

California law permits de novo branching throughout the state. Thus, 

American City Bank could enter Long Beach independently. American City 

Bank is one of the smaller banks in Los Angeles County, however, with about 

0.2 per cent of county deposits. In addition, the Long Beach branch of Union 

Bank has only about 2.4 per cent of the total deposits of the eight banks which 

operate 13 banking offices within a two mile radius of the Long Beach branch. 

Its share of deposits in Long Beach as a whole would be much less. Thus, this 

transaction will not have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, January 21, 1972

A m e rica n C ity Bank, Los Angeles, C a lifo rn ia ("A m e ric a n "), a S tate n o n ­

member insured bank with total resources of $41,623,000 and total deposits of 

$37,413,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to 

purchase a portion of the assets of, and assume liability to pay a portion of the 

deposits made in, Union Bank, Los Angeles, California ("U nion"), and for 

consent to establish the latter's Park Estates Branch, Long Beach, California 

("Park"), with total resources of $3,650,000 and total deposits of $3,483,000, 

as a branch, increasing the number of its offices to three.

Competition. American, organized in 1964, is 52nd among the 139 banking 

organizations in California and operates its main office in the city of Los 

Angeles and its existent branch in Beverly Hills, both in Los Angeles County. 

The subject proposal would have no discernible effect on these communities.

Union, the sixth largest bank in California, operates 30 offices in 10 of the 

State's 58 counties, including the most populous and those containing the 

major financial centers. Its position in the State banking structure or economic 

situation would not be measurably affected by the subject proposal, which is 

consistent with Union's policy of operating as a wholesale, businessman's bank, 

maintaining only large regional fully staffed offices and spinning off any small 

branch offices which may be acquired in mergers of institutions which fulfill its

"Resources and branch o ffice o f U nion Bank to be acquired by Am erican Bank.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

requirements as regional offices. Park was acquired by merger of Bank of Long 

Beach, National Association, Long Beach, California ("B LB "), in July 1971, 

and its main office is being retained by Union as a "Regional Head Office.”

Park was established in September 1968 as a de novo branch of BLB in 

Long Beach (population 358,633), the fifth largest city in the State and second 

in Los Angeles County (Population 7,032,075), the economy of which is 

dependent largely on shipping, petroleum, and related industries. The office's 

immediate trade area is in East Long Beach, the city's primary residential area, 

which has a population estimated at 100,000. Entry of American into Long 

Beach, where Union continues to operate the former main office and one other 

branch of BLB, would increase the number of commercial banks doing business 

in the city from 13 to 14, improving the competitive structure slightly. The 

proposed transaction would not impede either Union or American from 

branching de novo into one another's territory in the future, as statewide de

novo branching is legally permissible.

The closest office of American to Park is at least 20 miles away, and there 

are numerous offices of other commercial banks in the intervening area. There 

is no significant amount of existing or potential competition which would be 

eliminated by this proposed transaction, and it would result in the deconcentration, however small, of commercial banking resources in the State of 

California.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Union has satisfactory financial and managerial resources and favorable future prospects, with or 

without the subject branch. With $500,000 in new capital to be added in 

connection with this proposal, American would be considered as having adequate financial and managerial resources. Its future prospects are considered 

satisfactory.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. The community of 

East Long Beach is served by nine offices of six banks in addition to Park. All 

are at least three-fourths of a mile distant from Park, and the office serves the 

convenience and needs of local residents. This proposal will assure continuance 

of banking service at this location.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces / \ r\

B a n kin g O ffic e s

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

1 n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Plaza Bank & Trust Company

Kansas City, Missouri 

(in organization)

420 1

to merge with

Plaza Bank of Commerce

Kansas City

59,328 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 41

Summary report by Attorney General, November 18, 1971

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Plaza Bank & Trust 

Company (org.) would become a subsidiary of Plaza Bancshares, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by Plaza Bancshares, Inc., it would have 

no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, February 18, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18 (c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Plaza Bank & Trust Company, Kansas City, Missouri ("First Bank” ), a 

proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Plaza 

Bank of Commerce, Kansas City, Missouri ("Second Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $59,328,000, under the charter 

and title of First Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the one existing 

office of Second Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which Plaza Bancshares, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, a proposed registered bank 

holding company, can acquire 100 percent of the voting shares (less directors' 

qualifying shares) of the bank resulting from the proposed merger. Application 

for said acquisition was approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System on September 21, 1971. First Bank will not be in operation as 

a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it 

will operate the same banking business at the existing location of Second Bank, 

and with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the 

competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Second Bank or affect the banking services which Second Bank has provided in the 

past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in 

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

The Bank of Virginia of Roanoke Valley 724 1 2

Vinton, Virginia

to acquire a portion o f the assets and

assume a portion o f the deposit

liabilities o f

The Bank of Virginia 27,430* 1*

Richmond

Summary report by Attorney General, December 20, 1971

Both of these banks are subsidiaries of Virginia Commonwealth Bancshares, 

Inc. ("VCB"). The proposed purchase of assets and assumption of liabilities is

*Resources and branch o ffice o f Bank of V irginia to be acquired by B V R V .

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

part of a plan through which the Roanoke office of The Bank of Virginia will 

be transferred to another subsidiary of VCB. As such, it is basically part of a 

corporate reorganization and will have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, February 25, 1972

The Bank of Virginia of Roanoke Valley, Vinton, Virginia ("B V R V "), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $724,000 and deposits 

of $222,000 as of September 20, 1971, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) 

and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to acquire the assets of, and assume liability to pay deposits in, Roanoke Branch of The Bank of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia 

("Roanoke Branch"), and to establish one branch in connection therewith at 

the present location of Roanoke Branch. As of August 31, 1971, Roanoke 

Branch indicated total assets of $27,430,000 and deposits of $25,311,000. 

BVRV will continue to operate under its present title and charter and will 

increase the number of its offices to two.

The proposed purchase and assumption is designed solely as a means by 

which Virginia Commonwealth Bankshares, Inc., Richmond, Virginia ("VCB"), 

a registered bank holding company, can consolidate its operations in Roanoke 

County and the independent cities of Roanoke and Salem, Virginia. Both 

banks are owned by VCB, and the proposal will not in itself change the structure of competition in the area nor should it affect the banking services which 

are provided. For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion 

that the proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other 

manner be in restraint of trade.

All other factors considered relevant to the subject application are favorably 

resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Whites Creek State Bank

Whites Creek, Tennessee 

(in organization; change title

to Whites Creek Bank and Trust 

Company)

50 1

to merge with

Whites Creek Bank and Trust Company

Whites Creek

7,011 1

Summary report by Attorney General, February 7, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Whites Creek State 

Bank would become a subsidiary of First Tennessee National Corporation, a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 43

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by First Tennessee National Corporation, it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 2, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Whites Creek State Bank, Whites Creek, Tennessee (“ First Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Whites 

Creek Bank and Trust Company, Whites Creek, Tennessee ("Second Bank"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $7,011,000, under the 

charter of First Bank and with the title of Second Bank. The resulting bank 

will operate from the one existing office of Second Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which First Tennessee National Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, a registered 

bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of the 

bank resulting from the proposed merger. Application for said acquisition was 

approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on 

November 18, 1971. First Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank 

prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same 

banking business at the existing location of Second Bank, and with essentially 

the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive 

structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Second Bank or 

affect the banking services which Second Bank has provided in the past. All 

factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are 

favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

The Bank of Virginia of Roanoke Valley

Vinton, Virginia

724 1 7

to merge with

The Bank of Virginia of the Southwest

Salem

34,032 6

Summary report by Attorney General, February 8, 1972

Both of these banks are subsidiaries of Virginia Commonwealth Bancshares, 

Inc. ("VCB"). The proposed merger is part of a plan through which VCB 

intends to consolidate the eight offices of three of its subsidiaries located in the 

Roanoke area. As such, it is basically part of a corporate reorganization and 

will have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 2, 1972

The Bank of Virginia of Roanoke Valley, Vinton, Virginia ("Roanoke 

Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $724,000 and

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
44 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

deposits of $222,000 as of September 20, 1971, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with The Bank of Virginia of the 

Southwest, Salem, Virginia ("Southwest Bank"), a State nonmember insured 

bank with total resources of $34,032,000 and total deposits of $29,732,000 as 

of September 30, 1971, under the charter and title of Roanoke Bank. The six 

offices of Southwest Bank would be operated as branches of the resulting 

bank.

This proposed transaction is designed solely as a means by which Virginia 

Commonwealth Bankshares, Inc., Richmond, Virginia ("VCB"), a registered 

bank holding company, can consolidate its operations in Roanoke County, the 

town of Vinton, and the independent cities of Roanoke and Salem, Virginia. 

Both Roanoke Bank and Southwest Bank are owned by VCB, and this proposed transaction would not in itself change the structure of competition in 

the area nor should it affect the banking services which are provided.

The Board of Directors is of the opinion that the proposed transaction 

would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, 

tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of trade.

All other factors requiring consideration are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Elk County Bank and Trust Company

St. Marys, Pennsylvania 

(change title to First Laurel Bank)

45,398 4 7

to merge with

The Bradford National Bank

Bradford

48,387 3

Summary report by Attorney General, November 30, 1971

The distance between Bradford and St. Marys is 47 miles. Because the 

intervening area is characterized by large state and national forest preserves and 

various natural barriers such as hills, valleys and streams with no connecting 

high-speed highways, each service area is described as separate and distinct. It 

would appear that no substantial direct competition exists between the parties 

to the proposed merger.

Elk Bank is the larger of two banks in the town of St. Marys, and the largest 

of five banks in Elk County with 56.2 per cent of total county deposits. 

Bradford Bank is the larger of two banks in Bradford, and the largest of six 

banks in McKean County with 36.7 per cent of total county deposits.

Under Pennsylvania law, branching is permitted in the county in which an 

applicant bank's main office is located and in any county contiguous thereto. 

Thus, either of the merging banks could be permitted to open de novo branches in the area served by the other. Each is among the largest banks so eligible.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 45

However, population trends and the general economy of this area do not 

appear conducive to significant de novo branching opportunities.

While de novo branching does not appear attractive, each bank could enter 

the service area of the other through merger with a smaller bank. If the proposed merger is approved, the resulting $80 million institution will become by 

far the largest bank serving this region, even more of a dominant factor than 

each bank presently is in its own market area.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 7, 1972

Elk County Bank and Trust Company, St. Marys, Pennsylvania ("Elk 

County Bank"), a State nonmember bank with total resources of $45,398,000, 

has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with The 

Bradford National Bank, Bradford, Pennsylvania ("Bradford National"), with 

total resources of $48,387,000. The banks would merge under the charter of 

Elk County Bank with the title "First Laurel Bank" and, as an incident to the 

merger, the three offices of Bradford National would become branches of the 

resulting bank, which then would have a total of seven offices.

Competition. Elk County Bank operates four offices in Elk County, two of 

which are in St. Marys (population 7,470), one of which is in Ridgway (population 6,022), and one of which is in Weedville (population 600). Elk County 

(population 37,770) lies in north-central Pennsylvania, and its economy depends heavily upon the carbon-producing factories and other industrial employment in and near St. Marys. Many workers at these factories commute 

daily into the St. Marys area from a radius of as far as 60 miles. There are plans 

for expansion of these factories, which are currently operating at capacity. Elk 

County Bank has 56.2 percent, the largest share of total Elk County commercial bank deposits.

Bradford National operates three offices in Bradford, in McKean County. 

McKean County (population 51,915) lies between Elk County on the south 

and the New York State border on the north. Oil and gas production, long the 

mainstay of the area's economy, has declined in importance and the Bradford 

area has been characterized by the U.S. Department of Labor as one of "substantial unemployment." Many residents are forced to commute to employment centers such as Olean, New York, or St. Marys, Pennsylvania, and the 

economic outlook for this rural area is not promising. Household income levels 

are below average in McKean County. Bradford National has 36.7 percent of 

total McKean County commercial bank deposits, being the largest bank in the 

county in terms of such deposits.

The nearest offices of the two banks are 47 road miles apart. The banks 

have separate and distinct trade areas, there are six intervening offices of competing banks, and neither of the participants draws any significant amount of 

business from the service area of the other. The proposed transaction, accordingly, would not eliminate any significant amount of existing competition.

There is some possibility that competition could develop between these 

participating banks at some future date, as Pennsylvania law permits de novo

branching into contiguous counties. The depressed economy of McKean 

County affords little incentive for de novo branching by Elk County Bank, 

however, while locations within Elk County that might appear attractive for de

novo branching by Bradford National are already served by competing banks.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Elk County, moreover, has a population per commercial bank office of only 

3,777 persons, and income levels, while somewhat better than in McKean 

County, also are below the statewide average. The Corporation concludes, 

accordingly, that such potential competition is unlikely to become actual competition through de novo branching in the foreseeable future.

If the proposed merger is consummated, the resulting bank would be headquartered in Elk County and would be legally able, under Pennsylvania law, to 

branch or merge into the six adjacent counties of McKean, Warren, Forest, 

Jefferson, Clearfield, and Cameron, as well as in Elk County. While the proposed merger would join the two banks having the largest share of their respective county's total commercial bank deposits, the resulting bank would hold 

only 13.6 percent of the total deposits held at commercial bank offices in this 

seven-county area— ranking second in this regard to The Warren National Bank, 

which holds 18.9 percent of such deposits. Other large banks would also have 

offices in various parts of the seven-county area, and the influence of additional banks of moderate size in Wellsville and Olean, New York, would also 

provide competition to some parts of this seven-county area.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both banks have 

adequate financial and managerial resources to support the level of business 

they presently have, and so would the resulting bank. Both institutions are 

viable and progressive, although the prospects for Bradford National are less 

b rig h t th a n those o f E lk C o u n ty B ank because o f local e c o n o m ic c o n d itio n s . 

The future prospects of the combined bank are likely to be much brighter than 

for either bank alone.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. The most immediate effects of the proposed transaction would be felt in the St. Marys area, 

where an increase in the rate of interest paid on savings accounts and longer 

term certificates of deposit would accompany a reduction of service charges on 

checking accounts. The lending lim it of the resulting bank ($700,000) would 

be more than twice that of either bank separately, thereby facilitating loans to 

finance the expanding requirements of local industry. Moreover, lendable funds 

unused at Bradford National because of slack demand could be utilized more 

effectively in the expanding St. Marys area.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

The Dime Bank

Marietta, Ohio 

(in organization)

600 1

to acquire the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

The Dime Savings Society of Marietta

Marietta

5,950 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 47

Summary report by Attorney General, September 17, 1971

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Dime Bank would 

become a subsidiary of American Bancorporation, a bank holding company. 

The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing bank with a 

non-operating institution; as such and without regard to the acquisition of the 

surviving bank by American Bancorporation, it would have no effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 17, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal Deposit Insurance 

on behalf of The Dime Bank, Marietta, Ohio ("Bank"), a proposed new bank in 

organization, and for consent to its acquisition of assets and assumption of 

deposit liabilities of The Dime Savings Society of Marietta, Marietta, Ohio 

("Society"), total resources $5,950,000, under Bank's charter and title. Bank 

would operate from the main (and only) office of Society.

Competition. Bank is being organized to implement transfer of ownership of 

Society to American Bancorporation, Columbus, Ohio, a registered bank holding company, which would hold a majority of Bank's outstanding shares. No 

subsidiary of American Bancorporation is located within competitive distance 

of Society, nor is there competition between Bank and Society. Bank is to 

commence business at the time Society ceases operations. Society, a mutual 

savings bank, attracts savings and other time deposits from the area of Marietta 

and its environs and in major part confines its lending to mortgage loans on 

local dwelling properties. Third largest among the four area savings institutions, 

it holds 19.6 percent and 18.8 percent, respectively, of the $24 million deposits and $23 million loans held by all four institutions. Bank would serve the 

southern portion of Washington County, Ohio, and the northern portion of 

adjacent Wood County, West Virginia. Within this area, at June 30, 1971, 14 

commercial banks competed; their 20 offices held I PC deposits of $249 

million. Bank would rank third smallest, holding 1.9 percent of total area 

deposits.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed asset acquisition and deposit assumption would not, in any section of 

the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in 

any other manner be in restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Society has recently 

lacked effective management, a situation that has been temporarily corrected 

by American Bancorporation in contemplation of the proposed transaction. 

The capital position of Society is inadequate. Both management and capital of 

Bank appear to be adequate, and Bank's future prospects would be favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposal would remove a savings institution from the Marietta market, but 

three alternatives would remain, two of which overshadow Society by substantial margins. Bank, entering the Marietta-Parkersburg market, would offer 

an additional commercial banking alternative and serve to stimulate competition.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the applications is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

First Valley Bank

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

213,603 14 15

to merge with

State Bank of Eastern Pennsylvania

Kingston

41,949 1

Summary report by Attorney General, January 28, 1972

The closest offices of Valley Bank to State Bank are located in Carbon 

County to the south, at a distance of more than 30 miles. In view of this 

distance and the presence of other intervening banks, it would appear that the 

proposed merger would not eliminate any existing direct competition between 

the merging banks.

Should Valley Bank move its home office to one of its branches in Carbon 

County (thus being able to retain its existing offices), it could be permitted to 

branch de novo into Luzerne County generally, and particularly into the area 

served by State Bank. Valley Bank has the resources to establish de novo

branches in attractive new markets. However, in view of the declining population of the Wilkes-Barre area, the existence of other possible potential entrants, 

and particularly the fact that State Bank is among the smallest banks serving 

the Wilkes-Barre market, we conclude that the proposed merger would not 

have a significantly adverse effect on potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 17, 1972

First Valley Bank, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania ("Valley Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank having, as of December 31, 1971, total resources of 

$213,603,000 and total IPC deposits of $182,417,000, has applied, pursuant 

to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with State Bank of Eastern Pennsylvania, Kingston, Pennsylvania ("State Bank"), with total resources of 

$41,949,000 and total IPC deposits of $36,726,000. The banks would merge 

under the charter and title of First Valley Bank; and, as an incident to the 

merger, the one office of State Bank would become a branch of the resulting 

bank, increasing the number of its authorized offices to 18.

Competition. Valley Bank operates 10 offices in or near Bethlehem, in 

Northampton County, two offices in Allentown, Lehigh County, and two 

offices recently acquired by merger in Carbon County. Additionally, Valley 

Bank has the approvals necessary to establish three de novo branches in 

Bethlehem. Valley Bank's present service area is confined to Northampton, 

Lehigh, and Carbon Counties in Eastern Pennsylvania.

State Bank operates its sole office in the borough of Kingston (population 

18,325), in northeastern Luzerne County (population 242,301), 3 miles northwest of Wilkes-Barre. Once primarily dependent on anthracite mining, the area 

is experiencing depressed economic conditions, and its population is declining, 

although the entrance of diversified industries should serve to level out the 

downward trend. State Bank derives the major portion of its business from the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 49

Kingston-Wilkes-Barre area. Of the sixteen commercial banks competing within 

a 10-mile radius of Kingston, State Bank ranks fourth in terms of local deposits, holding 6.1 percent of the area's I PC deposits. The two largest banks in 

the area, both with total resources in excess of $200 million, hold 28.6 percent 

and 19.1 percent, respectively, of the area's I PC deposits. State Bank's office is 

only one of the 44 commercial bank offices in the same market.

Kingston is some 72 miles northwest of Bethlehem and 41 miles north of 

Nesquehoning, the location of Valley Bank's nearest office. The two banks 

serve distinct areas separated by topographical barriers, numerous banking 

offices are located in the intervening area, and they do not compete in any 

way. The proposed merger, accordingly, would eliminate no present competition between the two banks nor would it reduce the number of banking alternatives available to the public in the Kingston-Wilkes-Barre area.

Valley Bank, under Pennsylvania law, cannot now branch de novo or merge 

into Luzerne County, since that county is not contiguous to its headquarters 

county. Valley Bank, simultaneously with the proposed merger, proposes to 

designate one of its Carbon County branches as its main office, the result of 

which would be to allow Valley Bank to expand de novo or by merger into 

Luzerne County and Schuylkill County while depriving it of the right to 

expand into Bucks County— an area open to the largest Philadelphia-based 

banks. Once the redesignation takes place, increased competition between 

Valley Bank and State Bank could come about by Valley Bank's entry into 

Luzerne County either de novo or by means of some alternative merger.

State Bank, in like manner, could enter Carbon County (population 50,573) 

today. The probability that this potential for increased competition between 

the two banks would be realized, however, appears remote. State Bank's service 

area presently has a large number of entrenched competitors, a low population 

per commercial bank office, and a stagnant economy. While Valley Bank could 

seek to enter this market by acquiring a bank smaller than State Bank, such a 

re q u ire m e n t appears unnecessary in lig h t of the lim ite d share of local I PC 

deposits and commercial bank offices which State Bank controls. As to Carbon 

County, State Bank's entry also appears unlikely, in view of its history as a 

one-office bank, the limited population of Carbon County, its stagnant economy, and the distances that would be involved.

For these reasons, the Corporation has concluded that the proposed merger 

would eliminate no significant potential for increased competition between 

Valley Bank and State Bank.

The proposed merger would have no significant effect on banking concentration in any relevant area. Subsequent to the redesignation of its main 

office, Valley Bank could branch or merge, under Pennsylvania law, in 

Northampton, Lehigh, Carbon, Luzerne, Monroe, and Schuylkill Counties. 

Within this six-county region, State Bank and Valley Bank (together with the 

two institutions Valley Bank merged during 1971) held 7.5 percent of total 

I PC deposits as of June 30, 1970, while two Allentown-based banks held 9.7 

percent and 7.2 percent, respectively. Seventy-three other commercial banks 

are headquartered within this region, while an additional seven banks, headquartered elsewhere, operate one or more offices under Pennsylvania law in the 

same area. Furthermore, within State Bank's present service area, the proposed 

merger should have the effect of enhancing competition against more dominant 

area banks in many lines of bank business. The proposed merger would not

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

change the number of banks competing in the Kingston-Wilkes-Barre area, but 

it would substitute a bank with more than $200 million in resources for one of 

$40 million in resources, thus offering local residents and businessmen a choice 

among four large banks rather than three.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors believes that the proposed 

merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of 

trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Valley Bank has 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

Valley Bank, moreover, could easily fill the management void which has 

existed at State Bank since its president resigned in May 1971. Future prospects for the resulting bank would be favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would provide residents and businessmen in State Bank's service area 

with another option for a full range of commercial bank services, including 

Master Charge, more extensive trust services, and larger size loans. Increased 

competition for such services, sparked by Valley Bank's aggressive and capable 

management, should redound to the benefit of all area residents.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

Tin

B a n kin g O ffice s

\ i n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

The First State Savings Bank of Gladwin

Gladwin, Michigan

(change title to Mid-Michigan Bank)

12,830 1 2

to consolidate with

The State Savings Bank of Harrison

Harrison

9,465 1

Summary report by Attorney General, December 14, 1971

Gladwin Bank and Harrison Bank are located 21 miles apart. There are no 

other banks located in the intervening area. Each bank derives most of its 

business from the town in which it is located and the immediate area. However, 

each bank draws some business from the service area of the other, and there is 

an area of competitive overlap located midway between the towns of Gladwin 

and Harrison. Therefore, some direct competition between the banks would be 

eliminated by the consolidation.

In addition to the consolidating banks, there are only three other commercial banks in this two-county area. All three other banks are located in the 

southern portions of Clare and Gladwin Counties, in Clare, Farwell, and 

Beaverton, and all three of these banks are affiliated through interlocking 

stockholders and directors. Thus, despite the presence of other banks in these

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 51

two adjoining counties, the consolidation of Gladwin Bank and Harrison Bank 

would leave the two-county area, at best, with basically only two banking 

organizations.

Thus, because of the elimination of some existing competition between the 

participating banks and the elimination of banking alternatives for a large 

portion of banking customers in Gladwin and Clare Counties, we conclude that 

this consolidation would have some adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 31, 1972

The First State Savings Bank of Gladwin, Gladwin, Michigan ("Gladwin 

Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $12,830,000, 

has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to consolidate with 

The State Savings Bank of Harrison, Harrison, Michigan ("Harrison Bank"), 

with total resources of $9,465,000. The banks would consolidate under the 

charter of Gladwin Bank with the title "Mid-Michigan Bank" and, as an 

incident to the consolidation, the single office of Harrison Bank would become 

a branch of the resulting bank.

Competition. Gladwin Bank is a unit bank located in Gladwin (population 

2,071), the seat of Gladwin County, in north-central Michigan. The area 

Gladwin Bank serves covers most of Gladwin County and the eastern portion 

of adjoining Clare County. Its nearest competitor (and the only other bank 

headquartered in Gladwin County) is 8 miles to the south in Beaverton. This 

competing bank is affiliated through interlocking directors and ownership with 

Chemical Bank and Trust Company, Midland, Michigan, a $109 million institution. Gladwin County has a population of 13,471, having grown by about 25 

percent during the previous decade. Its income levels are below the Michigan 

average, and more than 41 percent of its families are estimated to have annual 

cash incomes of less than $5,000.

The single office of Harrison Bank is 17.5 miles west of Gladwin Bank in 

Harrison, the seat of Clare County. Harrison Bank serves primarily the northcentral portion of Clare County. Another affiliate of Chemical Bank and Trust 

Company, the much larger Citizens Bank and Trust Company, is headquartered 

in Clare, 15 miles south of Harrison, while the third bank headquartered in 

Clare County is located in Farwell about 5 miles west of Clare. This bank was 

recently sold by persons closely connected with Chemical Bank and Trust 

Company to local investors and must now be considered a completely independent institution. Clare County has a population of 16,695, an increase of 

about 43 percent over the 1960 population. Its income levels are comparable 

to those in Gladwin County.

The sparsely populated Gladwin-Harrison area has long been dependent 

upon agriculture, with little evidence of any trend toward industrialization. 

Recent increases in local population and income are based on the resort trade 

and the construction of vacation and retirement cottages. Lake-front property 

in the two counties is becoming scarce, however, and this source of economic 

growth is expected to taper off in the future. The Federal Government has 

declared this to be a financially depressed area.

Midway between Gladwin and Harrison, there is an overlapping, some 4 

miles in width, of the secondary areas served by both banks. Each bank draws 

some business from this sparsely populated area, and the proposal would

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
52 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

eliminate the limited competition between them in this location. Neither bank 

has any significant loan or deposit business, however, from the primary service 

area of the other. The possibility for increased competition between the two 

banks in the future appears remote. De Novo branching is unlikely, since State 

law prohibits such entry into a city or village in which another bank office is 

located, and the remaining unbanked communities in the two counties have 

very limited population or deposit potential.

Gladwin Bank and Harrison Bank are reasonably convenient alternatives for 

residents of the two counties seeking banking services. There are no competing 

offices intervening between them, although the affiliates of Chemical Bank and 

Trust Company are, respectively, closer to Gladwin Bank and Harrison Bank 

than these two banks are to each other. Farwell State Savings Bank represents 

the only other banking alternative available to most people in the two counties, 

commercial bank offices in contiguous counties at Marion, Houghton Lake, 

Prudenville, West Branch, Standish, and Midland being discounted for this 

purpose since they range from 20 to 48 miles distant from Harrison or Gladwin 

and would constitute alternatives for only a small portion of the population in 

Clare or Gladwin Counties. Similarly, while the application discloses that some 

1,200 persons in Gladwin Bank's service area and 250 persons in Harrison 

Bank's service area commute 37 to 48 miles one way to work in Midland, 

where two larger banks are headquartered, neither of these Midland banks 

constitutes a readily available alternative for the majority of residents in Gladwin and Clare Counties. This analysis requires the conclusion that the proposed 

consolidation would reduce from four to three the number of independent 

alternatives generally available to the 30,000 residents of the two counties. In 

addition, the proposed consolidation would materially increase the concentration of local deposits held by the two largest banking organizations in the 

two-county area, that is, the Chemical Bank and Trust Company affiliates and 

the consolidated bank.

While these are anticompetitive considerations in the proposed consolidation, their significance is somewhat limited by the economic characteristics and 

future prospects of the two counties. In addition, the proposed consolidation 

would have some procompetitive results in that the resulting bank should be 

better able to compete with the nearby affiliates of Chemical Bank and Trust 

Company, Midland.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both banks have 

financial and managerial resources which are adequate for their continued 

operation either independently or on a consolidated basis. Future prospects for 

the two banks are only fair and should be strengthened by more efficient use 

of their resources resulting from the proposed consolidation.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Harrison Bank is 

today more heavily loaned in relation to its assets than Gladwin Bank. The 

proposed consolidation would permit some transfer of lendable funds to the 

Harrison office of the resulting bank to help satisfy loan demands in that area. 

In addition, the lending limits of both banks would be increased substantially— in the case of the Harrison Bank from $34,500 to almost $100,000 

and, if the bank's Board of Directors approves, to almost $200,000.

Based on the foregoing information, the Board of Directors believes that the 

adverse competitive considerations presented by the application are limited in 

scope and counterbalanced by certain procompetitive results. Based on the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 53

modest benefits in banking service likely to accrue to residents of both 

counties as a result of the consolidation proposed, the Board of Directors has 

concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Goochland Community Bank

Goochland, Virginia 

(in organization; change title 

to Bank of Goochland)

125 2

t o m e r g e w i t h

Bank of Goochland

Goochland

18,062 2

Summary report by Attorney General, February 15, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Goochland Community Bank would become a subsidiary of Southern Bankshares, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by Southern Bankshares, Inc., it would 

have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, March 31, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal Deposit Insurance 

for Goochland Community Bank, Goochland, Virginia ("First Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Bank of 

Goochland, Goochland, Virginia ("Second Bank"), total resources $18,062,000, 

under First Bank's charter and Second Bank's title. The resulting bank is to 

operate from the present main office and one existing branch of Second Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which Southern Bankshares, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, a registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent of the voting stock of the bank resulting 

from the proposed merger pursuant to authority recently granted by the Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. First Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing locations of 

Second Bank, and with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, 

change the competitive structure of commercial banking in Goochland County 

or affect the banking services which Second Bank has provided to Goochland 

County residents in the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the 

two subject applications are favorably resolved.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
54 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources / ; r-k

B a n kin g O ffice s (i n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

1 n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

First Bank of Savannah

Savannah, Georgia

22,689 2 4

to merge with

Industrial Bank of Savannah

Savannah

6,098 2

Summary report by Attorney General, February 23, 1972

The main offices of First Bank and Industrial Bank are located in downtown 

Savannah only two blocks apart. All of their branches and proposed branches 

are located in the Savannah metropolitan area. Both institutions derive virtually all of their business from the same relevant market, Chatham County. 

With only 10 banks currently operating in Chatham County, it is clear that 

substantial existing competition will be eliminated by the proposed merger.

As of June 30, 1970, First Bank was the fourth largest bank operating in 

Chatham County and held approximately 4.0 per cent of total county deposits. 

According to the application, since becoming a commercial bank in 1969, First 

Bank's resources have increased 91 per cent. Thus, First Bank's current Chatham County market share is probably greater than that of June 30, 1970. As of 

that date, Industrial Bank was the seventh largest Chatham County bank and 

held approximately 1.1 per cent of total county deposits. Since 1963, Industrial Bank has tripled in size.

The four largest banks operating in Chatham County hold approximately 96 

per cent of total county deposits. With the consummation of the proposed 

merger these banks will hold approximately 97 per cent of such deposits.

Georgia law limits branching to only those counties in which a bank presently has an office. Furthermore, bank holding companies are restricted to 

acquiring no more than 5 per cent of the voting shares of any other bank. 

Therefore, any potential deconcentration in the Chatham County banking 

market must come from existing banks in Chatham County. There are only 

nine banks (only seven of which are full commercial banks) now operating in 

Chatham County. There have been at least four mergers or acquisitions involving Chatham County banks since 1967, and the second largest bank in the 

county, Savannah Bank and Trust Company, has an application pending before 

the Federal Reserve Board to acquire Chatham Savings Bank. Thus, consummation of the proposed merger will clearly result in the elimination of one of a 

very few sources of potential competition in Chatham County. Under these 

circumstances, the elimination of even a small factor in such a highly concentrated market presents significant competitive problems.

The proposed merger would eliminate significant existing competition and 

increase the already high concentration in banking markets in Savannah. It

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 55

would also eliminate Industrial Bank as one of the very few sources of potential deconcentration in the Chatham County banking market. Therefore, we 

conclude that the proposed merger would have an adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, April 17, 1972

First Bank of Savannah, Savannah, Georgia ("First"), a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $22,689,000 and total IPC deposits of 

$15,084,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to 

merge with Industrial Bank of Savannah, Savannah, Georgia ("Industrial"), 

with total resources of $6,098,000 and total IPC deposits of $3,790,000. The 

banks would merge under the charter and title of First; and, as an incident to 

the merger, the two offices of Industrial would become branches of the resulting bank.

Competition. First, the fourth largest commercial bank in Chatham County, 

which comprises the Savannah SMSA, has had a close relationship with First 

National Bank in Atlanta, Georgia's third largest banking organization, since 

1969. In the Savannah SMSA, First has two operating offices and two additional offices authorized but unopened. It holds approximately 4.4 percent of 

the SMSA's total IPC deposits held at commercial banks and the more limitedservice savings banks (which are stock institutions in Georgia). First is 

considerably smaller in the Savannah SMSA than its three larger competitors: 

The Citizens and Southern National Bank, which held approximately 44.4 

percent of such IPC deposits on June 30, 1970; Savannah Bank & Trust 

Company of Savannah, which (with Chatham Savings Bank, a bank whose 

merger with Savannah Bank & Trust Company has been approved by the 

Federal Reserve Board) held approximately 30.1 percent of such deposits; and 

The Liberty National Bank & Trust Company of Savannah, with approximately 

17.0 percent of such deposits. The largest bank in the area is an affiliate of 

Georgia's largest banking organization, and the third largest is an affiliate of 

Trust Company of Georgia, the State's second largest banking organization.

Industrial is the seventh largest bank in the Savannah SMSA, with IPC 

deposits equal to approximately 1.1 percent of the SMSA's total. Industrial, 

which converted to full commercial bank status in 1963, has two offices in the 

Savannah SMSA. Its main office is approximately three blocks away from 

First's main office in a financial section of Savannah where most of the SMSA's 

other banking institutions also are headquartered.

Savannah is the county seat of Chatham County (population 187,767) and 

is an important manufacturing distribution and transportation center. The 

city's population decreased 20.7 percent between 1960 and 1970, but the 

county's population remained relatively stable.

Both banks compete in the same market for deposits, real estate loans, and 

installment loans, and, to a lesser extent, for business loans and single-payment 

loans to individuals. The amounts involved, however, are insignificant relative to 

the total of such business originating in the Savannah SMSA. The proposed 

merger would eliminate this existing competition between First and Industrial, 

but there are certain mitigating factors. Industrial has been a nonaggressive 

competitor for banking business in the Savannah area. Its merger into First is 

unlikely to eliminate a significant existing or a significant potential competitor.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
56 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The merger should enable First, however, to compete somewhat more effectively with the area's three largest banking institutions, particularly for the 

banking business of Savannah's commercial accounts. First's continued growth 

is likely to be the most effective way, within the reasonably foreseeable future, 

to deconcentrate the commercial bank resources now held by the three largest 

banks in the Savannah SMSA.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both banks, as would 

the resulting bank, have adequate financial and managerial resources for the 

business they do as independent institutions. Each of the participating banks 

has favorable future prospects; however, the future prospects of Industrial 

should be better as part of the resulting bank than as an independent unit.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The resulting bank 

can be expected to extend to Industrial's customers its slightly higher rate of 

interest on passbook savings accounts and its special "5 x5 " time account. To 

the extent the proposed merger assists First in becoming a more effective 

competitor for Savannah's three largest banks across the broad spectrum of 

commercial bank services, including larger size loans and specialized services for 

business customers, the Savannah public should benefit by having four, rather 

than three, significant sources for such services.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Bank of Clarksdale

Clarksdale, Mississippi

58,712 9 12

to merge with

Bank of Batesville

Batesville

8,384 3

Summary report by Attorney General, February 23, 1972

The nearest branch of Clarksdale Bank to that of Batesville Bank is located 

in the Town of Lambert, approximately 23 miles away. In the intervening area 

are located offices of two other banks. Clarksdale Bank derives approximately 

$250,000 in loans and $100,000 in deposits from the area served by Batesville 

Bank. Thus, it would appear that only a relatively insignificant amount of 

direct competition would be eliminated by the proposed merger.

Clarksdale Bank, at present, has two branch offices on the western edge of 

the Batesville Bank's service area as defined in the application; under 

Mississippi law, it could branch de novo into the center of Batesville Bank's 

service area. However, there are a number of other potential entrants into this

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 57

area, and the Batesville Bank is not one of the dominant institutions in the 

area. Thus, the proposed acquisition would have no adverse effect on potential 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, April 17, 1972

Bank of Clarksdale, Clarksdale, Mississippi, a State nonmember insured bank 

with total resources of $58,712,000 and total I PC deposits of $46,663,000, has 

applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Bank of 

Batesville, Batesville, Mississippi, with total resources of $8,384,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $6,620,000. The banks would merge under the charter and title 

of Bank of Clarksdale and, as an incident to the merger, the three offices of 

Bank of Batesville would become branches of the resulting bank, increasing the 

number of its offices to 12.

Competition. Bank of Clarksdale operates nine offices in four northwestern 

Mississippi counties; five offices located in Coahoma County, two offices 

located in Quitman County, one office in Sunflower County, and one office in 

Tallahatchie County. Each of these counties had a population decrease in the 

last decade, ranging from 12.5 percent in Coahoma County to 24.4 percent in 

Quitman County. The combined four-county area had an overall decline in 

population from 137,062 in 1960 to 112,720 in 1970, or 17.8 percent. Clarksdale itself had a nominal increase in the like period, from 21,105 to 21,673.

Bank of Batesville operates its main office and a drive-in facility in Batesville 

and a branch at Pope, 8 miles south of Batesville, all in Panola County, which 

adjoins Quitman County on the east. During the 1960s, Panola County 

experienced a 6.8 percent decline in population, from 28,791 in 1960 to 

26,829 in 1970. Batesville, the county seat, grew modestly, however, from 

3,284 to 3,796 in the same period. Pope is a sparsely populated community of 

only 210 people.

The service areas of the participating banks are predominately agricultural, 

with the principal crops being cotton and soybeans. There has, however, been 

increasing industrial activity in and around Clarksdale and Batesville, and 

further such activity is anticipated.

The closest offices of the two participating banks are about 22 miles apart, 

and the principal roads between these two locations all run through towns 

containing offices of other banks. As might be expected, the volume of 

business each bank generates from areas primarily served by the other is small 

relative to the total deposit and loan business originating in such areas. The 

proposed merger would not, therefore, eliminate any significant existing competition between the two banks.

Under Mississippi law, each of the participating banks could branch de novo

into the other's area, but the likelihood of such activity on the part of either is 

considered remote. Bank of Batesville has neither the resources nor the 

managerial depth to pursue that course, while Bank of Clarksdale might not 

find Panola County attractive for de novo branching, in view of the declining 

population trend, the existence of six fully empowered banking offices already 

serving the county, and the relatively low average incomes of Panola County 

residents. Moreover, should economic trends be reversed, there are a number of 

other potential entrants, into Panola County, which are larger than Bank of 

Clarksdale.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
58 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Bank of Clarksdale is the largest bank in the four-county area in which it 

maintains offices, with 29.1 percent of their total commercial bank deposits, as 

of June 30, 1970. Bank of Batesville is the second largest of six commercial 

banks in Panola County, with approximately 26.9 percent of their total deposits. The resulting bank would be the largest in its combined five-county 

service area, with approximately 28.8 percent of the total deposits. These 

figures probably overstate the local strength of Bank of Clarksdale since 

Memphis, Tennessee, banks are reasonably convenient alternatives for at least 

the larger customers in Bank of Clarksdale's service area, and they also have a 

competitive influence on retail business generally through their advertising. 

Nevertheless, Bank of Clarksdale's relative size and lead position in its present 

service area constitutes an adverse factor in the consideration of this application, since the proposed merger would add to the concentration of banking 

resources in this section of Mississippi and since Bank of Batesville undoubtedly has merger alternatives available to it other than Bank of Clarksdale. 

This adverse factor, however, is counterbalanced by other competitive considerations. Ample banking alternatives would remain in all relevant areas. 

More importantly, competition in Panola County would be strengthened since 

the proposed merger would eliminate a nonaggressive competitor whose 

dominant position in Batesville has been overtaken by a bank organized less 

than 20 years ago. Finally, Bank of Clarksdale has only 1.4 percent of total 

commercial bank deposits in the State of Mississippi. The proposed merger 

would increase that percentage to 1.6 percent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Bank of Clarksdale 

and the resulting bank have satisfactory financial and managerial resources and 

satisfactory prospects for the future. Although Bank of Batesville has satisfactory financial resources, it has aging management that has failed to compete 

aggressively and no plans for management succession. The proposed merger 

would add depth to Bank of Batesville's management and resolve its succession 

problem. Bank of Batesville's prospects for the future would accordingly be 

more favorable as part of the resulting bank than operating independently.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The principal 

effects of the proposed merger would be felt in Batesville and Panola County. 

The merger would bring to this area the full services of a larger, more aggressive 

institution. Specific services which would be offered by the resulting bank but 

which are not now offered by Bank of Batesville include trust services, data 

processing services, and a variety of loan services. Not only would the resulting 

bank be able to make larger loans to Bank of Batesville customers, it can also 

be expected to increase significantly the total amounts of loans outstanding at 

Bank of Batesville offices. In addition, these offices would be physically improved and modernized. Such changes should benefit the general public and 

the business community in Panola County and act as a stimulant to local 

competition.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 59

Resources /! m B a n kin g O ffic e s

lin

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Monroe Savings Bank

Rochester, New York

274,691 6 7

to merge with

Wayland Dime Savings and Loan

Association

Wayland

264 1

Summary report by Attorney General, February 23, 1972

Monroe is one of four th rift institutions in Rochester holding deposits of 

between $200 and $400 million. While its closest office is about 40 miles from 

Wayland, the application indicates that Monroe draws about $4.1 million from 

the area served by Wayland. Accordingly, the proposed merger would eliminate 

whatever competition this small uninsured institution may presently be affording to other institutions serving the area, including Monroe.

In view of the size of Wayland, and the lack of any apparent promise of its 

becoming a meaningful competitor in its service area, we conclude that the 

proposed merger would be unlikely to have any significantly adverse effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, April 17, 1972

Monroe Savings Bank, Rochester, New York (“ MSB” ), an insured mutual 

savings bank with total deposits of $257,148,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior approval to merge with Wayland Dime Saving and Loan 

Association, Wayland, New York ("S & L"), a noninsured savings and loan 

association with total deposits of $228,000. The institutions would merge 

under the charter and title of MSB and, as an incident to the merger, S&Lfs 

only office would become a branch of MSB, after it has been relocated to 131 

Main Street, Dansville, New York, a distance of about 6 miles to the west of 

S&L's present location. The number of offices operated by MSB would be 

increased to seven.

Competition. All offices of MSB are located in the Rochester metropolitan 

area, which comprises its primary trade area. The Rochester metropolitan area 

is a diversified manufacturing center with a growing, relatively prosperous 

population. Under a recently revised New York law, MSB may open one de

novo branch per year and merge throughout the State's Eighth Banking District. As of December 31, 1971, MSB was the fifth largest mutual th rift institution in that district, with 12.2 percent of their total deposits and 9.2 percent of 

all th rift institution offices. S&L was the smallest of 16 th rift institutions in 

the district, with only 0.01 percent of their total deposits.

The Village of Wayland has a population of about 2,000 and is in a sparsely 

populated section of Steuben County The village of Dansville, the county seat 

of Livingston County, had a population of 5,436 in 1970 and is part of the 

slightly larger town of North Dansville. The town of North Dansville serves as a 

trade center for an area encompassing 11 towns with an estimated combined 

population of approximately 22,300. S&L is the smallest of four th rift institution offices within a 21-mile radius of Dansville and has only 1.5 percent of 

their total deposits.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
60 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The trade areas of MSB and S&L, both at its present site and at its proposed 

location, are separate and distinct. Dansville is located about 45 miles south of 

the main office of MSB and 39 miles south of its nearest office in Southtown 

Plaza in Henrietta. While MSB draws some deposit business from the Dansville 

trade area, the amounts involved are not substantial relative to the total deposit 

business originating there. S&L draws virtually no business from the Rochester 

metropolitan area and has not been an effective competitor, in recent years, 

with any financial institution. The proposed merger would eliminate no significant competition between S&L and MSB.

Management of S&L has decided, in the event of a denial of this application, 

to sell S&L's loan portfolio and liquidate. Even if this management decision 

were reversed, there would be little prospect for increased competition between MSB and S&L in the future. S&L has neither the financial nor the 

managerial resources to expand beyond its present trade area, while MSB has 

far more attractive locations than Dansville available to it for purposes of 

utilizing its annual de novo branch privilege. While S&L may have other merger 

alternatives available to it, the relative share of total th rift institution deposits 

in the Eighth Banking District held by MSB and S&L makes it unnecessary to 

require S&L to pursue such alternatives.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any matter be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of the participating institutions has adequate financial and managerial resources for the 

business they presently transact, as would the resulting bank. Absent this proposed transaction, S&L has no future prospects unless its management determines not to liquidate as presently proposed. The future prospects for both the 

Dansville branch and the resulting institution are favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

this proposed transaction would have no perceptible impact upon the present 

customers of MSB except those that reside in the Dansville area who might 

benefit from MSB's on-line depositor service. Present and potential customers 

of S&L however, should benefit materially. S&L is presently open to the public 

only 2 hours a week and has recently lost the space from which it had been 

operating. It offers only passbook savings accounts and mortgage loans of very 

limited amounts. Excluding dividend credits, the deposits of S&L have decreased by $10,000 on the average over the last 5 calendar years. This negative growth is attributed to the limited number of hours the association is 

open and the lack of services it offers to the public.

The resulting bank would offer normal banking hours 5 days a week, larger 

size mortgage loans, and the full range of services which mutual savings banks 

are permitted by New York law to offer. These additional services would 

include savings bank life insurance, certificate accounts at maximum rates of 

interest allowed by Federal regulation, FHA and VA mortgage loans, home 

improvement loans, student loans, traveler's checks, and a variety of savings 

plans. To the extent such services are available at other institutions within a 

20-mile radius of Dansville, the proposed merger would add a significant new 

alternative for banking customers in the area.

Based on the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded 

that approval of the proposed merger is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 61

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company

of South Carolina

Columbia, South Carolina

121,161 28 30

to merge with

Peoples Bank & Trust Co.

Pageland

7,331 2

Summary report by Attorney General, January 21, 1972

The nearest branch of First-Citizens to Peoples Bank is located in Cheraw, 

approximately 30 miles east of Pageland. While the application claims that 

neither bank draws significant amounts of business from the service area of the 

other, there are only six banks in the county; because the area is essentially 

rural, each of the offices of these banks must be regarded as serving as an 

alternative source of banking services to the other.

In addition, First-Citizens has pending before the Corporation an application to acquire The Bank of Chesterfield ("Chesterfield Bank"). Chesterfield 

Bank is located between Cheraw and Pageland, about 18 miles east of Pageland. 

There are no banking offices between Pageland and Chesterfield, although 

there is a small branch of another bank in Chesterfield. If that acquisition were 

to be approved, approval of this acquisition would eliminate the existing competition between Peoples Bank and Chesterfield Bank.

First-Citizens holds about 16 per cent, the fourth largest share, of total 

Chesterfield County deposits at its Cheraw branch. Chesterfield Bank holds 

about 17 per cent, the third largest share. Approval of that pending application 

would leave First-Citizens with 33 per cent of county deposits, the largest 

share, and the banks with the two largest shares would then hold 54 per cent of 

total county deposits. Peoples Bank holds about 23 per cent of total county 

deposits. Approval of both pending applications would leave First-Citizens with 

56 per cent of county deposits; the banks holding the two largest shares would 

then hold 87 per cent of total county deposits. Obviously, approval of these 

acquisitions would result in a significant increase in concentration in Chesterfield County.

In our competitive report of July 6, 1971, we concluded that, because a 

significant alternative source of banking services would be eliminated in a rural 

area where there are few commercial banks and because concentration would 

be substantially increased, the acquisition of Chesterfield Bank by FirstCitizens would have an adverse effect on competition. This acquisition, of 

PeopJes Bank by First-Citizens, would eliminate another banking alternative, 

and further increase concentration by the addition of a 23 per cent share, 

presently the second largest, of Chesterfield County deposits. Because of this, 

we conclude that the acquisitions of Chesterfield Bank and Peoples Bank by 

First-Citizens would have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 1, 1972

First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company of South Carolina, Columbia, South 

Carolina ("First-Citizens"), a State nonmember insured hank with total reDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

sources of $121,161,000 and total IPC deposits of $89,976,000, has applied, 

pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Peoples Bank & 

Trust Co., Pageland; South Carolina ("Peoples"), with total resources of 

$7,331,000 and total IPC deposits of $5,739,000. The banks would merge 

under the charter and title of First-Citizens, and the two offices of Peoples 

would become branches of the resulting bank, which would then have a total 

of 30 offices, not counting three approved but unopened branches.

Competition. First-Citizens, the fifth largest bank in South Carolina, operates 28 offices in 11 of the State's 46 counties. It has completed eight bank 

acquisitions since June 30, 1968, increasing its deposits by $53 million and the 

number of its offices by 15 in this way. It has opened 11 de novo offices in the 

same period. Not yet a statewide bank with offices throughout South Carolina, 

First-Citizens operates in three general sections: Spartanburg County in the 

northwestern section of the State; Richland and Lexington Counties surrounding the State capital at Columbia; and eight counties forming a crescent in the 

eastern part of the State running from Lancaster County in the north to 

Charleston County on the coast. A t year-end 1971, First-Citizens held 3.7 

percent of statewide commercial bank deposits, ranking well behind the State's 

four largest banks: The South Carolina National Bank of Charleston (21.7 

percent of all commercial bank deposits in the State), The Citizens and 

Southern National Bank of S.C. (13.3 percent of such deposits), First National 

Bank of South Carolina (10.1 percent of such deposits) and Bankers Trust of 

South Carolina (8.4 percent of such deposits). First-Citizens is approximately 

the same deposit size as Southern Bank and Trust Company and The Peoples 

National Bank, each of which also holds approximately 3.7 percent of the 

State's commercial bank deposits.

Peoples operates two offices in the town of Pageland (population 2,122), 

which is located a few miles south of the North Carolina border in the northwestern section of Chesterfield County. An office of First Peoples National 

Bank of South Carolina, a $17 million institution, was opened in Pageland at 

year-end 1971 and constitutes the only other bank in town. Both banks, 

however, also compete with Bank of Jefferson, a $2 million unit bank, located 

8 miles south of Pageland. These three banks are the only ones within 15 road 

miles of Pageland, with Peoples, three times larger than Bank of Jefferson, 

having the largest share of local IPC deposits. The merger of Peoples with 

First-Citizens would substitute the State's fifth largest bank for one of these 

three banks, but it would not reduce the number of banking options in Pageland or its environs available to local residents.

The First-Citizens office nearest to Pageland is to the west in Lancaster, 

approximately 24 miles away. While each bank draws some business from the 

area of Tradesville, a small unbanked community in the northeast corner of 

Lancaster County that lies between Pageland and Lancaster, the amounts involved are relatively insignificant. Moreover, to the extent persons who live on 

this edge of the area served by Peoples find it convenient to commute north, 

west or south rather than to Pageland for banking services, they have the 

choice of two additional banks in Lancaster, a small independent bank in 

Heath Springs, a branch of South Carolina's third largest bank in Kershaw and 

branches in or around Monroe, North Carolina, of three banks headquartered 

in that State.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 63

The Corporation concludes that the proposed merger of Peoples with FirstCitizens would eliminate no significant existing competition between them or 

reduce in any significant way the banking options which residents of the area 

served by Peoples now have. In addition, since First-Citizens has no office 

today in the Pageland area and draws little banking business from the area, the 

proposed merger would not increase in any significant way the concentration 

of commercial bank resources in the relevant area of local competition.

In so analyzing the likely effects of the proposed merger on local competition, the Corporation has rejected the view that the appropriate geographic 

area for this purpose is all of Chesterfield County. The latter is one of South 

Carolina's largest counties in terms of land area. It is sparsely populated, and 

large wildlife, forest and park preserves in the southern half of the county limit 

local traffic between many points. First-Citizens has one existing branch office 

in Chesterfield County, but this is in Cheraw some 32 miles east of Pageland. 

Neither section of the county draws much business from the other and there is 

no reason to believe the two communities are reasonable alternatives for 

banking services. Given the rural nature of the area, the general reliance of the 

public on automobile travel for transportation and the existence of well-paved 

roads, the more realistic area to measure the range of effective competition for 

Peoples, the bank sought to be merged, is considered to be approximately 15 

road miles from Pageland.

South Carolina law permits statewide branching, either de novo or by 

merger. While Peoples, with limited resources and a 48-year history of local 

operation, is unlikely to branch de novo into areas now served by FirstCitizens, the latter has the capability of entering the Pageland area de novo, but 

it is unlikely to find this course of action attractive in the foreseeable future.

Pageland and its environs have shown almost no growth during recent years. 

About 12,600 South Carolina residents are estimated to live within 15 road 

miles of Pageland, and they are already served by four commercial bank 

offices. Income levels in th is section of S o u th C arolina are below the S o u th 

Carolina average, while the South Carolina average itself ranks 49th in the 

nation. Unemployment in this area of the State has been a serious problem in 

the past and economic prospects for the future are not considered particularly 

bright, despite the opening of several manufacturing plants within commuting 

distance. The proposed merger, for these reasons, is considered unlikely to 

eliminate any significant potential for increased competition between FirstCitizens and Peoples through de novo branching.

Examining the six-county South Carolina area consisting of Chesterfield 

County and its five surrounding counties (Marlboro, Darlington, Lee, Kershaw, 

and Lancaster), it appears that First-Citizens has only four of the total number 

of 48 commercial bank offices in the area and as of June 30, 1970, controlled 

only 7.3 percent of the total IPC deposits held at all commercial bank offices 

then operating in the area, ranking sixth in this regard among 20 commercial 

banks. The proposed merger of Peoples with First-Citizens would moderately 

improve First-Citizens' position in the six-county area, but it would not result 

in any undue concentration of commercial bank resources. In the State as a 

whole, the acquisition of Peoples would result in only a slight increase in the 

3.7 percent share of commercial bank deposits now held by First-Citizens. 

Since the proposed merger would have no significant effect on the concentration of commercial bank resources or on public choice in any relevant market,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
64 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

there would appear to be no reason to require Peoples to seek an alternative 

merger partner rather than First-Citizens.

Under the circumstances, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. The financial and 

managerial resources of both banks are considered satisfactory and should 

continue so in the resulting bank. The future prospects of Peoples are not 

especially bright, but those of First-Citizens and of the resulting bank appear 

quite favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposal 

would bring to the area within 15 road miles of Pageland a comprehensive 

range of banking services not presently offered by the three small banks with 

offices in the area. These would include trust services, data processing services, 

a greater ability to service commercial and industrial borrowers, and a variety 

of specialized credit services for customers of all types. In addition, the public 

should benefit generally from the more aggressive competitive stance which 

First-Citizens is likely to bring to the area. This is likely to be particularly 

noticeable in the solicitation of time deposits and in a greater willingness to 

increase the total volume of loans outstanding in the area.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

The Commercial Bank

Winchester, Virginia 

(in organization; change title to 

The Commercial and Savings 

Bank)

50 5

to merge with

The Commercial and Savings Bank

Winchester

29,586 5

Summary report by Attorney General, March 31, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Commercial Bank 

(Org.) would become a subsidiary of Valley of Virginia Bankshares, Inc., a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by Valley of Virginia Bankshares, Inc., 

it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 1, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application for Federal deposit insurance has been filed on

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 65

behalf of The Commercial Bank, Winchester, Virginia ("New Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with The Commercial and Savings Bank, Winchester, Virginia ("Present Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $29,586,000, under the charter 

of New Bank and with the title of Present Bank. The main office of Present 

Bank will become the main office of the resulting bank, and the five approved 

branches of Present Bank (one is not yet open) will be operated as branches by 

the resulting bank.

The formation of New Bank and its merger with Present Bank effects a 

corporate reorganization whose sole purpose is to enable Valley of Virginia 

Bankshares, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia, a proposed multibank holding 

company, to acquire the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed 

merger. Approval of said acquisition was granted by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System on April 19, 1972. New Bank will not operate as a 

commercial bank prior to the merger. Following the merger's consummation, 

New Bank will carry on operations of a commercial bank at all locations of the 

Present Bank, with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, 

per se, affect the structure of commercial bank competition in the market 

served by Present Bank or result in changes in banking services heretofore 

provided by Present Bank. All factors considered pertinent to the two subject 

applications are resolved favorably.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that 

approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Guaranty Bank & Trust Company

Worcester, Massachusetts

202,748 19 20

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

Colonial Bank and Trust Company

Athol

2,330 1

Summary report by Attorney General, April 26, 1972

Guaranty's offices are situated in the eastern and southern parts of 

Worcester County. Its closest operating branch to the community of Athol is 

28 road miles away in Leominster. There are five alternative sources of commercial banking services within a 10 mile radius of Athol. Guaranty's present 

deposit and loan activity in Athol is minimal. Worcester County banking is 

highly concentrated with the two largest banks accounting for 67 per cent of 

deposits and the four largest for 85 per cent. As a result of the proposed 

transaction, Guaranty's share of deposits in Worcester County (which is 

probably itself too large to constitute a relevant retail market) would be increased by .3 per cent to 22.5 per cent.

In light of Colonial's small size and tenuous condition, any detrimental 

competitive consequences resulting from Guaranty's proposed acquisition of 

assets and assumption of liabilities should be very limited.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 6 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Basis for Corporation approval, May 12, 1972

Guaranty Bank & Trust Company, Worcester, Massachusetts ("Guaranty” ), 

an insured State nonmember bank with total resources of $202,748,000, has 

applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to purchase the assets of, 

and assume liability to pay deposits made in, Colonial Bank and Trust Company, Athol, Massachusetts ("Colonial” ), an operating noninsured commercial 

bank with total resources of $2,330,000, and, as an incident to the proposed 

transaction, the one office of Colonial would become a branch of Guaranty, 

increasing the number of its offices to 20. The Corporation has heretofore 

advised the Attorney General and the other banking agencies of the existence 

of an emergency requiring expeditious action pursuant to paragraph 6 of 

Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Competition. Both the city of Worcester (1970 population 176,572) and 

the town of Athol (1970 population 11,185) are in the county of Worcester 

(1970 population 637,969). Guaranty has 20 authorized offices, all in the 

eastern half of Worcester County. It is the second largest commercial bank in 

the county, holding 22.2 percent of the county's total IPC deposits (the largest 

holding 45.1 percent of such deposits). Colonial, the smallest commercial bank 

in Worcester County, is a unit bank, holding 0.3 percent of the county's total 

IPC deposits. It is the smallest of four banks in its present service area.

Colonial's office and Guaranty's nearest branch, which is in Leominster, are 

28 miles apart, and their service areas do not overlap. Neither bank draws any 

substantial business from areas served by the other, and no significant amount 

of existing competition between the two banks would be eliminated by this 

proposed transaction. Colonial, moreover, is a failing bank, which is not now, 

and is extremely unlikely to become, a viable competitor. Thus, even though 

Guaranty has the capacity and the legal authority under Massachusetts law to 

branch de novo into Athol, there is no potential for increased competition 

between the two banks in the future. Finally, if Colonial closed, First National 

Bank of Athol, already the largest of four banks serving Colonial's present 

service area, would obtain a monopoly of the commercial bank business locally 

in Athol. The proposed transaction would instead replace Colonial with a 

branch of an aggressive Worcester bank, and this result should stimulate competition in the area presently served by Colonial.

For the reason stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Colonial lacks adequate financial and managerial resources and is in a failing condition. Guaranty 

has adequate financial and managerial resources to absorb Colonial and has 

favorable future prospects with or without consummation of the proposed 

transaction.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community. Consummation of this proposed 

transaction would avoid any interruption of banking services for Colonial's 

customers and any losses to depositors or creditors, since Colonial is a noninsured institution. By substituting a branch of Guaranty for Colonial, the 

result would be increased competition for First National Bank of Athol, and 

this should benefit the public at large as well as existing customers of Colonial

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 67

since Guaranty offers a charge card service, payroll services, a much larger 

lending limit, and specialized commercial bank services not now offered by 

First National Bank of Athol.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 1i nB a n kin g O ffic e s

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Hampshire Trust Company

Hyattsville, Maryland 

(in organization; change title to 

Suburban Trust Company)

900 44

to merge with

Suburban Trust Company

Hyattsville

681,955 44

Summary report by Attorney General, March 20, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Suburban Trust 

Company would become a subsidiary of Suburban Bancorporation, a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by Suburban Bancorporation, it would 

have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 18, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Hampshire Trust Company, Hyattsville, Maryland ("New Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for prior consent to its merger with 

Suburban Trust Company, Hyattsville, Maryland ("Operating Bank"), a State 

nonmember bank, total resources of $681,955,000 as of February 29, 1972, 

under New Bank's charter and Operating Bank's title. The resulting bank will 

operate Operating Bank's existing 44 offices and 11 approved but unopened 

branches when established. The initial capital of New Bank will be retired.

The new bank formation and merger are being utilized as a means to facilitate the acquisition of Operating Bank by Suburban Bancorporation ("Holding 

Company"). Holding Company's application to become a registered bank holding company and acquire control of Operating Bank was approved on May 1, 

1972, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. New Bank 

will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business of 

Operating Bank at its existing locations, and with the same management. The 

proposal will not, per se, change the banking services which Operating Bank has 

provided to its trade area. All factors required to be considered pertinent to 

each application are favorably resolved.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 8 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

Woodridge State Bank

Houston, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

Gulfgate State Bank of Houston)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities of

Gulfgate State Bank of Houston

Houston

35,079 1

Summary report by Attorney General, February 15, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Woodridge State Bank 

would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 18, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Woodridge State Bank, Houston, Texas ("First Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumption of the liability to pay deposits made in Gulfgate State Bank of Houston, 

Houston, Texas ("Second Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total 

resources of $35,079,000. The resulting bank will operate from the one existing office of Second Bank and with its title.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are 

designed solely as a means by which First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., 

Houston, Texas, a registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent 

(less directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting 

from the proposed transaction. Application for said acquisition was approved 

by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on April 4, 1972. 

First Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the purchase 

and assumption transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate 

the same banking business at the existing location of Second Bank, and with 

the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive 

structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Second Bank or 

affect the banking services which Second Bank has provided in the past. All 

factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are 

favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 69

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Tracy-Collins Bank and Trust Company

Salt Lake City, Utah

67,760 6 8

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

American National Bank

Salt Lake City

21,084 2

Summary report by Attorney General, February 25, 1972

The main offices of Tracy-Collins and American are within a few blocks of 

each other and American has one branch whose service area overlaps those of 

three Tracy-Collins branches. Some direct competition will, therefore, be eliminated if the proposed acquisition is approved. It is noted, however, that within 

the area intervening and immediately adjoining the main offices of both banks 

there are ten other offices which provide banking alternatives; among them are 

offices of the three largest banking organizations in Salt Lake County which 

control two-thirds of total deposits.

As of June 30, 1970, Tracy-Collins, the sixth largest banking organization in 

Salt Lake County, held approximately 5 per cent of the county's total deposits 

and American, the ninth largest, held approximately 1.5 per cent. The proposed acquisition would move Tracy-Collins from the sixth to the fifth largest 

bank in the county, thereby tending to increase concentration to some slight 

degree.

Valley Bank and Trust Company which owns 29 per cent of the common 

voting stock of American has, with all other shareholders, agreed to sell its 

stock for cash to Tracy-Collins and by doing so, would remove itself from any 

interest in the resulting bank.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 23, 1972

Tracy-Collins Bank and Trust Company, Salt Lake City, Utah ("TracyC o llin s "), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$67,760,000 and total IPC deposits of $44,468,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to purchase the assets of, and assume liability 

to pay deposits made in, American National Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah 

("American"), which has total resources of $21,084,000 and total IPC deposits 

of $14,109,000. The two offices of American would be operated as branches 

of Tracy-Collins, increasing the number of its authorized offices to eight.

Competition. The main office and two branches of Tracy-Collins are in Salt 

Lake City, and its other three branches are in Salt Lake County. American was 

organized in 1963, and its main office is located in Salt Lake City. Since May

1969, American has operated one branch in Midvale, a community of 7,840 

people 10 miles south of its main office site. Both American offices are also 

within Salt Lake County.

The population of the Salt Lake City SMSA, consisting of Davis and Salt 

Lake Counties, increased from 447,795 in 1960 to 557,635 in 1970, an increase of 24.5 percent, while the population of Salt Lake City itself declined 

7.2 percent from 189,454 to 175,885 during the same period. The Salt Lake 

City SMSA is bordered on the north by the Ogden, Utah, SMSA and on the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
70 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

south by the Provo-Orem, Utah, SMSA. The Salt Lake City metropolitan area 

is the financial, commercial, industrial, and distribution center for a wide area 

which includes, in addition to Utah, southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and 

eastern Nevada.

The widest geographic area within which the effects of the proposed transaction on competition would be most direct and immediate is Salt Lake 

County, the southern half of the Salt Lake City SMSA, and the county in 

which both banks have all their offices and may branch de novo without 

statutory restrictions. In Salt Lake County, Tracy-Collins was the sixth largest 

of 13 commercial banks as of June 30, 1970, holding 5.4 percent of the 

county's total I PC deposits, while American was the 10th largest of such banks, 

holding 1.5 percent of the county's total IPC deposits. The three largest commercial banks in the county, each with more than 20 percent of the county's 

total IPC deposits, held, in the aggregate, 67.0 percent of such deposits, while 

the fourth largest bank held 11.0 percent of such deposits, and the fifth largest 

bank, 6.9 percent of such deposits.

The closest offices of the two banks are their main offices, which are fourtenths of a mile apart in the central business district of Salt Lake City. Several 

offices of other commercial banks are also located in this central business 

district, some of them between the Tracy-Collins main office and the American 

main office. While there is some existing competition between Tracy-Collins 

and American, the amount of this direct competition is not considered to be 

substantial in view of the market shares of the two banks and the presence of 

numerous other commercial bank alternatives available to the public. Moreover, the proposed transaction may actually improve the vigor of competition 

within the relevant market. Tracy-Collins in part seeks approval of this application to acquire a drive-in office with parking space conveniently near its main 

office, which has neither. American is undercapitalized and has been unable to 

obtain the necessary shareholder approval to increase its capital. This approval 

has been denied because of the negative vote of 30 percent of American's 

shares held by two affiliates of Valley Bank and Trust Company, Salt Lake 

City's fifth largest bank, a veto power which would be eliminated by the 

proposed transaction. Moreover, American's undercapitalized position limits 

substantially the likelihood of increased competition in the future between 

Tracy-Collins and American through de novo branching, even though Utah law 

would permit both banks to branch de novo throughout Salt Lake City and 

Salt Lake County. Accordingly, a bank which may become increasingly ineffective as a competitor (American) would be replaced by a bank (Tracy-Collins) 

with a greater capacity to compete in its market than either constituent bank.

Under these circumstances, while the proposed transaction would eliminate 

some existing competition and some potential for increased competition in the 

future between Tracy-Collins and American, the Corporation cannot conclude 

that the effect of the transaction would be to lessen competition substantially 

in Salt Lake County.

Commercial banking in the State of Utah is concentrated in its three largest 

banks, which as of December 31, 1971, held 59.0 percent of total deposits held 

by all commercial banks in the State. The largest share is held by First Security 

Bank of Utah, N.A., Ogden, Utah, with 27.6 percent; the next largest commercial banks are headquartered in Salt Lake City, and they have 16.2 percent 

and 15.2 percent, respectively. Tracy-Collins is the seventh largest of 50 comDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 71

mercial banks in the State, with 2.8 percent of the State's total commercial 

bank deposits, while American holds only 0.8 percent of such deposits. The 

resulting bank would also rank as the seventh largest in the State, with 3.6 

percent of total deposits, and would still be much smaller than the five largest 

banks. Consummation of the proposed transaction would accordingly have no 

significant effect on the structure of commercial banking statewide in Utah.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Tracy-Collins has 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

The proposed transaction would rectify American's presently deficient capital 

position. Future prospects for the resulting bank are favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Tracy-Collins has 

established trust and mortgage loan services which would be extended to 

American customers, while American has drive-up window and parking facilities that would become available to Tracy-Collins' customers in the central 

business section of Salt Lake City. The proposed transaction would also enable 

the resulting bank to offer a wider range of customer services and to compete 

more effectively with the five larger commercial banks in Salt Lake County. 

Numerous commercial bank alternatives would remain for county residents.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces t ir-iB a n k in g O ffic e s

(in

thousands 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Hudson Trust Company

Union City, New Jersey

(change title to Hudson United Bank)

123,745 6 10

to merge with

The United National Bank of

Bergen County

Cliffside Park

50,115 4

Summary report by Attorney General, May 1, 1972

The home offices of the banks are 4.7 miles apart; the Fairview branch of 

United and one of HTC's Union City branches are 2.5 miles apart. Although 

several competing banking offices intervene, each bank draws substantial deposits and loans from the service area of the other.

Thus, if the proposed acquisition is approved, existing competition between 

the banks for both deposits and loans as well as the potential for increasing this 

competition will be eliminated.

Under New Jersey law, intra-District de novo branching is permitted, subject 

to home and branch office protection. Hence, the banks are potential de novo

entrants into the home counties of each other, with some limitations as to 

precise location.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
72 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

As of June 30, 1970, Bergen County was served by 33 commercial banks 

with 113 branches, controlling $2 billion. At that time, United had $42 million 

or 2.1 per cent of Bergen County commercial bank deposits. On that date, 

Hudson County was served by 12 commercial banks with 56 branches, controlling $1.1 billion of deposits; HTC's deposits of $105 million represented a

9.5 per cent share.

The Application lists 29 commercial bank offices as being located in the 

eight-township Cliffside Park-Union City area in addition to those offices 

located therein of United and HTC. Since deposit data for many of the 

branches of larger New Jersey banks located in this area, according to the 

Application, is not available in current FDIC materials, no definitive market 

shares can be calculated for the banks competing therein. HTC and United are 

the two largest banks headquartered in this area.

We conclude that the proposed acquisition, if approved may have some 

adverse effect on competition in the Cliffside Park-Union City area.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 31, 1972

Hudson Trust Company, Union City, New Jersey ("Hudson Trust"), a State 

nonmember insured bank with total resources of $123,745,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $106,453,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to merge with The United National Bank of Bergen County, Cliffside 

Park, New Jersey ("United"), with total resources of $50,115,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $43,667,000. The banks would merge under the charter of 

Hudson with the title "Hudson United Bank" and, as an incident to the 

merger, the four existing offices and one approved but unopened office of 

United would become branches of the resulting bank, which would then have a 

total of 11 offices.

Competition. Hudson Trust operates six offices in central and northern 

Hudson County, three of which are in Union City (population 58,537), and 

three of which are in Hoboken (population 45,380). Hudson County (population 609,266), which adjoins the Hudson River and New York City, is one of 

seven counties in New Jersey's First Banking District. Its diverse economy has 

declined somewhat during the past decade and its outlook is not considered 

promising. Hudson Trust is the fifth largest of 12 commercial banks with 

offices in Hudson County, holding 9.5 percent of the county's total commercial bank deposits.

United operates four offices in south Bergen County, three of which are in 

Cliffside Park (population 14,387), and one of which is in Fairview (population 

10,698). An additional office in Cfiffside Park has been approved but has not 

yet opened. Bergen County (population 898,012) is contiguous to and northeast of Hudson County, and both are separated from Manhattan by the Hudson 

River. United's service area is predominantly residential with relatively minor 

acreage devoted to industrial and commercial use. During the last decade, 

Bergen County experienced a population increase of over 15 percent, and its 

prospects for continued growth are favorable. United is the seventh largest of 

33 commercial banks in Bergen County, holding 2.1 percent of the county's 

total commercial bank deposits.

The main offices of the two banks are 4.7 miles apart and the nearest offices 

are 2.5 miles apart, with 11 commercial banking offices in the intervening area. 

Both banks draw the bulk of their business from separate and distinct trade

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 73

areas, although they each have some limited deposit and loan business from the 

primary service area of the other. While Hudson Trust has a substantially higher 

proportion of its loan portfolio in commercial and industrial loans than does 

United, both banks have a high proportion of residential mortgage loans.

New Jersey banking statutes provide that a bank may branch, de novo or by 

merger, throughout the banking district in which it is headquartered, subject to 

main office protection in all communities and branch office protection in 

communities with a population under 7,500. United has successfully opened 

several de novo branches but the depressed economy of Hudson County affords little incentive for it to seek de novo branches there. Hudson Trust 

cannot enter Cliffside Park because of main office protection, although Fairview, a community of 10,698 persons served by only one commercial bank 

branch, could be attractive to it as the site of a de novo branch. In addition, 

there are growing, affluent communities in other parts of the First Banking 

District where both banks might seek to branch de novo in the future.

The proposed merger, accordingly, would eliminate some limited existing 

competition between Hudson Trust and United, as well as some potential for 

increased competition between them in the future through de novo branching. 

The two banks, however, are relatively small banks in this congested market, 

and numerous larger banks, several of which are lead banks in large multibank 

holding companies, are more likely to branch de novo in the First Banking 

District than either Hudson Trust or United.

If the relevant geographic market for assessing the competitive impact of the 

proposed transaction were considered as confined solely to Bergen and Hudson 

Counties, the resulting bank would rank eighth in size among 44 commercial 

banks, holding only 4.8 percent of the total deposits held by commercial bank 

offices in the two counties. This combined figure undoubtedly overstates the 

competitive impact of the proposed merger in view of commutation patterns 

and the influence of commercial banks located nearby in other counties of the 

First Banking District and in Manhattan, some 15 minutes away by mass transit. Inclusion of the deposit totals for either group of banks outside Bergen and 

Hudson Counties would reduce the 4.8 percent figure for the two-county area 

to wholly nominal proportions. Moreover, consummation of the proposed 

merger would have at least one procompetitive result, since main office protection would be removed from Cliffside Park— an area sufficiently attractive to 

have prompted two applications already from larger banks for de novo

branches.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Hudson Trust has 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

Hudson Trust, moreover, can easily fill the management void which has existed 

at United since its president died unexpectedly in early 1971. Both banks are 

viable and profitable institutions, although the prospects for Hudson Trust are 

less bright than those of United because of local economic conditions in 

Hudson County. The future prospects of the combined bank are likely to be 

brighter than for either bank as an independent institution.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
74 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

merger would bring to Bergen County an additional alternative for a number of 

specialized banking services. Those services which would be offered by the 

resulting bank but which are not now offered, or offered only in limited 

degree, by United include trust services, data processing services, a fully staffed 

credit and business development department, and an increased lending limit. 

The resulting bank should be better able to meet the financial requirements of 

United's rapid growth trade area and also establish itself as a more effective 

competitor in the First Banking District and with neighboring New York City 

banks.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Dauphin Deposit Trust Company

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

282,883 25 31

to merge with

The First National Bank of Lebanon

Lebanon

49,507 6

Summary report by Attorney General, January 28, 1972

The closest branch of Dauphin Deposit, in the Harrisburg East Shopping 

Center, is approximately 23 miles from the City of Lebanon and the offices of 

First National. The application indicates that the merging banks have few 

common customers, and draw only a limited amount of loan and deposits 

business from each other's service area. A substantial number of competing 

commercial banks lie between Lebanon and Harrisburg. We conclude that the 

proposed merger would eliminate only a slight amount of existing competition.

Pennsylvania law permits commercial banks to establish and operate branch 

offices in the county in which they are headquartered and any county contiguous thereto. Thus, each of the merging banks could be permitted to open de

novo branches in the service area of the other.

The most significant effect on potential competition that would be presented by the proposed merger is the elimination of Dauphin Deposit as a 

potential de novo or "foothold" entrant into the Lebanon area and Lebanon 

County generally. Dauphin Deposit clearly has the resources to effect de novo

entry into attractive markets, and in fact is the third largest of five banks over 

$100 million which are eligible to operate branches in Lebanon County, but 

have not yet entered the county.

Ten commercial banks operate a total of 26 banking offices in Lebanon 

County. First National holds the second largest share of deposits in these 

offices, about 17.4 per cent. The four leading banks in the county hold about 

58.8 per cent of such deposits. First National is one of two banks with extensive branching systems in the county; its six offices represent about 23 per cent 

of total offices. First National and Lebanon Valley National Bank, the county's 

largest (with seven offices in the county) together operate half of all Lebanon 

County banking offices.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 75

Situated between Dauphin, Lancaster, Berks and Schuylkill Counties, 

Lebanon County is a natural area for expansion by the large banks in this 

region. Substantial consolidation of banking resources has recently taken place 

in this region, particularly through the recent formations of National Central 

Bank and Commonwealth National Bank. Should the largest banks in this area 

acquire by merger leading positions in Lebanon County, this trend toward 

regional concentration would continue. Therefore, although Dauphin Deposit 

is somewhat smaller than the two largest potential entrants into Lebanon 

County, which will remain as potential de novo entrants should the proposed 

merger be approved, we conclude that its acquisition of one of the leading 

banks in Lebanon County would have an adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, May 31, 1972

Dauphin Deposit Trust Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ("Dauphin"), an 

insured State nonmember bank with total resources of $282,883,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $228,113,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and 

other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's 

prior consent to merge with The First National Bank of Lebanon, Lebanon, 

Pennsylvania ("FNB Lebanon"), which has total resources of $49,507,000 and 

total IPC deposits of $41,428,000. The two banks would merge under the 

charter and title of Dauphin and, as an incident to the merger, the six offices of 

FNB Lebanon would become branches of Dauphin, increasing the number of 

Dauphin's offices to 31.

Competition. Dauphin, the third largest bank in Harrisburg, operates 25 

offices which serve communities in Dauphin, Cumberland, Lancaster, and York 

Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. The economy of this region is diverse, 

ranging from agriculture, dairy farming, and lumbering, to industry and manufacturing.

All six offices of FNB Lebanon are located in the city of Lebanon, the 

centrally located seat and principal city of Lebanon County, or in suburban 

areas within 5 miles of the bank's main office. The city of Lebanon is about 

equidistant from Reading (29 miles to the east), Lancaster (24 miles to the 

south), and Harrisburg (25 miles to the west). Its 1970 population was 28,572, 

having decreased about 4.9 percent since 1960. During this same period of 

time, Lebanon County had an increase in population of almost 10.0 percent, to 

99,665 persons, indicating substantial growth in areas of the county outside 

the city of Lebanon. A t one time, area residents depended heavily upon the 

steel industry for employment, but the city of Lebanon now has 103 plants 

manufacturing a variety of products and employing more than 10,000 people. 

The county is also a fertile agricultural region.

FNB Lebanon is the second largest of five commercial banks headquartered 

in the city of Lebanon, and the second largest of 10 commercial banks in 

Lebanon County, in terms of local IPC deposits, with 17.6 percent of such 

deposits as of June 30, 1970. The bank with the largest share of local IPC 

deposits (21.8 percent) is the $68 million-deposit Lebanon Valley National 

Bank, while the third-ranking bank in terms of such local IPC deposits (12.2 

percent) is the $699 million-deposit American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa., 

Reading, the largest bank in Lebanon County, with two branch offices at 

Myerstown.

While FNB Lebanon draws most of its business from the city of Lebanon 

and its immediate environs, the banking market in which FNB Lebanon operDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
76 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

ates can more appropriately be approximated by all of Lebanon County. This 

finding is predicated on the fact that the city of Lebanon is the principal 

population center, employment center, and shopping area between Harrisburg 

and Reading; that it is centrally located in the county, with good roads 

connecting it to all of the communities in Lebanon County that have commercial bank offices, none of which is more than 12 miles away; that significant commutation is evident between other communities in the county and the 

city of Lebanon; and that banks in the city are convenient alternatives for 

customers of each of the county's outlying banks as well as for customers who 

reside in the general vicinity of the city.

Dauphin does not operate in the Lebanon County banking market today. 

The closest offices of Dauphin and FNB Lebanon are some 19 miles apart, and 

several commercial banks have intervening offices. Neither draws more than 

$425,000 in IPC deposits from the other's trade area, and the loan volume 

which originates from the trade area of the other bank is similarly insignificant 

(about $530,000 of Dauphin's loan volume originates in Lebanon County, 

while only some $260,000 of FNB Lebanon's loan volume originates in the 

four counties where Dauphin has offices). The proposed merger, accordingly, 

will eliminate no significant existing competition between Dauphin and FNB 

Lebanon.

Under Pennsylvania law, Dauphin has the legal authority to branch de novo

into Lebanon County while FNB Lebanon has legal authority to branch de

novo into two counties (Dauphin and Lancaster) where Dauphin competes 

today. Such branching on FNB Lebanon's part appears to be unlikely in view 

of its conservative management policies, its lack of experience in opening de

novo branches at any significant distance from its main office, and the competition it would face from several much larger banks in both Dauphin and 

Lancaster Counties. For its part, Dauphin is unlikely to find de novo branching 

into the city of Lebanon attractive because of the average income levels that 

prevail, declining population, and the relatively low population (about 3,600 

persons, based on the 1970 census) for each existing commercial bank office. 

De novo branching in the growing parts of Lebanon County outside the city of 

Lebanon does appear feasible and attractive, however, for Dauphin. While the 

proposed merger would eliminate this potential for increased competition in 

the future between Dauphin and FNB Lebanon, there are other large banks not 

already in the Lebanon County banking market which are also possible entrants by means of de novo branching or the acquisition of smaller banks in 

Lebanon County: for example, the $577 million-deposit National Central 

Bank, Lancaster, the $377 million-deposit Commonwealth National Bank, 

Harrisburq. and the $229 million-deposit Bank of Pennsylvania, Reading. 

Under these circumstances, the significance of eliminating some potential competition between FNB Lebanon and Dauphin through consummation of their 

proposed merger is substantially reduced.

The proposed merger would substitute a larger, more aggressive branch bank 

fo FNB Lebanon without reducing the number of alternative sources of banking service available to Lebanon County residents and businessmen. Competition within the Lebanon County market should be enhanced, particularly for 

customers with large credit requirements or the need for specialized or sophisticated services who today have only one readily available source, the Myerstown 

offices of American Bank & Trust Co. of Pa.

Within the relatively unconcentrated eight-county area in which Dauphin 

may branch or merge under Pennsylvania law, the proposed merger would

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 77

increase its percentage share of all commercial bank deposits from 7.6 percent 

to 9.0 percent, ranking second in this respect to Commonwealth National 

Bank, Harrisburg, with 1.3 percent of such deposits. Statewide, the proposed 

merger would have no discernible effect on competition or banking structure.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of the banks 

has adequate financial resources, as would the resulting bank. FNB Lebanon 

lacks management depth, but the managerial resources of Dauphin are more 

than adequate to resolve this deficiency. Future prospects for both banks and 

for the resulting bank are favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposed merger would make available to FNB Lebanon customers expanded banking services, including more liberal lending policies, particularly 

with regard to agricultural loans, a lending lim it of $3 million rather than 

$350,000, computer services, and the facilities of a sophisticated trust department, all offered by a qualified, highly competitive management. To the extent 

such services may be available at the Myerstown offices of American Bank & 

Trust Co. of Pa. or at Lebanon Valley National Bank, the largest bank headquartered in Lebanon, the proposed merger would give all Lebanon County 

residents and businessmen an alternative source for such services, thereby invigorating the competitive climate within the market.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources B a n k in g O ffic e s

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Eucalyptus Bank

San Rafael, California 

(in organization; change title to 

Redwood Bank)

125 5

to merge with

The Redwood Bank

San Rafael

48,351 5

Summary report by Attorney General, April 13, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Redwood Bank would 

become a subsidiary of Redwood Bancorp, a bank holding company. The 

instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing bank with a nonoperating institution; as such, and without regard to the acquisition of the 

surviving bank by Redwood Bancorp, it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 6, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application for Federal deposit insurance has been filed on

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
78 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

behalf of Eucalyptus Bank, San Rafael, California ("New Bank” ), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with The Redwood 

Bank, San Rafael, California ("Present Bank"). The main office of Present 

Bank will become the main office of the resulting bank, and the four branches 

of Present Bank will be operated as branches by the resulting bank.

The formation of New Bank and its merger with Present Bank will effect a 

corporate reorganization whose sole purpose is to enable Redwood Bancorp, 

San Rafael, California, a registered bank holding company, to acquire 100 

percent of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed merger. 

Application for approval of said acquisition was granted by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on May 1, 1972. New Bank will not 

be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger. Following the 

merger's consummation, it will operate the same banking business at the five 

existing locations of Present Bank with the same management. The proposal 

will not, per se, affect the structure of commercial bank competition in the 

market served by Present Bank or result in changes in banking services heretofore provided by Present Bank. All factors considered pertinent to the two 

subject applications are resolved favorably.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces B a n kin g O ffic e s

un

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Southern Bank and Trust Company

Mount Olive, North Carolina

27,673 13 13

to merge with

The Fuquay Corporation

Fuquay-Varina

2,287

Summary report by Attorney General, May 30, 1972

As a result of the proposed merger Fuquay stockholders will become the 

owners of the Southern stock now held by their corporation. The transaction, 

therefore, is essentially a form of corporate reorganization as a result of which 

Fuquay will disappear and Southern will succeed to the ownership of its headquarters property. As such, this proposed merger would not appear to have an 

effect on either existing or potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 6, 1972

Southern Bank and Trust Company, Mount Olive, North Carolina 

("Southern"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$27,673,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to 

merge with The Fuquay Corporation, Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina 

("Fuquay"), a noninsured, nonbanking institution with total resources of 

$2,287,000, under the charter and title of Southern. This merger involves no 

additional banking offices, and the resulting bank would operate Southern's 14 

banking offices, including one approved but unopened, in the same locations. 

Application is also made for consent to the temporary retirement of 64,472 

common shares and 4,433 preferred shares of stock of Southern.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 79

Fuquay's principal assets consist of 64,472 common shares and 4,433 preferred shares of Southern's stock and the land and building occupied by Southern's main office in Mount Olive. The proposed merger would result in the 

distribution of Southern stock owned by Fuquay to Fuquay's shareholders, 

and the transfer of ownership to Southern of its main office land and building, 

subject to an equal amount of Fuquay's debt. Fuquay would go out of existence as a corporate entity.

Competition. Inasmuch as the proposed merger is merely a technical reordering of the affairs of two entities controlled by the same interests, there 

can be no effect on existing or potential competition, or on the structure of 

banking in any area. Further, Fuquay is a nonbanking corporation, and this 

merger would not change in any way the competitive stance of Southern or of 

any other bank.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of these factors 

has been resolved favorably to Southern and the resulting bank and, by extension, to Fuquay, inasmuch as its existence is dependent upon Southern.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger will have no effect on the convenience and needs of any community. 

The resulting bank will offer the same services from the same locations and 

with the same personnel.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffice s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Second State Bank of Clear Lake City

Clear Lake City, Texas

(in organization; change title to

First State Bank of Clear Lake City)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume the deposit

liabilities o f

First State Bank of Clear Lake City

Clear Lake City

10,067 1

Summary report by Attorney General, March 17, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Second State Bank of 

Clear Lake City (Org.) would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation 

of Texas, Inc., a bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would 

merely combine an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and 

without regard to the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 6, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second State Bank of Clear Lake City, Clear Lake City (P.O. Houston), 

Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
80 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

its purchase of the assets and assumption of the liability to pay deposits made 

in First State Bank of Clear Lake City, Clear Lake City (P.O. Houston), Texas 

("Operating Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$10,067,700 as of April 18, 1972, under the charter of New Bank and with the 

title of Operating Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the one existing 

office of Operating Bank, and initial capital of New Bank will be retired.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are designed solely as a means whereby First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., 

Houston, Texas, a registered multibank holding company can acquire substantially all of the voting shares of the successor by merger to this proposal. 

Application for said acquisition is now pending before the Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System. New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will 

operate the same banking business at the existing location of Operating Bank, 

and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, 

change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the relevant market 

area served by Operating Bank or affect the banking services which Operating 

Bank has provided in the past. All factors required to be considered pertinent 

to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources

/In

B a n kin g O ffic e s

\ in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

The Kentucky Bank & Trust Company

Madisonville, Kentucky

28,723 3 4

to acquire the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

Planters Bank

Mortons Gap

2,911 1

Summary report by Attorney General, February 24, 1972

Both Kentucky Bank, the largest of three banks in Madisonville, and 

Planters Bank, the only bank in Mortons Gap, are located in Hopkins County. 

The distance between the two communities is about eight miles. One branch 

office of another Madisonville bank operates in the intervening area. However, 

there is occasion for the residents of Mortons Gap to commute to Madisonville, 

and there is some overlap of customers between the banks. It would appear, 

therefore, that there is some existing competition which would be eliminated 

by this acquisition.

Kentucky Bank is the largest bank in Hopkins County and accounts for 

about 34 per cent of total deposits and 37 per cent of I PC demand deposits. 

Planters Bank is the county's smallest bank and accounts for three per cent of 

total deposits and IPC demand deposits.

The four largest banks in the county account for about 91 per cent of total 

deposits and 93 per cent of IPC demand deposits. After the proposed acquisition there would be only five banks in the county with the four largest acDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 81

counting for about 94 per cent of total deposits and 96 per cent of IPC 

demand deposits.

Approval of this application would result in the acquisition by the county's 

dominant bank of a small bank with which it competes directly. In our view, 

therefore, this acquisition would have an adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 13, 1972

The Kentucky Bank & Trust Company, Madisonville, Kentucky ("Kentucky 

B & T "), a State nonmember insured bank having total resources of 

$28,723,000 and total IPC deposits of $22,150,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to acquire the assets of, and to assume liability 

to pay deposits made in, Planters Bank, Mortons Gap, Kentucky, having total 

resources of $2,911,000 and total IPC deposits of $2,645,000. As an incident 

to the transaction, the only office of Planters Bank would become a branch of 

Kentucky B & T, increasing the number of its offices to four.

Competition. Kentucky B & T operates its main office and two branches in 

Madisonville (population 15,332), the seat of Hopkins County, in west-central 

Kentucky some 140 miles southwest of Louisville. Applicant is the largest of 

the six commercial banks in Hopkins County, holding slightly more than onethird of their aggregate deposits.

Planters Bank, the smallest of the six commercial banks in Hopkins County, 

operates its sole office in Mortons Gap (population 1,169), 8 miles south of 

Madisonville. It holds approximately 3.8 percent of the total commercial bank 

deposits in Hopkins County. Coal mining and agriculture largely support the 

area, although industrial expansion has occurred in Madisonville within the past 

5 years and local plants now employ some 2,700 people. Between 1960 and

1970, the population of Hopkins County declined 0.8 percent, to 38,167 

persons. The population in Mortons Gap declined 10.6 percent in the same 

period, while that of Madisonville increased by 16.9 percent.

Madisonville is centrally located in Hopkins County and is five times larger in 

population than any other community in the county. Besides being the county 

seat, Madisonville is the only shopping and employment center of any size 

between Evansville, Indiana, some 45 miles to the north and Hopkinsville, 

Kentucky, some 30 miles to the south. The three largest banks in the county 

are all headquartered in Madisonville and represent reasonably convenient alternatives for customers of the three smaller banks in the county, none of which 

is more than 15 miles away. Kentucky B & T and Planters Bank may, therefore, be considered competitors in the same general banking market, even 

though Kentucky B & T draws most of its banking business from Madisonville 

(with only $250,000 in deposits and $75,000 in loans from the Mortons Gap 

area) and Planters Bank draws virtually all of its banking business from the 

immediate vicinity of Mortons Gap. Their proposed merger, accordingly, would 

eliminate some existing competition between them, but the extent of this 

existing competition is minimal.

The potential for increased competition between the two banks in the 

future may also be regarded as minimal. Kentucky law limits de novo branching to a bank's headquarters' county, subject further to home office protection. Kentucky B & T cannot branch directly, therefore, into Mortons Gap 

even if this were economically feasible, nor can Planters Bank branch de novo

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
82 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

into Madisonville. No community other than Madisonville has a population in 

excess of 2,900, and all of the larger ones, like Earlington, Dawson Springs, 

Mortons Gap, and Nortonville, already have a commercial bank office. Hopkins 

County as a whole presently has one commercial bank office for each 3,180 

persons, income levels that are only average, and a relatively stable total population. De novo branching by either bank, without regard to size or branching 

experience, is therefore most unlikely. Without a de novo branch closer to 

Mortons Gap, however, Kentucky B & T is unlikely to draw significantly more 

business in the future from the Planters Bank service area than it derives today 

because the branch office of another Madisonville bank lies between the nearest office of Kentucky B & T and Planters Bank.

On the other hand, the proposed merger would increase the already high 

percentage of total Hopkins County deposits presently controlled by Kentucky 

B & T, and it would also reduce from six to five the number of banks in 

Hopkins County available to local residents and businessmen. The increase in 

concentration has less significance in a county of 38,167 than it might in a 

more populous market, and there are other ameliorating factors to be considered as well. Planters bank has grown to only $2.7 million in deposits since 

its organization in 1907. It offers neither passbook savings accounts, 5 percent 

time deposit open accounts, nor 5% percent certificates of deposit for 

minimum maturities of 2 years or more. What deposits it has come from a 

community of declining population, and its overall effectiveness as a competitor is open to serious question. The merger of this small, limited-service bank, 

even with the county's largest bank, would not significantly change the banking structure of Hopkins County. It appears, moreover, that of the four other 

merger partners that are legally possible for Planters Bank, two would eliminate 

a greater degree of existing competition than the merger proposed, one of the 

others has only a slightly smaller percentage of Hopkins County deposits than 

Kentucky B & T, and the fourth may be too small to enlarge the range of 

Planters Bank services even if it finds the acquisition otherwise attractive.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of these factors 

is favorable for Kentucky B & T, as they would be for the resulting bank. 

Planters Bank has a low capital position, but that of the resulting bank would 

be satisfactory.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Although the 

proposed transaction would have little effect on Kentucky B & T's present 

customers, banking services in the Mortons Gap area would be significantly 

improved. Passbook savings accounts, not now offered by Planters Bank, would 

be introduced. This type of deposit measured 21.7 percent of total IPC time 

deposits at all Hopkins County commercial banks at June 30, 1970. The maximum rate of interest paid on time deposits would be increased from 5.5 percent to 5.75 percent. A 5 percent "Golden Passbook" account would become 

available and consumer credit loans would be offered at decreased interest cost 

to local borrowers. Trust services would be offered for the first time, and a 

more aggressive management would operate with a lending limit substantially 

higher than the $27,000 secured lending lim it to which Planters Bank is presently subject.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 83

Based upon the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

R esources

t i r. B a n kin g O ffic e s

11 n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Northern Central Bank and

Trust Company

Williamsport, Pennsylvania

89,583 4 5

to merge with

The Athens National Bank

Athens

10,069 1

Summary report by Attorney General, January 28, 1972

Approximately 90 miles separate Athens and Williamsport, and several 

banks are located in the intervening area. It would appear that the proposed 

merger would not eliminate any substantial existing competition.

Under Pennsylvania law, a commercial bank may be permitted to open and 

operate branches in the county in which its home office is located or in any 

county contiguous thereto. Thus, either of the merging banks could be permitted to establish de novo branches in the service area of the other. In view of 

the size of Athens Bank, it could not be considered a major source of potential 

competition in those areas served by Northern Central Bank and Trust 

Company.

Northern Central Bank and Trust Company, as the largest bank in Lycoming 

County, is a source of potential competition in adjacent Bradford County. 

However, in view of the size and relative market position of Athens Bank, and 

the nature of its service area, we do not believe that the elimination of Northern C entral Bank and T ru s t C o m pa n y as a p o te n tia l de novo e n tra n t w o u ld 

have a significantly adverse effect on potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 13, 1972

Northern Central Bank and Trust Company, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 

("Northern Central"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$89,583,000 and total IPC deposits of $74,403,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with The Athens National Bank, 

A thens, Pennsylvania ("Athens National"), with total resources of 

$10,069,000 and total IPC deposits of $7,961,000. The banks would merge 

under the charter and title of Northern Central, and the one office of Athens 

National would become a branch of Northern Central, increasing the number 

of its authorized offices to six.

Competition. Northern Central operates a total of four offices and has the 

necessary approvals to establish one additional de novo branch. Its main office 

and two branches are located in Williamsport (population 37,918), in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and one branch is located in the community of 

Milton (population 7,723), about 25 miles southeast of Williamsport in 

Northumberland County. The approved but unopened de novo branch is to be 

located in West Chillisquaque Township, Northumberland County, about 3 

miles from the Milton branch.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
84 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Athens National is located in the Borough of Athens (population 4,200) in 

Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in the mountainous north-central portion of 

the State, only a few miles south of the New York State border. The bank's 

one office serves the sparsely populated Boroughs of Athens and Sayre and a 

small portion of the several townships located to the north and south along the 

Susquehanna River, a service area with a total estimated population of 23,000. 

Dairy farming is the principal business in this region, although there is also 

some light industry. Over the past 10 years, there has been little economic 

development or population growth. A substantial number of area residents 

apparently commute northwest to Elmira, New York, northeast to Oswego, 

New York, and south to Towanda, Pennsylvania, to work. Including offices in 

these communities as well as others within a 20-mile radius of Athens, Athens 

National would be the eighth largest of 15 commercial banks in terms of area 

deposits, with 3.4 percent of total IPC deposits held at all commercial bank 

offices within the relevant market area.

The nearest office of Northern Central to Athens National is at least 80 

miles away, and there are several offices of other commercial banks in the 

intervening area. The banking markets in which Northern Central and Athens 

National compete are separate and distinct, and there is no existing competition between them which would be eliminated by the proposed transaction. The proposed merger should in fact stimulate competition in the AthensSayre banking market where Athens National competes with much larger banks 

having a greater share of area IPC deposits. One such competitor is Commonwealth Bank and Trust Company, a $68 million-deposit bank headquartered in 

Muncy that recently acquired the First National Bank of Sayre. The proposed 

merger, moreover, would not reduce the number of alternative sources for 

banking services available to residents and businessmen in the Athens-Sayre 

banking market.

Under State law, Northern Central could branch de novo into Bradford 

County and Athens National could branch de novo into Lycoming County. 

Such de novo branching on the part of Athens National is most unlikely in 

view of its limited resources, the distances that would be involved, its lack of 

branching experience and the number of significant competitors it would face 

in Lycoming County. Such de novo branching on the part of Northern Central 

also seems unlikely in view of the limited population of the Athens-Sayre 

banking market, the presence of a large number of competing banks in that 

market, and the relatively greater attractiveness of other locations for de novo

branching in the 10-county area in which banks headquartered in Lycoming 

County can branch or merge under Pennsylvania law. The proposed merger, 

for these reasons, is not likely to eliminate any significant potential for increased competition between the two banks through de novo branching.

While alternative mergers on the part of one or both banks might bring them 

into increased competition in the future, neither bank has such a large share of 

the banking resources in its existing banking market or in its respective branching or merging area as to require denial of the proposed merger. Within the 

relatively unconcentrated 10-county area in which Northern Central can 

branch or merge, the proposed merger would increase Northern Central's percentage share of total commercial bank IPC deposits held therein from 7.5 

percent to 8.5 percent.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 85

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of the participating banks has adequate financial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

Both Northern Central and Athens National have satisfactory managerial resources at the present time, although Athens National faces a possible management succession problem which the proposed merger would resolve. Future 

prospects for the resulting bank would be favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposed merger would bring to Athens National customers access to a 

larger and more specialized management team, as well as computer accounting 

services, credit card services, student loans, floor plan loans, and a larger lending limit. Many of these services are no doubt available at the Sayre branches of 

Commonwealth Bank and Trust Company or in Elmira, Oswego, or Tonawanda, but the proposed transaction would provide an additional and convenient alternative for such services.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources B a n kin g O ffic e s

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Citizens State Bank and Trust Company

Hiawatha, Kansas

14,999 2 2

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

The Farmers Bank of Leona

Leona

2,520 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 30, 1972

Citizens and Farmers Bank are approximately 15 miles apart, but according 

to the application, their service areas overlap to a considerable extent. Citizens 

holds about 11 per cent of IPC demand deposits in the service area of the 

resulting bank, while Farmers Bank holds about 3 per cent. It would appear 

that the proposed transaction would eliminate some competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 29, 1972

Citizens State Bank and Trust Company, Hiawatha, Kansas ("Citizens"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $14,999,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $10,789,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to purchase the assets of, and assume the liability to pay deposits made 

in, The Farmers Bank of Leona, Leona, Kansas ("Farmers"), with total resources of $2,520,000 and total IPC deposits of $2,154,000, under Citizens' 

charter and title. Because of the requirements of Kansas law, the sole office of 

Farmers would be discontinued.

Competition. Citizens operates its main office and a detached teller facility

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 6 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

in Hiawatha, Brown County, which is located in the northeast corner of 

Kansas, about 50 miles north of Topeka, the State capital. Hiawatha is the seat 

of Brown County and is situated in its approximate center. The population of 

Hiawatha in 1970 was 3,365, which represents a decline of 0.8 percent from 

1960. Brown County's 1970 population was 11,685, down 11.7 percent from 

1960's 13,229.

Farmers operates its sole office in Leona, just across the county line in 

Doniphan County, which adjoins Brown County on the east. Leona had a 1970 

population of only 72, down from 110 in 1960, while Doniphan County's 

population declined from 9,574 to 9,107, or 4.9 percent, in the like period.

The service areas of the participating banks are almost entirely dependent 

upon agriculture. Corn and various small grains are the principal crops, and 

livestock raising and feeding and dairy farming are important activities. Hiawatha is the economic center of Brown County and much of the surrounding 

area, but Leona is a declining community which has no industry and is not on a 

State highway or a main railroad. Its only businesses besides the bank are a 

grain elevator, a combination grocery store and restaurant, and a post office.

The offices of the participating banks are about 17 miles apart, and each 

draws some deposit and loan business from the intervening area. The significance of this overlap is minimized by the sparse population of the area and the 

existence of a competing bank, in Robinson, which lies about midway between 

Hiawatha and Leona. Farmers, moreover, cannot be regarded as a meaningful 

competitor. Its basic lending lim it is only $15,000, and it has sold loan participations that exceed in volume its entire loan portfolio. Excessive loan losses 

have reduced net current operating earnings to a deficit figure, and no material 

improvement is expected in the future. Passbook savings accounts carry an 

interest rate of only 3.0 percent per annum. The proposed merger, in the 

Corporation's view, would eliminate no significant competition between the 

two banks. In view of the financial condition of Farmers as well as the prohibition against branch banking in Kansas law, the potential for increased competition between the two banks in the future is virtually nonexistent.

Citizens presently holds 35.2 percent of the total IPC deposits held by all 

commercial banks in Brown County and is the largest commercial bank in 

either Brown or Doniphan County. The share of local banking business held by 

Citizens is largely attributable to its location in Hiawatha, the largest city in the 

area. The proposed merger would not have any practical effect on the commercial bank structure of the area. In addition, numerous alternatives would 

remain available to residents of the two counties. There are seven banks in 

Brown County, or one bank for each 1,669 persons; and in Doniphan County 

there are eight banks, or one for each 1,138 people. Five banks, easily accessible by paved roads, would remain within 10 miles of Leona to service the 

limited population left in that community.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Citizens has satisfactory financial and managerial resources and satisfactory prospects for the 

future. Farmers, however, has an unsatisfactory capital position in view of the 

volume of its classified assets. It also has no management depth, and its earnings have been poor. Citizens would provide aggressive supervision of Farmers'

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 87

loan portfolio, and with Citizens' financial and managerial resources predominant, the resulting bank should have adequate capital, satisfactory earnings, good management, and favorable future prospects. The banking factors 

presented by the application weigh heavily in favor of approval.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

transaction would have virtually no effect on convenience and needs of any 

community. The same services would be offered by the resulting bank as 

Citizens now offers at its Hiawatha office. The necessity of discontinuing 

Farmers' banking office in Leona could cause some slight inconvenience to the 

limited number of residents of that area, but there would be an adequate 

number of reasonably convenient banking alternatives remaining. This slight 

inconvenience would be more than offset by the benefits to be derived from 

the resolution of Farmers' asset and capital problems, from Citizens' 4.5 percent rate on passbook savings accounts, and from its greater ability to meet the 

credit requirements of the Leona area.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

Bank of Virginia — Eastern Shore

Onancock, Virginia 

(in organization)

50 1

to merge with

The First National Bank in Onancock

Onancock

11,197 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 10, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which First National Bank in 

Onancock would become a subsidiary of Virginia Commonwealth Bankshares, 

Inc., a bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely 

combine an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and w ithout regard to the acquisition of the surviving bank by Virginia Commonwealth 

Bankshares, Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, June 29, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed on behalf of Bank of VirginiaEastern Shore, Onancock, Virginia ("New Bank"), a proposed new bank in 

organization, for Federal deposit insurance and for consent to its merger with 

The First National Bank in Onancock, Onancock, Virginia ("Present Bank"), 

total resources $11,197,000. The main, and sole, office of Present Bank will 

become the main office of the resulting bank.

The formation of New Bank and its merger with Present Bank effect a 

corporate reorganization* whose sole purpose is to enable Virginia Commonwealth Bankshares, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, a registered bank holding company, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of the bank resulting from

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 8 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

the proposed merger. Approval of said acquisition was granted by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on June 8, 1972. New Bank will not 

be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger. Following the 

merger's consummation, it will operate the same banking business with the 

same management at the existing location of Present Bank. The proposal will 

not, per se, affect the structure of commercial bank competition in the market 

served by Present Bank or result in changes in banking services heretofore 

provided by Present Bank. All factors considered pertinent to the two subject 

applications are resolved favorably.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that 

approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources

| i n

B a n kin g O ffic e s

un

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Peoples Bank & Trust Company

Rocky Mount, North Carolina

134,666 32 33

to merge with

Industrial-Commercial Bank

Elizabeth City

9,326 1

Summary report by Attorney General, June 19, 1972

The Peoples Bank office nearest to the Industrial-Commercial Bank 

("Bank") is in Hertford, Perquimans County, about 13 miles southwest of 

Elizabeth City. The two communities are linked by the region's major east-west 

highway (U.S. 17). There do not appear to be any banking offices intervening 

between Elizabeth City and Hertford. Although the application supplier no 

figures, it states that neither bank draws a substantial share of its deposits or 

loans from the service area of the other. It also states that Bank was operated 

strictly as an industrial bank until October, 1971, at which time it began 

accepting "commercial deposits", which significantly diminishes the probability of any substantial competition between the banks for demand accounts. 

However, since Elizabeth City is the population and economic center of 

Pasquotank and adjoining counties, and residents of Hertford and other surrounding communities commute to work and shop there, it would appear that 

this proposed merger may eliminate some existing competition between the 

two banks.

Banking in Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County is very highly concentrated. Four banks currently operate offices in Elizabeth City— the only 

banking offices in Pasquotank County. As of June 30, 1970, Bank held about

12.5 per cent of total bank deposits, representing the third largest share held 

by any bank. First Union National Bank, the state's third largest bank, held 

some 54.8 per cent of deposits,-and Wachovia Bank and Trust, the state leader, 

held 32 per cent. A branch of Farmers Bank of Sunbury accounted for less 

than 1 per cent of total deposits.

North Carolina banking law permits statewide branching. Peoples Bank, 

therefore, could enter Elizabeth City de novo thus creating an additional bankDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 89

ing alternative. However, because the area has experienced below average 

growth, the prospect for such de novo expansion into the area is diminished. 

Moreover, there are at least six other banks larger than Peoples Bank and which 

have branched into the northeastern region of the state, which may also be 

considered prospective potential entrants.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 7, 1972

Peoples Bank & Trust Company, Rocky Mount, North Carolina ("Peoples"), 

an insured State nonmember bank having total resources of $134,666,000 and 

total I PC deposits of $105,519,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and 

other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's 

prior consent to merge with Industrial— Commercial Bank, Elizabeth City, 

North Carolina ("Industrial"), having total resources of $9,326,000 and total 

I PC deposits of $6,487,000, under the charter and title of Peoples. As an 

incident to the merger, the sole office of Industrial would become a branch of 

the resulting bank, increasing the number of its offices to 33.

Competition. Peoples operates its main office and 12 branches in the city of 

Rocky Mount and its Nash County suburbs, and 19 branches in 12 other 

communities in the northeastern section of North Carolina. Peoples is the 12th 

largest of the State's 94 commercial banks, holding 1.4 percent of their aggregate deposits.

Industrial, with approximately 12.8 percent of the aggregate deposits held 

by all five commercial banks operating in Elizabeth City (1970 population 

14,069, as compared with 14,062 in 1960) and its environs within a radius of 

approximately 15 miles, is the fourth largest commercial bank in its market, 

having converted from industrial bank status in August 1971. Elizabeth City, 

on Albemarle Sound and about 20 miles south of the Virginia border, is the 

county seat and only incorporated town of Pasquotank County (population 

26,824), an area largely devoted to agriculture, with many of its residents being 

employed in the nearby Norfolk-Portsmouth industrial complex, in Virginia. 

Elizabeth City itself has had substantial industrial development, and there are 

also leisure and resort activities associated with its coastal location.

Industrial has not yet developed competitive strength as a commercial bank 

in its market, having fewer than 500 checking accounts, for example, as of the 

end of February 1972. Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., and Fubi 

Union National Bank of North Carolina, the largest and third largest banks in 

deposit size in the State, each maintain two branches within Elizabeth City and 

dominate this market, holding 27.1 percent and 45.3 percent of area deposits, 

respectively. A branch of Peoples in Hertford, 13 miles southwest of Elizabeth 

City on the outskirts of the market, holds 13.2 percent. A fourth bank, with a 

branch 12 miles northwest of Elizabeth City, holds 1.6 percent.

While the bank resulting from this proposed merger would have 26.0 percent of this sparsely populated banking market, little existing competition 

between Peoples and Industrial would apparently be eliminated. Industrial's 

office is 13 miles removed from the nearest office of Peoples. Any existing 

competition between them would be limited to consumer credit, and in view of 

the intense competition for all commercial bank services faced by Industrial, 

emanating from the four Elizabeth City offices of two of the State's major 

banks, the significance of this existing competition is minimal.

North Carolina law permits a commercial bank to branch de novo throughDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
90 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

out the State. Such branching on the part of Industrial is not anticipated in 

view of its limited resources, its difficulties in becoming established as a commercial bank, and its lack of expertise in this field. Peoples, with one branch 

established and another authorized in Hertford, on the perimeter of Industrial's 

market, has the capacity and experience to branch de novo into Elizabeth City, 

but this would not appear attractive to it in light of the lack of population 

growth in that city, the strong competition it would face there, and the already 

low population for each commercial bank office. Moreover, to the extent 

Elizabeth City becomes attractive in the future for additional de novo offices, 

numerous banks in the State that are larger than Peoples are potential entrants 

into the market. It thus appears that the proposed merger is unlikely to eliminate any significant potential for increased competition between the two banks 

through de novo branching. While increased competition in the future between 

the banks is likely as Industrial extends its commercial bank services in the 

market, the elimination of that potential for increased competition through 

consummation of the merger appears equally insignificant because of the possible entry of banks larger than Peoples when future growth warrants.

Within the State of North Carolina, Peoples, post-merger, would become the 

11th largest commercial bank, with 1.5 percent of aggregate deposits held by 

all of the State's commercial banks at year-end 1971.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. These factors are 

favorable for both banks, as they would be for the resulting bank. The capital 

position of the resulting bank would be reasonably satisfactory.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposed merger would make available to Industrial's customers the broad 

range of banking services offered by a moderate-sized commercial bank, including an expanded lending capability. Peoples' trust department also offers highly 

specialized farm and timber management services. To the extent these services 

are available at the Elizabeth City offices of the area's major competitors, the 

proposed merger would provide all residents and businessmen in this market an 

alternative source for such services, thereby stimulating the market's competitive climate.

The Board of Directors has concluded, accordingly, that approval of the 

application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Morristown State Bank

Morristown, Tennessee 

(in organization; change title to 

Bank of Morristown)

150 2

to merge with

Bank of Morristown

Morristown

16,588 2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 91

Summary report by Attorney General, March 31, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Morristown State Bank 

(Org.) would become a subsidiary of First National Holding Corporation, a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by First National Holding Corporation, 

it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 7, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Morristown State Bank, Morristown, Tennessee (“ New Bank"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Bank of Morristown, Morristown, Tennessee ("Old Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank 

with total resources of $16,588,000, under the charter of New Bank and with 

the title of Old Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the two existing 

offices and from an approved but unopened office of Old Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which First Tennessee National Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, a multibank 

holding company, can acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of the bank 

resulting from the proposed merger. Application for said acquisition was approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on May 9, 

1972. New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the 

merger, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking 

business at the existing and approved locations of Old Bank, and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Old Bank or 

affect the banking services which Old Bank has provided in the past. All factors 

considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are favorably 

resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

( in

B a n k in g O ffic e s

un

th ousands 

o f d olla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

North Freeway Commerce Bank

Houston, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

North Freeway Bank)

200 1

to m e r g e w i t h

North Freeway Bank

Houston

5,716 1

Summary report by Attorney General, April 13, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which North Freeway Bank 

would become a subsidiary of Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
92 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the 

acquisition of the surviving bank by Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 7, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for North Freeway Commerce Bank, Houston, Texas ("New Bank” ), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with North 

Freeway Bank, Houston, Texas ("Operating Bank” ), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $5,716,000 as of January 24, 1972, under 

the charter of New Bank and with the title of Operating Bank. The resulting 

bank will operate from the one existing office of Operating Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means whereby 

Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a registered bank holding company, can 

acquire substantially all of the voting shares of the successor by merger of 

Operating Bank. Application for said acquisition was approved by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on May 16, 1972. New Bank will not 

be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to 

consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing location of Operating Bank, and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking 

in the relevant market area served by Operating Bank or affect the banking 

services which Operating Bank has provided in the past. All factors required to 

be considered pertinent to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources / j

B a n kin g O ffic e s

\in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

United Virginia Bank

Richmond, Virginia

631,451 30 30

to purchase a portion o f the assets

and assume a portion o f the

liabilities o f

United Virginia Bank International

Norfolk

8,782* 1 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 22, 1972

From the date of its organization until late 1971, United Virginia Bank 

International ("U V B I” ) was owned by the affiliate banks of United Virginia

*Assets of U V BI to be purchased by U nited V irginia Bank.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 93

Bankshares Inc., a registered bank holding company and parent of the applicant, United Virginia Bank. In late 1971, the affiliated banks sold their stock 

interest in UVBI to United Virginia Bank. The acquisition is basically part of a 

corporate reorganization in which the parent has taken over certain activities 

which its subsidiary performed, and will have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 7, 1972

United Virginia Bank, Richmond, Virginia ("U V B "), (total resources 

$631,451,000), an insured State bank which is a member of the Federal 

Reserve System, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's retroactive consent to 

its purchase of a portion of the assets and assumption of a portion of the 

liabilities of United Virginia Bank International, Norfolk, Virginia ("U V B I"), a 

noninsured Edge Act corporation which is wholly owned by UVB. Both 

institutions are affiliates of United Virginia Bankshares, Incorporated, Richmond, Virginia ("UVBS"), a registered bank holding company.

Competition. This transaction was essentially an internal reorganization 

involving two UVBS affiliates in order to shift the focus of UVB's international 

activities to a division of that bank from UVBI. As such, it has had no effect on 

competition.

The Board of Directors is of the opinion that this transaction has not, in any 

section of the country, substantially lessened competition, tended to create a 

monopoly, or in any other way been in restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. The financial and 

managerial resources of UVB, and its future prospects, appear adequate for the 

purposes of this transaction.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Due to the nature 

of the transaction as an internal reorganization, there has been no effect on the 

convenience and needs of any community.

Based on the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded 

that approval of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Union Trust Company

New Haven, Connecticut

605,791 47 48

to merge with

The Winthrop Bank and Trust Company

New London

13,476 1

Summary report by Attorney General, June 19, 1972

Union Trust operates no offices in the New London SMSA or in New 

London County. Union Trust's closest office to New London is in Old Saybrook, about 17 miles west. The application indicates that the banks derive 

little or no business from each other's primary service areas. Thus, the merger 

would not eliminate a significant amount of existing competition.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
94 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

As the third largest commercial bank in Connecticut and the largest not now 

operating in the New London area, Union Trust clearly has the capability to 

enter the area de novo in competition with Winthrop Bank. Winthrop Bank, 

however, is the smallest of three commercial banks operating in the New 

London area, the other two being the two largest commercial banks in the 

state, headquartered in Hartford. Winthrop Bank's share of total New London 

commercial bank deposits is about 16.9 per cent, and of total New LondonGroton-Waterford deposits, about 10.8 per cent. If the proposed merger is 

consummated, New London would be opened to de novo branching. We do not 

believe that the proposed merger would have a significantly adverse effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 14, 1972

Union Trust Company, New Haven, Connecticut ("Union"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $605,791,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $471,820,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to merge with The Winthrop Bank and Trust Company, New London, 

Connecticut ("W inthrop"), with total resources of $13,476,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $10,952,000. The banks would merge under the charter and title of 

Union; and, as an incident to the merger, the one existing office and the one 

approved but unopened branch of Winthrop would become branches of the 

resulting bank, increasing the number of its authorized offices to 51.

Competition. Union operates a total of 47 offices in southwestern and 

south-central Connecticut, 34 of which are in Fairfield County, 11 in New 

Haven County, and one each in Litchfield and Middlesex Counties. In addition, 

Union has approval for two branches to be located in Milford and Southbury, 

both in New Haven County. Each of the counties where Union has offices had 

significant population growth during the 1960s, ranging from 12.8 percent in 

New Haven County to 29.2 percent in Middlesex County.

Winthrop operates its only office in the city of New London and has approval for a branch, also to be located in New London. The city serves as a 

trading hub for southeastern Connecticut and is located at the mouth of the 

Thames River. Its population declined from 34,182 to 31,630, or 7.5 percent, 

from 1960 to 1970. However, the neighboring communities of Groton and 

Waterford had positive rates of growth, and their populations now stand at 

38,523 and 17,227, respectively. The overall population of New London 

County increased from 185,745 to 230,348, or 24.0 percent, in the 1960s.

The service areas of both Union and Winthrop are growing and prosperous 

and have a broad economic base. Activity includes educational institutions, 

m ilitary installations, manufacturing, numerous commercial and service 

centers, shipping, and ship building. The outlook appears favorable.

The local banking market in which to assess the probable impact of the 

proposed merger can best be approximated by the New London-GrotonNorwich SMSA, composed of 13 of New London County's 21 communities. 

Industries in New London, Groton, and Norwich are the primary factors in the 

local economy and attract employees from residential areas throughout the 

SMSA. Despite the decline in New London's population, the entire SMSA 

showed a population increase of 21.9 percent during the 1960s, slightly above 

the statewide gain of 19.6 percent, and continued economic growth throughDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 95

out the area is likely. The market is presently served by 23 offices of six 

commercial banks. Winthrop is the market's third largest commercial bank but 

had only 5.9 percent of the IPC deposits held at commercial bank offices in the 

SMSA as of June 30, 1970. Union is not presently represented in the market, 

which is dominated by 19 branches of The Hartford National Bank and Trust 

Company and The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, Connecticut's two 

largest commercial banks. As of June 30, 1970, they controlled 60.9 percent 

and 28.1 percent, respectively, of such IPC deposits.

The closest office of Union to Winthrop's office is in Old Saybrook, about 

17 miles west of New London. There are several offices of other banks in the 

intervening area, and neither bank derives any significant business from areas 

presently served by the other. Winthrop is a small, conservatively operated 

bank which has achieved only moderate deposit growth in its 50-year history. 

Consummation of the proposed merger would not eliminate any existing competition, but would bring the State's third largest commercial bank into direct 

competition with the State's two largest banks in the relevant geographic 

market.

Connecticut law allows statewide branching, subject to home office protection. Winthrop lacks both the resources and the managerial depth to expand de

novo in any meaningful way. Union cannot legally branch de novo into New 

London, but it can branch into areas surrounding that city, since only two of 

the 13 communities in the SMSA are protected against outside entry. While 

this should be attractive to Union in a market characterized by substantial 

growth, high income levels, and more than 9,000 persons for each existing 

commercial bank office, an office in New London would seem to be a prerequisite for effective penetration. Moreover, the dominance of the State's two 

largest banks in the local market, Winthrop's small size, and the removal of 

home office protection from New London (which would follow the proposed 

merger) reduce substantially the significance of any loss of potential competition between the two banks through de novo branching. Instead, the merger 

should stimulate competition locally by allowing the State's third largest commercial bank to penetrate to the heart of the New London market and increase 

the challenge which Union can bring to the State's two largest banks in the 

SMSA. Further, the number of banking alternatives in the market would not be 

reduced by the proposed merger.

Although Union is the third largest commercial bank in Connecticut, with

9.5 percent of the total deposits held by such banks, it is approximately 

one-half the size of either of the two largest commercial banks. Those two 

banks hold, in the aggregate, 37.4 percent of the total deposits in the State. 

Union's acquisition of Winthrop would increase its percentage of statewide 

deposits by 0.2 percent, for a total of 9.7 percent.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Union and the resulting bank have satisfactory financial and managerial resources and satisfactory 

prospects for the future. Winthrop has satisfactory financial resources, but it 

has aging management and has not competed aggressively. The proposed merger would resolve this management succession problem, and it would appear

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
96 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

that Winthrop's future prospects would be more favorable as part of the resulting bank than operating independently.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would bring to the New London-Groton-Norwich SMSA a third alternative for the full services of a larger commercial bank. Specifically, services to be 

offered by the resulting bank not now offered by Winthrop include a bank 

credit card, international services, lockbox services, various specialized loan 

services, data processing services, and a significantly increased lending limit. In 

addition, Winthrop's physical facilities would be improved.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Merchants and Farmers Bank

Kosciusko, Mississippi

27,543 6 7

to merge with

Peoples Bank of Durant

Durant

4,838 1

Summary report by Attorney General, February 11, 1972

Peoples Bank is located in Durant, Holmes County on the Attala County 

line. The closest office of Merchants Bank is approximately eight road miles 

away in Sal I is, Attala County, with no intervening banks. Therefore, it appears 

that some existing competition between the two banks would be eliminated by 

this merger.

As of June 30, 1970, Peoples Bank was the third largest of four banks in 

Holmes County, with about 16 per cent of the county's total deposits. Merchants Bank was the largest of two banks in Attala County, with about 74 per 

cent of total deposits.

In the two-county area of Attala and Holmes, Peoples Bank was the fifth 

largest of six banks with about eight per cent of both total deposits and 

Merchants Bank was the largest with 39 per cent of the total deposits. The four 

largest banks accounted for about 86 per cent of such deposits.

Under Mississippi law, Merchants Bank cound not establish a de novo

branch in Lexington or Durant, the largest towns in Holmes County at this 

time. Since both banks could branch into other parts of the area, however, the 

merger may eliminate some potential competition.

This proposed merger involves the dominant bank in the two-county area 

buying up a bank with which it now directly competes. We conclude, therefore, that the merger would have an adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 14, 1972

Merchants and Farmers Bank, Kosciusko, Mississippi ("Merchants"), an insured State nonmember bank with total resources of $27,543,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $22,153,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 97

consent to merge with Peoples Bank of Durant, Durant, Mississippi 

("Peoples"), with total resources of $4,838,000 and total IPC deposits of 

$3,962,000. The banks would merge under the charter and title of Merchants 

and, as an incident to the merger, the sole office of Peoples would become a 

branch of the resulting bank, increasing the number of its offices to seven, not 

including two approved but unopened offices.

Competition. Merchants operates six offices in two central Mississippi 

counties: five are located in Attala County (1970 population 19,570) and a 

sixth is located in neighboring Choctaw County (1970 population 8,440). Of 

the communities in which Merchants has offices, that is, Kosciusko, Sail is, 

Ethel, and Weir, only Kosciusko has more than 2,500 people. Its population in 

1970 was 7,266. Merchants also has approval to establish two additional 

offices, one in Kosciusko and one in Thomastown, some 14 miles to the south 

in Leake County (1970 population 17,085). Attala County and Leake County 

each lost more than 8 percent of their population in the 1960s, while Choctaw 

County remained relatively unchanged.

Peoples operates its sole office in Durant, a community of 2,572 persons 

about 18 miles west of Merchants' head office in Kosciusko. Durant is in Holmes 

County (1970 population 23,120), which is directly to the west of Attala 

County. Although Durant showed a modest increase in population during the 

1960s, the declining economy of the area is partially reflected in a population 

loss of 14.7 percent for Holmes County over this same period.

The proposed merger would have its most immediate impact in the area 

comprised of eastern Holmes County and western Attala County, lying between Lexington, some 14 miles west of Durant, and Kosciusko, some 18 miles 

to the east of Durant. This area, half of which is woodlands, is largely agricultural, with cattle and hog raising having replaced cotton as the principal 

source of income. Although some light industry has been attracted to the 

Kosciusko area, the economy of the relevant area has been declining in recent 

years, and income levels are well below the Mississippi averages— the latter 

being well below the comparable national averages. The 26,424 people estimated to live in this area are currently served by 12 commercial bank offices of 

five different banks. Of these five banks, Merchants' share of IPC deposits held 

at commercial bank offices in the above area on June 30, 1970, was 39.8 

percent, while Peoples' share was 8.0 percent. The two Holmes County banks 

headquartered in Lexington and Merchants' recently organized competitor in 

Kosciusko, Attala Bank of Kosciusko, shared the remaining 52.2 percent of the 

market's IPC deposits.

The closest offices of the two participating banks are about 9 miles apart, 

but Merchants' office in Sal I is is a minor facility, not on the main route 

between the principal offices in Durant and Kosciusko, and holds only about 

$400,000 of the area's IPC deposits. As might be expected, the volume of 

business each bank generates from areas primarily served by the other is small 

relative to the total deposit and loan business originating in such areas. The 

proposed merger would not, therefore, eliminate any significant existing competition between the two banks.

Under Mississippi law, each of the participating banks could branch de novo

into the other's area, but the likelihood of such activity on the part of either is 

considered remote. Peoples has neither the financial nor managerial resources 

to pursue de novo activity, while Merchants would not find the eastern portion

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

of Holmes County attractive in view of the declining population trend, low 

income levels, the existence of six banking offices other than the Peoples office 

in Durant, and restrictive provisions of law that would effectively bar it from 

all but one of the small communities in the area.

Merchants is the largest commercial bank in Attala County, but Peoples' 

merger with it is likely to be less anticompetitive than a merger with either of 

the Lexington banks in its market, since each of the latter has a full-service 

branch near Durant and the Lexington offices of both are closer to Durant 

than Merchants' offices in Kosciusko. While the proposed merger would increase deposit concentrations within the relevant market, the declining economy of the area, its limited population and income levels, the paucity of less 

anticompetitive merger alternatives and the fact that four commercial bank 

alternatives would remain for local residents substantially reduce the significance of that effect of the merger. Moreover, local competition with the two 

Lexington banks in and around Durant should be stimulated.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects, Both Merchants and 

Peoples have satisfactory financial resources and future prospects, although the 

resources available to Peoples would preclude any significant de novo activity. 

There is a lack of management depth at Peoples and, more recently, a serious 

health problem that has caused concern for top management succession. Managerial resources available to Merchants should satisfactorily resolve both 

problems.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The merger would 

bring to residents of the immediate Durant area the full services of a larger, 

more aggressive institution, particularly in the consumer credit area. For those 

desiring longer banking hours, loans in excess of the Peoples' legal lending limit 

of $49,000 or trust services, a convenience would be offered to Durant residents who now have to travel to either Lexington or Kosciusko. Additionally, 

the applicants maintain that the larger size of the resulting bank would allow 

their participation in various Federal assistance and credit programs. Such 

changes, while modest, should benefit the general public and the business 

community in the eastern portion of Holmes County.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffice s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

The St. Lawrence County Savings Bank

Ogdensburg, New York 

(change title to The North Country 

Savings Bank)

24,121 2 3

to merge with

The Potsdam Savings and Loan Association

Potsdam

10,983 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 99

Summary report by Attorney General, March 17, 1972

County Savings' branch office in Massena is approximately 32 miles northeast of its home office in Ogdensburg. Potsdam Savings is approximately 28 

miles east of Ogdensburg and 22 miles south of Massena. Although there are 

several intervening banking offices, the merger would appear to eliminate some 

direct competition between County Savings and Potsdam Savings, for both 

savings deposits and mortgage loans. The application indicates that the merging 

institutions draw percentages varying from about 2 to 7 per cent of their 

deposit and loan business from each other's service area. This competition 

would be eliminated by the proposed merger.

Five savings and loan associations and one mutual savings bank operate 

offices in St. Lawrence County. County Savings holds the second largest share 

of IPC savings and time deposits in these th rift institutions, about 25 per cent, 

while Potsdam Savings holds about 12.5 per cent. If IPC time and savings 

deposits in the county's 14 commercial banks are included, these percentages 

decrease to about 11.4 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively.

We conclude that the proposed merger may have an adverse effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 14, 1972

The St. Lawrence County Savings Bank, Ogdensburg, New York {"County 

Savings"), an insured mutual savings bank with total resources of $24,121,000 

and total deposits of $22,622,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and 

other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's 

prior approval to merge with The Potsdam Savings and Loan Association, 

Potsdam, New York ("S & L"), a federally insured savings and loan association 

with total resources of $10,983,000 and total deposits of $9,798,000. The 

institutions would merge under the charter of County Savings and with the 

title "The North Country Savings Bank." As an incident to the merger, the sole 

office of S&L would become a branch of the resulting bank, increasing the 

number of its offices to three.

Competition. County Savings has its principal office in Ogdensburg, a 

community of 14,554 persons, and its only branch in Massena, a community of 

16,021, some 32 miles to the north. Both locations are along the St. Lawrence 

River between the United States and Canada in the northern part of St. Lawrence County (population 111,991). S&L has its only office in the village of 

Potsdam, a community of 9,985 persons, some 28 miles east of Ogdensburg 

and 22 miles south of Massena. These three communities, plus Gouverneur 

(population 4,574), 30 miles south of Ogdensburg, and Canton (population 

6,398), some 20 miles southeast of Ogdensburg, are the only significant population centers in St. Lawrence County, New York's largest in terms of geographic 

area. The rest of the county is composed of scattered and sparsely populated 

hamlets. The county's overall population grew hardly at all during the 1960s, 

and little future growth is anticipated.

The County Savings office closest to Potsdam is 22 miles away. The primary 

areas from which the two institutions draw their deposit and loan business do 

not overlap, but each has a modest amount of business from intervening 

secondary areas. The amounts involved are not considered significant relative 

to the total deposit or loan business estimated to originate in such areas. The 

two savings banks in adjacent Jefferson County, for example, are estimated to

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
100 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

have in the aggregate more in total deposits from St. Lawrence County than 

County Savings and S&L combined. In addition, S&L has lagged, until recently, in the rates paid on regular passbook accounts, and much of County 

Savings' draw from S&L's area may be attributable to this fact. The proposed 

merger, accordingly, would not appear to eliminate a significant amount of 

existing competition between the two institutions.

Little potential for increased competition between the two institutions 

through de novo branching exists. The home office protection provisions of 

New York law would prevent S&L from entering Massena, Ogdensburg, 

Canton, or Gouverneur where other savings and loan associations are headquartered, while County Savings could not legally enter Canton, where an 

independent commercial bank is headquartered. Gouverneur and Potsdam, 

because of their limited population and low income levels, do not appear 

attractive at the present time for de novo branching by any th rift institution. 

Moreover, to the extent that any of these five St. Lawrence communities 

become more attractive for such branching in the future, th rift institutions 

headquartered elsewhere in New York's Fifth Banking District, including the 

two larger savings banks in Jefferson County, would also have the right to enter 

between now and January 1, 1976, when statewide branch banking becomes 

effective (and other th rift institutions from elsewhere in the State would have 

the right to enter thereafter).

Within the Fifth Banking District, which, since January 1 of this year, is the 

widest geographic area within which th rift institutions may branch or merge 

(subject to the additional right a savings and loan association has of placing a 

branch office anywhere within 50 miles of its principal office), County Savings 

is the fourth largest of 11 th rift institutions in terms of total resources, and 

S&L the eighth largest, with 6.9 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively, of the 

district-wide totals at year-end. The resulting institution, with $35 million in 

total resources, would be the third largest of 10 such institutions, with 10.0 

percent of all th rift institution assets in the district, far outdistanced by the 

$129 million Jefferson County Savings Bank and the $85 million Watertown 

Savings Bank, with 36.8 percent and 24.4 percent of such total assets, respectively.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. The financial resources of each institution are adequate, as are the managerial resources of 

S&L. The management of County Savings would be strengthened by the merger, and the future prospects of the resulting bank should be favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Customers of both 

County Savings and S&L should benefit from the proposed merger, along with 

the residents of their service areas who have hitherto been exposed only to 

limited th rift institution services in their communities. Newly available to the 

customers of County Savings would be property improvement loans, on-line 

data processing services and 90 percent loan-to-value mortgages. Customers of 

S&L would be offered FHA and VA mortgage loans, safe deposit boxes, increased rates on their regular savings accounts, and lower minimums than the 

$10,000 now required for higher yielding certificate accounts. Customers of

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 101

both institutions would benefit from the increased mortgage lending capability 

of the resulting institution.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g. O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

3001 Main Street Bank

Houston, Texas 

(in organization; change title 

to South Main Bank)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

South Main Bank

Houston

78,682 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 30, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which South Main Bank 

would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 24, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for 3001 Main Street Bank, Houston, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumption of the liabilities of South Main Bank, Houston, Texas ("Operating Bank"), 

a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $78,682,000 as of 

December 31, 1971, under the charter of New Bank and with the title of 

Operating Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the one existing office of 

Operating Bank.

The new bank formation and purchase of assets and assumption of liabilities 

transactions are designed solely to enable First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., a registered bank holding company, to acquire substantially all of the 

voting shares of the successor. Application for the acquisition is now pending 

before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. New Bank will 

not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the 

existing location of Operating Bank, and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the relevant market area served by Operating Bank or affect 

the banking services which Operating Bank has provided in the past. All factors 

required to be considered pertinent to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
102 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffice s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Commercial Security Bank

Ogden, Utah 

to merge with

159,097 9 9

CSB, Inc.

Ogden

(in organization)

126

Summary report by Attorney General, March 17, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which CSB Inc. (Org.) would 

become a subsidiary of Commercial Security Bancorporation, a bank holding 

company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing 

bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the 

acquisition of the surviving bank by Commercial Security Bancorporation, it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 24, 1972

Commercial Security Bank, Ogden, Utah ("Commercial"), an insured State 

nonmember bank with total resources of $159,097,000, has applied, pursuant 

to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's consent to merge under its charter and title with CSB, Inc., 

Ogden, Utah, a nonoperating State noninsured bank.

CSB, Inc., is being organized and its merger with Commercial proposed 

solely as a means by which Commercial Security Bancorporation (Bancorp), a 

bank holding company in organization, can acquire 100 percent of the voting 

stock of the bank resulting from the proposed merger. Bancorp's application to 

become a registered bank holding company has been approved by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System. CSB, Inc., will not be in operation as 

a commercial bank prior to the merger. The merger accomplished, CSB, Inc., 

would cease to exist as a corporate entity. The resulting bank would operate as 

Commercial now operates, employing its present nine offices. The proposal will 

not, per se, affect the competitive structure of commercial banking in the State 

of Utah or change the banking services which Commercial has provided in the 

past. All factors considered pertinent to the subject application are favorably 

resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Second Highland Village State Bank

Houston, Texas

(in organization; change title to

Highland Village State Bank)

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

200 1

Highland Village State Bank

Houston

31,222 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 103

Summary report by Attorney General, April 26, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Highland Village State 

Bank would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, July 31, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second Highland Village State Bank, Houston, Texas ("New Bank"), a 

proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the 

assets of and assumption of the liability to pay deposits made in Highland 

Village State Bank, Houston, Texas ("Operating Bank"), a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $31,222,000 as of May 6, 1972, under the 

charter of New Bank and with the title of Operating Bank. The resulting bank 

will operate from the one existing office of Operating Bank, and initial capital 

of New Bank will be retired.

The new bank formation and purchase-assumption transaction are designed 

solely as a means whereby First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., Houston, 

Texas, a registered multibank holding company can acquire substantially all of 

the voting shares of the successor to Operating Bank. Application for said 

acquisition is now pending before the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System. New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior 

to consummation of this transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will 

operate the same banking business at the existing location of Operating Bank, 

and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, 

change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the relevant market 

area served by Operating Bank or affect the banking services which Operating 

Bank has provided in the past. All factors required to be considered pertinent 

to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

/in

B a n kin g O ffic e s

un

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

op e ra te d

Johnstown Bank and Trust Company

Johnstown, Pennsylvania

6 7 , 6 3 5 9 1 4

to merge with

Community National Bank of

Pennsylvania

Johnstown (Benscreek)

9 ,7 5 7 5

Summary report by Attorney General, October 12, 1971 

The proposed merger would eliminate direct competition between JohnsDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
104 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

town Bank and Community Bank in two areas of the Johnstown SMSA. One 

area is the City of Johnstown, Cambria County, where Johnstown Bank operates five offices and Community Bank operates one office. Johnstown is presently served by 6 commercial banks with 17 offices. After the merger the 

number of competing commercial banks will be reduced to five with Johnstown Bank operating six of the 17 offices. The other area is south of Johnstown in Somerset County where Johnstown Bank operates one office and 

Community Bank operates three offices. The closest offices of the two banks 

are about three miles apart in Davidsvilie and Hollsopple. After the merger the 

resulting bank would be the only one serving a triangular area from Davidsvi I le 

southwest to Boswell and southeast to Hooversville.

As of June 30, 1970 there were 14 banks serving Somerset County. Johnstown Bank was the smallest with 1.7 percent of the total county deposits and 

Community Bank was next to the smallest with 2.3 percent of the total county 

deposits. The four largest banks held about 52.2 percent of the total.

Fifteen commercial banks serve Cambria County. Johnstown Bank is the 

second largest with 17.7 percent of the total county commercial bank deposits 

and about 17.4 percent of IPC demand deposits. Community Bank held 1.4 

percent of total commercial bank deposits and 3.3 percent of IPC demand 

deposits. The four largest commercial banks accounted for 74.6 percent of 

total commercial bank deposits and 74.0 percent of IPC demand deposits.

A total of 25 commercial banks operate in the Johnstown SMSA. Johnstown Bank was the second largest with 12.4 percent of total deposits and 12.9 

percent of IPC demand deposits. (The largest bank accounted for about 30 

percent of both total deposits and IPC demand deposits). Community Bank 

held 1.7 percent of total deposits and 2.3 percent of I PC demand deposits. The 

four largest accounted for 56.5 percent of total deposits and 57.8 percent of 

IPC demand deposits.

The proposed acquisition would eliminate direct competition in Cambria 

County, particularly in the Johnstown area, and in Somerset County in the 

area south of Johnstown. We conclude that the proposed merger would have an 

adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 4, 1972

Johnstown Bank and Trust Company, Johnstown, Pennsylvania ("Johnstown B&T"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$67,635,000 and total IPC deposits of $57,241,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Community National Bank of 

Pennsylvania, Johnstown (Benscreek), Pennsylvania ("Community"), with 

total resources of $9,757,000 and total IPC deposits of $7,384,000, under the 

charter and title of Johnstown B&T. The five offices of Community would 

become branches of the resulting bank, increasing the number of its offices to 

14.

Competition. Johnstown B&T operates a total of nine offices in three of the 

seven counties in which it may legally branch or merge under Pennsylvania law. 

Seven of these offices, including the bank's main office in the city of Johnstown, are in Cambria County, one is in Somerset County to the south of 

Cambria County, and one is in Westmoreland County to the west. Four of 

Community's five offices, by contrast, are located in Somerset County, while

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 105

its main office, located in Benscreek on the outskirts of Johnstown, is in 

Cambria County.

The area in which the competitive impact of the proposed merger would be 

most direct and immediate may be approximated by the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, SMSA, consisting of Cambria and Somerset Counties. The two counties had a combined 1970 population of 262,822 and economies that revolve 

around the city of Johnstown (1970 population 42,476) in the southwestern 

part of Cambria County. The city of Johnstown is predominantly a steelproducing center, while the surrounding area is devoted to general farming, 

coal mining, and a limited amount of diversified industry and manufacturing. 

Both the city of Johnstown and the bicounty area as a whole lost population 

during the 1960s, and both counties have income levels 20 to 30 percent below 

the statewide average.

Twenty-five commercial banks, with 64 offices, serve this two-county area. 

The largest bank in the SMSA is United States National Bank in Johnstown, 

Pennsylvania, a $154 million-deposit institution with approximately 29.4 percent of the area's commercial bank I PC deposits. Johnstown B&T is the second 

largest area bank, holding approximately 12.3 percent of such IPC deposits, 

while Community ranks 15th among the SMSA's 25 commercial banks, with 

approximately 1.7 percent of such IPC deposits.*

Community's main office in Benscreek is about 4 miles from the nearest 

Johnstown B&T office in Johnstown, while the latter's only office in Somerset 

County, located at Davidsville (estimated population 500), is about 1 mile from 

Community's office in Hollsopple (estimated population also 500). Because 

both banks operate in the same market and because these offices are located in 

some proximity, the proposed merger would eliminate a degree of existing 

competition between Johnstown B&T and Community. The extent of that 

competition, however, is not considered substantial in view of Community's 

relatively small share of the market, the volume of deposit and loan business 

held at the closest offices of the two banks, and the fact that Community does 

not offer fully competitive rates on time deposits, whereas Johnstown B&T 

does. Moreover, where their offices are in close proximity, customers dissatisfied with the resulting bank would continue to have three conveniently available alternatives in Johnstown and two in Windber, some 6 miles northeast of 

Hollsopple.

Increased competition between the two banks in the future through additional de novo branching appears remote. Community's limited financial and 

managerial resources make de novo branching on its part unlikely, while Johns 

town B&T is not apt to find Somerset County attractive for de novo

branching— income levels being 30 percent below the Pennsylvania average, and 

the population for each existing commercial bank office being only 3,041.

The proposed merger would thus have no significant effect on the commercial bank structure of the Johnstown SMSA. Moreover, if future growth in 

population or deposit potential makes either Cambria or Somerset County 

attractive to outside banks for de novo entry, there are five banks, each over 

$50 million in deposits, eligible to enter Cambria County and three such banks 

eligible to enter Somerset County that could bring the resulting bank additional competition in both counties of the SMSA.

^Percentage shares as of June 30, 1970.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
106 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

In the seven-county area open to Cambria County banks for branching and 

merging under Pennsylvania law, the resulting bank would account for only 4.0 

percent of total commercial bank IPC deposits held at offices within the seven 

counties.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Johnstown B&T has 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources and satisfactory prospects for 

the future, as would the resulting bank. Community's prospects as an independent institution are dimmed by its lack of management depth, its noncompetitive posture with regard to savings deposits and certificates, and its position as 

the smallest of the banks operating in the city of Johnstown, the hub of the 

local banking market.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Customers of 

Community would benefit from the higher rate of interest which Johnstown 

B&T pays on regular savings accounts, its special 5 percent time open account, 

and the fact that it pays the maximum rates of interest allowed by Federal rate 

ceilings on 1- and 2-year certificates of deposit. They would also have trust 

services, more sophisticated lending services, and a much higher lending limit 

available to them. The proposed merger would also provide an alternative 

source for these services to many Somerset County residents, thereby enhancing competition with existing banks and promoting the public convenience.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources / | r*B a n kin g O ffice s

\i n

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

1 n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Second La Porte State Bank

La Porte, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

La Porte State Bank)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

La Porte State Bank

La Porte

9,023 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 8, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which La Porte State Bank 

would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 4, 1972 

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal DeDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 107

posit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal Deposit Insurance 

for Second La Porte State Bank, La Porte, Texas ("Second Bank"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and 

assumption of the liabilities of La Porte State Bank, La Porte, Texas ("First 

Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $9,023,000. 

The resulting bank will operate from the one existing office and with the title 

of First Bank, and initial capital of Second Bank will be retired.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are designed solely as a means by which First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., 

Houston, Texas, a registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent 

(less directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting 

from the proposed transaction. Application for said acquisition was approved 

by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on May 22, 1972. 

Second Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the 

purchase and assumption transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will 

operate the same banking business at the existing location of First Bank, and 

with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by First Bank or 

affect the banking services which First Bank has provided in the past. All 

factors considered pertinent specifically to the subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

B a n k in g O ffice s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Bloomfield State Bank

Bloomfield, Connecticut 

(in organization)

to purchase a portion o f the assets and

assume a portion o f the deposit

liabilities o f

1,465 1

New Britain Bank and Trust Company

New Britain

1,760* r

Summary report by Attorney General, May 30, 1972

Bloomfield Bank, which has received approval to begin operations in Bloomfield, proposes to purchase the Bloomfield office of New Britain Bank and 

operate it as its head office. As a result of the transaction New Britain Bank 

would no longer operate in or near Bloomfield.

The transaction would eliminate the competition between Bloomfield Bank 

and the Bloomfield office of New Britain Bank which would result from the de

novo opening of Bloomfield Bank. The Bloomfield office of New Britain Bank, 

however, controls only $1.5 million in deposits, which comprises 9.2 per cent 

of the total deposits held by the three banking offices presently operating in 

Bloomfield. Thus, the small size of that office renders the potential competition between the two banks less significant.

^Resources and branch o ffice o f New B ritain Bank and Trust Com pany to be purchased by 

B lo o m fie ld State Bank.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
108 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The opening of Bloomfield Bank, however, will close that town to further 

de novo branching by outside banks, by operation of Connecticut's home 

office protection law. Thus, it becomes more important to preserve all competitive alternatives which now exist there. Should New Britain Bank still 

desire to sell its Bloomfield office it could do so to an outside bank, thus 

preserving four competitors in the town. Such a sale could provide the means 

for entry into the highly concentrated Hartford area market by one of the large 

Bridgeport or New Haven banks.

We conclude, therefore, that despite the small size of the Bloomfield office 

of New Britain Bank, the proposed transaction would have an adverse effect on 

potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 11,1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Bloomfield State Bank, Bloomfield, Connecticut ("New Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets 

of, and assumption of the liability to pay deposits made in, the Bloomfield 

Branch of New Britain Bank and Trust Company, New Britain, Connecticut 

("Selling Bank"), under the charter and title of New Bank. The branch has 

total deposits of $1,993,000, and it would be operated as the sole office of 

New Bank.

Competition. New Bank is a proposed new bank in organization and would 

not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to consummation of the purchase and assumption transaction, but upon consummation would succeed to 

the business of the Bloomfield Branch of Selling Bank. The stock of New Bank 

is to be widely held by local citizens, and it appears to have significant local 

support. Selling Bank is headquartered in New Britain and operates a total of 

eight offices, all in Hartford County. The effect of a sale of its Bloomfield 

Branch would be confined entirely to the town of Bloomfield, where Selling 

Bank presently competes with the State's two largest banks, the $1.24 billion 

Hartford National Bank and Trust Company and the $1.18 billion Connecticut 

Bank and Trust Co. Selling Bank holds approximately 11.3 percent of Bloomfield's total commercial bank deposits, while its two larger competitors hold 

approximately 88.7 percent between them.

Bloomfield is north of Hartford, the State capital, which is in the approximate center of Connecticut. Bloomfield's population increased during the 

1960s from 13,613 to 18,301, or 34.4 percent, and a further increase is projected. Bloomfield has an active manufacturing and commercial economy 

which includes a significant residential orientation. The outlook for growth is 

favorable. Inasmuch as New Bank is not an operating bank and will not be in 

operation until consummation of the proposed transaction; no competition 

presently exists between it and Selling Bank.

New Bank was being organized to operate in Bloomfield as an independent 

commercial bank. Thus, in the absence of the proposed transaction, New Bank 

would probably be in competition with the Bloomfield Branch of Selling Bank 

in the near future. The Bloomfield Branch of Selling Bank, however, has been 

open since March 1967 and has generated less than $2 million in total deposits 

and is still operating at a loss, due primarily to its inability to establish its 

identity locally. A more recent branch of Hartford National Bank and Trust 

Company has performed significantly better in a shorter period of time. The

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 109

replacement of Selling Bank by a new, locally owned bank with a local headquarters should enable the resulting bank to compete more successfully with 

the local branches of the State's two largest commercial banks. Because of this 

and because other local banks can also be organized in Bloomfield in the 

future, any loss of potential competition between New Bank and Selling Bank 

through consummation of the proposed transaction is not considered 

significant.

Connecticut law permits statewide de novo branching, subject to home 

office protection. The chartering of New Bank would therefore close the town 

of Bloomfield to further de novo branching by outside banks, but this potentially adverse effect becomes less significant when it is noted that Bloomfield 

has been open to de novo branching for some years and still has only three 

commercial bank offices, one of which has not fared well. Additional de novo

branching by New Bank and the chartering of additional local banks will remain possible in the future, thereby assisting in the deconcentration of local 

deposits presently held by the State's two largest banks.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. New Bank and 

Selling Bank have satisfactory financial and managerial resources and satisfactory prospects for the future. In view of the limited success of Selling 

Bank's Bloomfield Branch in the local market, however, its future prospects 

would appear to be more favorable as part of the resulting bank than as an 

unsuccessful branch operation of a more distant bank.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. The convenience 

and needs of residents of the town of Bloomfield shouid not be adversely 

affected by the proposed sale. To the extent local competition is stimulated by 

a successful locally owned and operated bank, the people of Bloomfield should 

benefit in the future.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

First Georgia Bank

Atlanta, Georgia 

(in organization)

3,600 6

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

First Georgia Bank (formerly Peoples

American Bank of Atlanta)

Atlanta

44,018 6

Summary report by Attorney General, May 8, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which First Georgia Bank 

would become a subsidiary of First Georgia Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
110 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing 

bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the 

acquisition of the surviving bank by First Georgia Bancshares, Inc., it would 

have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 11, 1972*

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for First Georgia Bank, Atlanta, Georgia ("First-Organization"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and 

assumption of the liabilities of First Georgia Bank, Atlanta, Georgia (formerly 

Peoples American Bank of Atlanta), ("First Peoples"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $44,018,000, and for permission to establish 

five branches. The resulting bank will operate from the six existing offices of 

First-Peoples and with its title.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are designed solely as a means by which First Georgia Bankshares, Inc., Atlanta, 

Georgia, a bank holding company in organization, can acquire 100 percent (less 

directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the 

proposed transaction. Application to become a holding company and for said 

acquisition is pending approval by the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System. First-Organization will not be in operation as a commercial 

bank prior to the purchase and assumption transaction, and subsequent to 

consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing locations of First-Peoples, and with the same management. The proposal will have 

no effect on the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area 

served by First-Peoples or alter the banking services which First-Peoples has 

offered in the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two 

subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffice s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

Western Bank

Coos Bay, Oregon

70,910 12 19

to merge with

Bank of St. Helens

St. Helens

15,472 2

and

Bank of Klamath Country

Klamath Falls

7,819 2

and

Bank of Central Oregon

Redmond

12,161 2

and

Lane County Bank

Florence

7,343 1

*T his application was w ithdraw n after approval, and the Board o f D irectors rescinded the 

approval on Novem ber 6, 1972.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 111

Summary report by Attorney General, May 30, 1972

There appears to be little or no existing competition between any of the five 

banks except possibly in Columbia County, where Western Bank operates one 

office and St. Helens Bank operates its two offices. The offices of the two 

banks, however, are at least 30 miles apart, and one other banking office 

intervenes. In view of the considerable commerce and commuting which apparently exists between the various communities in the county, the merger 

may eliminate some existing competition.

Commercial banking in Oregon is dominated by two large Portland banks, 

which together control about 77 per cent of total state deposits. Western Bank, 

though much smaller than either of these, is sixth largest of 46 Oregon banks, 

controlling about 1.3 per cent of state deposits.

Klamath Bank and Central Bank are the only independents and smallest of 

three banks operating in their respective local markets. In both cases, Western 

Bank is the fourth largest bank which could enter these markets, though of 

these four Western Bank has been particularly aggressive in expanding geographically. Lane Bank is the largest of two small banks operating in its local 

market. The two large Portland banks are also potential entrants into this 

market.

To the extent that Western Bank and St. Helens Bank are not in direct 

competition in Columbia County, there is potential for increased competition 

between them. St. Helens Bank holds the second largest share (42.5 per cent) 

of the total deposits held by the three banks operating in southeastern 

Columbia County. Western Bank is the fourth largest bank which could enter 

this part of the county. Western Bank already operates in Columbia County, as 

does one other of the four potential entrants.

Thus, the merger of Western Bank and St. Helens Bank would eliminate 

some existing competition and potential competition. The effect of this merger 

on competition in Columbia County would be adverse. The merger of Western 

Bank with Klamath Bank and Central Bank would eliminate some potential 

competition in the local markets involved. The merger of Western Bank and 

Lane Bank would not have an adverse effect in western Lane County.

These four mergers, taken together, would reduce the number of banks in 

Oregon by about 9 per cent, but because of the small size of the banks involved, would increase Western Bank's share of total state deposits by only 

about .6 per cent, from 1.3 to 1.9 per cent. Three of the four mergers, however, eliminate the only remaining independent bank in the local market involved. In the context of the high concentration in Oregon banking, this could 

make it more difficult for any of the several local banks with deposits of $25 

to $50 million to expand into statewide or regional competitors in competition 

with the few existing statewide banks.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 11,1972

Western Bank, Coos Bay, Oregon (total resources $70,910,000; IPC deposits 

$49,602,000), an insured State nonmember bank, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with the following four banks under 

the charter and title of Western Bank:

1. Bank of St. Helens, St. Helens, Oregon (total resources 

$15,472,000; IPC deposits $10,402,000)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
112 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

2. Bank of Klamath Country, Klamath Falls, Oregon (total 

resources $7,819,000; IPC deposits $5,119,000)

3. Bank of Central Oregon, Redmond, Oregon (total resources 

$12,161,000; IPC deposits $10,160,000)

4. Lane County Bank, Florence, Oregon (total resources 

$7,343,000; IPC deposits $5,497,000)

As an incident to the proposed mergers, the seven offices of the four banks 

would become branches of Western Bank, increasing its total number of offices 

to 19.

Competition. Western Bank is the sixth largest of 45 insured commercial 

banks operating in the State of Oregon, but it holds only 1.4 percent of total 

commercial bank deposits in the State. The four banks it proposes to acquire, 

which are located a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 225 miles away from 

the nearest Western Bank office, would increase Western Bank's share of the 

total commercial bank deposits in the State to 2.1 percent and establish the 

resulting bank as one of only four commercial banks operating on a statewide 

basis. The three other statewide banks are the State's two largest banks— First 

National Bank of Oregon, a $2.15 billion institution with 40.7 percent of the 

State's total commercial bank deposits and United States National Bank, a 

$1.97 billion institution with 35.4 percent of the State's total commercial bank 

deposits— and The Oregon Bank, the fourth largest bank operating in the State, 

which has 3.6 percent of the State's total commercial bank deposits.

Since acquisition of the four banks would not affect the present dominance 

of Oregon's two largest banks, and might tend to stimulate competition among 

the State's medium-sized banks, especially The Oregon Bank, no adverse competitive results for the State as a whole are foreseen from the consummation of 

any of the four proposed mergers.

With regard to the likely effects of the proposed mergers on competition in 

local banking markets, the following observations are relevant:

1. Bank of St. Helens has two offices, both located in Columbia County in 

northwestern Oregon. Its main office is in St. Helens (population 6,212) 

on the western bank of the Columbia River, while its branch office is 

located in Scappoose (population 1,859) 9 miles south of St. Helens. 

Although Western Bank has an office in Clatskanie in Columbia County, 

this office is 35 miles northwest of St. Helens, the county is sparsely 

populated (1970 population 28,790), and the two banks appear to serve 

separate and distinct banking markets. The State's two largest banks each 

have offices in St. Helens, while The Oregon Bank has a branch in 

Rainier, some 17 miles north of St. Helens and 15 miles east of Clatskanie. Bank of St. Helens holds about 42 percent of the total deposits 

held at Oregon commercial bank offices in St. Helens and within a 15 

miles radius of St. Helens.

2. Bank of Klamath Country has two offices, both located in Klamath Falls 

(population 15,775), the seat of Klamath County (population 50,021), 

in south-central Oregon adjacent to the California border. Western Bank 

has no office in Klamath County, its nearest office being 135 miles west 

of Klamath Falls in Cave Junction. Bank of Klamath Country accounts 

for 10.8 percent of all deposits at commercial bank offices within 15 

miles of Klamath Falls, the balance being held by the State's two largest

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 113

banks, each of which operates three offices in Klamath County.

3. Bank of Central Oregon has an office in Redmond (population 3,721) 

and an office in Bend (population 13,710), both of which are located in 

Deschutes County (population 30,442), some 225 miles southeast of 

Western Bank's nearest branch in Clatskanie. Bank of Central Oregon 

competes only with the State's two largest banks, which hold 86.4 percent of the county's total commercial bank deposits between them. 

Western Bank has applied for a de novo branch in PrineviIle, 19 miles east 

of Redmond in Crook County, where each of the State's two largest 

banks also have offices.

4. Lane County Bank is a unit bank located in Florence (population 2,246) 

on the west-central coast of Oregon in Lane County (population 

213,358), a county dominated by Eugene and neighboring Springfield, 

some 50 miles to the east of Florence. Lane County Bank is one of two 

approximately equal-sized commercial banks in its banking market. 

Western's nearest office is 46 miles south of Florence in North Bend.

Because of the location of all four of these banks relative to each other and 

to the nearest Western Bank office, none of them competes today with Western 

Bank and none draws more than nominal business from areas served by the 

others. Accordingly, none of the four proposed mergers would eliminate any 

significant existing competition between the participating banks. In the case of 

the first three acquisitions, local competition with the State's two largest commercial banks should be stimulated.

Western Bank cannot legally enter St. Helens, Klamath Falls, Redmond, or 

Florence except by merger, as Oregon law provides home office protection 

against de novo branching by outside banks to incorporated areas having a 

population of less than 50,000. While Western Bank could branch de novo into 

adjacent unincorporated areas and into Scappoose and Bend, where Bank of St. 

Helens and Bank of Central Oregon, respectively, maintain branches, most of 

these locations are not attractive for de novo branching and even if future 

growth should make them so, the State's two largest banks are more likely de

novo entrants into the unincorporated areas around Florence, and The Oregon 

Bank may be considered just as likely a de novo entrant as Western Bank into 

each of the four market areas. None of the four banks has established de novo

branches except in close proximity to their main offices, and their limited 

resources make it unlikely that any of them would establish de novo offices in 

areas now served by Western Bank. While Western Bank's proposed office in 

Prinevi I le may result- in increased competition with Bank of Central Oregon, 

the distance between these two locations suggests that any potential competition that might be eliminated by their merger would be minimal. The proposed 

mergers, accordingly, would appear to eliminate no significant potential for 

increased competition between the participating banks through de novo

branching. Moreover, the proposed mergers would have the collateral effect of 

opening St. Helens, Klamath Falls, and Redmond to de novo branching by 

other banks.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transactions would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
114 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Western Bank, Bank 

of St. Helens, Bank of Klamath Country, and Lane County Bank all have 

adequate financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

Mainly due to adverse^agricultural conditions, the quality of financial resources 

at Bank of Central Oregon has been declining in recent years, but this weakness 

would be overcome by its proposed merger into Western Bank. The future 

prospects of all the participating banks are favorable, as they should be for the 

resulting bank as well.

Convenience and Needs o f the Communities to be Served. The proposed 

mergers would give to the banking public in each of the relevant local areas an 

alternative source for certain banking services, such as credit card services, trust 

services, additional types of loans, like government-insured and governmentguaranteed mortgages, and larger lending limits. In the case of residents of 

Florence, a number of these services would be conveniently available only at 

the branch office of the resulting bank.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the applications is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Second Heights State Bank

Houston, Texas 

(in organization; change title 

to Heights State Bank)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

Heights State Bank

Houston

53,347 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 8, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Heights State Bank 

would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 11, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second Heights State Bank, Houston, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets of and 

assumption of the liability to pay deposits made in Heights State Bank, 

Houston, Texas ("Operating Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with 

total resources of $53,347,000, under the charter of New Bank and with the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 115

title of Operating Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the one existing 

office of Operating Bank, and initial capital of New Bank will be retired.

The new bank formation and purchase-assumption transaction are designed 

solely as a means whereby First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., Houston, 

Texas, a registered multibank holding company, can acquire substantially all of 

the voting shares of the successor to Operating Bank. Application for said 

acquisition is now pending before the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System. New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior 

to consummation of this transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will 

operate the same banking business at the existing location of Operating Bank, 

and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, 

change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the relevant market 

area served by Operating Bank or affect the banking services which Operating 

Bank has provided in the past. All factors required to be considered pertinent 

to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Citizens Bank and Trust Company

Glasgow, Kentucky

25,500 4 5

to merge with

The H. Y. Davis State Bank

Cave City

4,000 1

Summary report by Attorney General, April 26, 1972

Davis Bank is located about 10 miles northwest of Citizens. Another bank 

approximately equal in size to Davis Bank is located in Cave City, but there are 

no other banks directly intervening in the area between Davis Bank and 

Citizens. The Application states that Citizens draws only between 1 and 2 per 

cent of its demand deposits and less than 1 per cent of its commercial, housing 

and agricultural loans from the service area of Davis Bank, but that between 8 

and 10 per cent of its savings accounts and 4 per cent of its installment loans 

originate there. Correspondingly, 8 to 10 per cent of Davis Bank's demand 

deposits and 5 to 6 per cent of its Certificates of Deposit originate outside its 

service area, much of it within that of Citizens. It would appear, therefore, that 

the consummation of this merger would eliminate some existing competition 

between the banks. Home office protection prevents Citizens from branching 

de novo into Cave City.

Six banks operate nine banking offices in Barren County. The county's two 

largest banks account for five of those offices. Citizens, the county's second 

largest bank, operates three offices and holds approximately 38.6 per cent of 

the county's total deposits and 37.3 per cent of total IPC demand deposits.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
116 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Davis Bank is the fourth largest bank in the county and accounts for about 6.7 

per cent of total deposits and 6.4 per cent of IPC demand deposits.

Commercial banking in Barren County is highly concentrated. Based on 

June 30, 1971 deposit figures, Citizens and the county's largest bank, The New 

Farmers National Bank, Glasgow, held 78.8 per cent of the county's total 

deposits and 78.9 per cent of total IPC demand deposits. The four largest banks 

in the county hold about 92.3 per cent of total deposits and 91.7 per cent of 

IPC demand deposits. Should this merger be consummated, Citizens would not 

only increase its share of deposits by 6.7 per cent to 45.3 per cent, but would 

also increase its number of offices to four, making it the county's dominant 

bank. In addition only five banks would remain in the county with the two 

largest accounting for 85.5 per cent of total deposits and the four largest about

95.3 per cent.

Approval of this merger application would result in the consolidation of the 

county's second largest bank with a smaller bank with which it competes to 

some extent. The resulting bank would become the county's largest bank and 

concentration of deposits among the county's largest banks would be increased. In our view, therefore, this proposed merger would have an adverse 

effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 31, 1972

Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Glasgow, Kentucky ("Citizens Bank"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $25,500,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $19,900,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to merge with The H. Y. Davis State Bank, Cave City, Kentucky 

("Davis Bank"), having total resources of $4,000,000 and total IPC deposits of 

$3,400,000. As an incident to the merger, the only office of Davis Bank would 

become a branch of Citizens Bank, increasing the number of its offices to five.

Competition. Citizens Bank operates its main office and two branches in 

Glasgow and one branch in Temple Hill, a community of 100 persons located 9 

miles southeast of Glasgow. Glasgow is the county seat and population center 

of Barren County, Kentucky, and is situated in the south-central portion of the 

State about midway between Louisville, Kentucky, and Nashville, Tennessee. 

The rural character of Barren County has undergone substantial change in the 

past decade, with industrial, recreational, and tourist activities expanding. 

Glasgow is the center of industrial activity as well as the largest trading center 

in a six-county region composed of Barren County and five contiguous counties. The population of Barren County has remained relatively constant, rising 

only 1.3 percent, from 28,303 in 1960 to 28,677 in 1970, but the population 

of Glasgow has increased 12.2 percent, from 10,069 to 11,301, during the 

same period.

Davis Bank operates its sole office in Cave City, 10 miles northwest of 

Glasgow. Cave City, located in the northern part of Barren County, grew from 

1,418 in 1960 to 1,818 in 1970, due largely to a developing tourist complex 

around nearby Mammoth Cave National Park and Interstate Highway 65.

Citizens Bank derives most of its business from throughout Barren County 

and the western portion of contiguous Metcalfe County, while Davis Bank 

derives most of its business from within a 6-mile radius of Cave City. There are 

no intervening banks between Citizens Bank and Davis Bank, but there is a

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 117

competing bank located in Glasgow and other competing banks located in Cave 

City, Park City, and Hiseville, in Barren County, and Horse Cave, in Hart 

County. The two banks headquartered in Glasgow, which approximate each 

other in size, are the two largest banks in this local banking market as well as in 

Barren County as a whole. Davis Bank is the third largest of the five competing 

banks closest to Cave City, a group which does not include the two banks in 

Glasgow. Citizens Bank derives about 8 percent of its savings deposits and 4 

percent of its installment loans from Davis Bank's immediate trade area, but 

most of these accounts are attributable to the fact that Davis Bank offered 

neither service prior to 1969. In addition, there are a number of common 

depositors and borrowers at both banks. The proposed merger, accordingly, 

would eliminate some existing competition between Citizens Bank and Davis 

Bank, but the extent of this existing competition presently is limited. Within 

the immediate Cave City area, moreover, the proposed merger should enhance 

competition by replacing a small nonaggressive bank which has had limited 

growth since it was organized in 1888, with a larger, full-service bank.

The potential for increased competition between the two banks in the fu ­

ture through de novo branching is also limited. Kentucky law permits only 

countywide branching, subject to home office protection. Citizens Bank may 

not branch de novo, therefore, into Cave City even if this were economically 

feasible, nor may Davis Bank branch de novo into Glasgow. No Barren County 

community other than Glasgow has a population in excess of 1,900, and all of 

the larger communities, like Cave City, Park City, and Hiseville, already have an 

independent commercial bank. Barren County presently has one commercial 

bank office for each 2,607 persons, a relatively stable population, and income 

levels somewhat below the statewide average. De novo branching by either 

bank, without regard to size or branching experience, is therefore most unlikely. While future growth may make the northern section of the county 

increasingly attractive to de novo branching in the unincorporated areas outside Cave City and Park City, the other bank in Glasgow is just as capable of de

novo branching as Citizens Bank. Consummation of the proposed merger 

should not, for all these reasons, eliminate a significant potential for increased 

competition between the two banks in the future through de novo branching, 

or adversely affect the future structure of commercial bank competition in 

Barren County.

The proposed merger would moderately increase the concentration of commercial bank resources in Barren County by adding to the competitive strength 

of one of the county's two largest banks. Five commercial bank alternatives 

would continue to be available, however, for residents of the sparsely populated area around Cave City, and the second largest bank in Glasgow would be 

a sixth alternative only 10-miles from Cave City. Furthermore, no less-anticompetitive merger alternative within Barren County appears to be available to 

Davis Bank. Of the four other merger partners that are legally possible for 

Davis Bank, two would elminate a greater degree of existing competition than 

the merger proposed, the other Glasgow bank is slightly larger than Citizens 

Bank and would cause a slightly higher degree of concentration of banking 

resources, and the fourth is smaller than Davis Bank and would be unable to 

enlarge the range of Davis Bank services.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
118 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of these factors 

is favorable for Citizens Bank, as they would be for the resulting bank.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Although the 

proposed transaction would have little effect on Citizens Bank's present customers, banking services in the Cave City area should be improved. Trust 

services would be offered for the first time in this area, extended banking hours 

are planned, a bank credit card would be made available as well as a number of 

more specialized banking services. Davis Bank's lending lim it of $60,000 would 

be replaced by the resulting bank's lim it of $348,400.

Based upon the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Caddo Trust and Savings Bank 6,447 2 3

Belcher, Louisiana

to acquire the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

The Oil City Bank 1,157 1

Oil City

Summary report by Attorney General, July 28, 1972

Caddo's principal office is about 10 miles east of Bank, with no banking 

offices in the intervening area. The only alternative sources of banking services 

available in northern Caddo Parish are located in Vivian (population 4,046), 

approximately 10 miles north of Oil City, where two banks (one a branch of 

The First National Bank of Shreveport) operate. The application indicates that 

Caddo's home office draws approximately 20 per cent of its deposits and 30 

per cent of its loans from Bank's service area and that immediately prior to 

making this application (which followed the purchase of 92 per cent of Bank's 

stock by Caddo's directors), Caddo had pending an application to establish a de

novo branch in Oil City to serve its customers there. It would appear, therefore, that Caddo is a significant competitor of Bank, and that this proposed 

acquisition would permanently eliminate existing competition between the two 

banks.

Four banks currently serve northern Caddo Parish. Caddo is the second 

largest bank serving the area and accounts for about 29 per cent of the area's 

total IPC deposits. Bank is the smallest banking organization serving the area 

and accounts for about 4.8 per cent of total IPC deposits. Concentration of 

deposits in the area is very high, with the two largest banks holding about 70.4 

per cent of total IPC deposits. If this proposed acquisition is consummated the 

number of banking alternatives in the area will be reduced to three, and the 

share of deposits held by the two largest banks would exceed 75 per cent.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 119

Bank's small size tends to mitigate the anticompetitive effects of this proposed transaction. However, the application states that when Bank's controlling stock became available, Caddo acquired control (as "necessary to protect [its] business interests") because other interests were also attempting to 

make the purchase. It would appear, therefore that, except for this proposed 

transaction, Bank might be preserved as a vehicle for entry by a new competitor into northern Caddo Parish.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 31, 1972

Caddo Trust and Savings Bank, Belcher, Louisiana ("Caddo Trust"), a State 

nonmember insured bank having total resources of $6,447,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $5,348,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to acquire the assets of, and to assume liability to pay deposits made in, 

The Oil City Bank, Oil City, Louisiana ("City Bank"), having total resources of 

$1,157,000 and total IPC deposits of $888,000. As an incident to the transaction the sole office of City Bank would become a branch of Caddo Trust, 

increasing the number of its offices to three.*

Competition. Caddo Trust operates its main office in Belcher (population 

482) and a branch in Gilliam (population 211), in northern Caddo Parish, 

located in extreme northwestern Louisiana and bordering on both Texas and 

Arkansas. Caddo Parish had a 1970 population of 230,184, but 182,064 of this 

number are concentrated in the city of Shreveport, the commercial and industrial focal point of this section of the tristate area. Caddo Trust is the seventh 

largest of 10 commercial banks in Caddo Parish, holding 1.0 percent of their 

aggregate IPC deposits.

City Bank, the smallest commercial bank operating at year-end 1971 in 

Caddo Parish, held 0.2 percent of the aggregate IPC deposits held by all commercial banks of the parish, and has its sole office in Oil City (1970 population 

907— down 36.6 percent since 1960). It has attracted less than $1 million in 

total deposits since its establishment in 1924 and had net income in 1971 of 

less than $10,000.

The economy of Caddo Parish is based on agriculture, oil production, and a 

scattering of light industry. Seven of the parish's 10 commercial banks are 

headquartered in the city of Shreveport, and many residents of the BelcherGilliam-Oil City area commute for employment to Shreveport, some 18 miles 

south of Belcher. The commercial bank offices nearest to Oil City are located 

in Vivian, a community of 4,046 persons 8 miles north of Oil City, where The 

First National Bank of Shreveport, a $237 million bank, has a branch office 

and Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Vivian, a $5 million local bank, has its 

only office.

City Bank's office is 13 miles west of Caddo Trust's main office, and about

18 miles southwest of its branch. There are no other banks with offices in the 

sparsely populated intervening area, although the two commercial bank offices

D irectors o f Caddo T rust acquired all o f the stock o f C ity Bank early in 1972 and have 

been operating C ity Bank like a branch of Caddo T rust since A p ril, having replaced all o f 

its fo rm e r directors and managing officia ls w ith Caddo T rust personnel. This application 

represents the firs t supervisory o p p o rtu n ity to review th a t change o f co n tro l, and the 

C orporation w ill, in accordance w ith past agency practice, disregard Caddo Trust's present co n tro l o f C ity Bank and consider the application in the lig ht of the circum stances 

existing p rio r to A p ril 1972.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
120 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

in Vivian provide alternatives for banking service to local residents. Prior to 

April 1972, City Bank drew virtually all of its limited banking business from 

the immediate vicinity of Oil City, but each of the three competing banks 

closest to Oil City, including Caddo Trust, probably derived more deposit 

business from the Oil City vicinity than City Bank. The proposed acquisition 

would eliminate this direct competition between Caddo Trust and City Bank, 

but the significance of that result is limited by City Bank's poor record as a 

competitor and by the very small share— approximately 1.2 percent— which 

both banks in the aggregate hold of all commercial bank deposits in the 

relevant banking market (that is, all of Caddo Parish).

Louisiana law limits de novo branching to a bank's headquarters parish. City 

Bank's limited resources, lack of branching experience, and former nonaggressive management made it an unlikely candidate for any such de novo

expansion. Caddo Trust has both the capacity and motivation to enter other 

parts of Caddo Parish, including Oil City, by de novo branching, but each of 

the established branch banks in Shreveport is a larger, more likely potential 

entrant than Caddo Trust into areas of the parish outside of Shreveport that 

are or may become attractive for de novo branching.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of these factors 

is favorable for Caddo Trust, as they would be for the resulting bank.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

transaction should have little effect on present customers of Caddo Trust, but 

banking services available to City Bank customers should be improved— as indeed they have been since April 1972. The former management of City Bank 

did not offer certificates of deposit, savings bond services, or maximum rates of 

interest on savings deposits. Caddo Trust offers all of these services, as well as a 

higher lending lim it and more aggressive management.

Based upon the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resou rces

( i n

B a n kin g O ffice s

\i n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

New State Bank in Butler

Butler, Missouri

(in organization; change title to 

Butler State Bank)

400 1

to merge with

Butler State Bank

Butler

16,185 1

Summary report by Attorney General, July 11, 1972 

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Butler State Bank

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B A N K ABSO RPTIO NS APP R O V E D BY THE C O R P O R A T IO N 121

would become a subsidiary of First National Charter Corporation, a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by First National Charter Corporation, it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 31, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for New State Bank in Butler, Butler, Missouri ("New Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to merge with Butler State Bank, Butler, 

Missouri ("Operating Bank"), a State nonmember bank with total resources of 

$16,185,000. The resulting bank will operate from the one existing office of 

Operating Bank and with its title.

The new bank formation and merger transaction are designed solely as a 

means by which First National Charter Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, a 

registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' 

qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed 

transaction. Application for said acquisition was approved by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on July 27, 1972. New Bank will not 

be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger transaction, but 

subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the 

existing location of Operating Bank. The proposal will not, per se, change the 

competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Operating Bank or affect the banking services which Operating Bank has provided in 

the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

First Valley Bank

Lansford, Pennsylvania

213,603 16 19

to merge with

Citizens' Bank of Freeland

Freeland

32,488 3

Summary report by Attorney General, August 1, 1972

The nearest of First Valley's offices to those of Citizens are located in 

Lansford (population 5,168) and Nesquehoning (population 3,338) in Carbon 

County, about 25 road miles southeast of Citizens' two branches in Hazleton. 

According to the application, these offices are separated from the FreelandHazleton area by a mountain chain. It appears that the proposed merger would 

not eliminate any substantial existing competition.

Under Pennsylvania law, First Valley could be permitted to establish de

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
122 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

novo branches in the Freeland-Hazleton area. It is one of the largest eligible 

banks not already operating in this area, and has the capability of expanding de

novo where market conditions would be conducive to such entry. Hazleton is 

one of the largest communities in northeastern Pennsylvania; however, its 

gradual decline in population over the past decades and mixed prospects for 

future growth detract from the probability of extensive de novo branches in 

the near future.

The application identifies eight banks operating 18 banking offices in the 

service area of Citizens, which is asserted to include the southern part of 

Luzerne County and neighboring portions of Schuylkill County. This area may 

somewhat overstate the relevant market in which to assess the competitive 

effects of the proposed merger, as it includes banking offices at some distance 

from Hazleton.

Citizens is the third largest of four locally headquartered banks serving the 

area, and holds about 11 per cent of its total deposits. The two leading banks 

in the area are headquartered in Hazleton, and are each approximately twice as 

large as Citizens.

While the proposed merger may eliminate First Valley as a potential de novo

entrant into the Freeland-Hazleton area, it will be entering by acquisition of a 

bank which is less than half the size of its leading local competitors. Given the 

relative size of Citizens together with the existence of several other potential 

entrants of equal capability and the presently static nature of the area, we 

conclude that the proposed merger would not have a substantially adverse 

effect on potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, August 31, 1972

First Valley Bank, Lansford, Pennsylvania, a State nonmember insured bank 

having total resources of $213,603,000 and IPC deposits of $182,417,000, has 

applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Citizens' 

Bank of Freeland, Freeland, Pennsylvania ("Citizens Bank"), with total resources of $32,488,000 and IPC deposits of $27,566,000. The banks would 

merge under the charter and title of First Valley Bank and, as an incident to 

the merger, the three offices of Citizens Bank would become branches of the 

resulting bank, increasing the number of its authorized offices to 21.

Competition. First Valley Bank now operates a total of 16 offices; 10 in 

Northampton County, two in Carbon County, three in Lehigh County, and one 

in Luzerne County. Two other offices have been approved but are not yet 

open, both in Northampton County. First Valley Bank is presently serving 

three separate trade areas. The first and most important is the AllentownBethlehem area in Northampton and Lehigh Counties. The second consists of 

the southwestern part of Carbon County and a portion of northeastern Schuylkill County around the communities of Lansford and Nesquehoning, where 

recently acquired offices of First Valley Bank are located. The third consists of 

Kingston and the surrounding area in northern Luzerne County.

Citizens Bank operates a total of three offices in southern Luzerne County. 

In addition to the main office in Freeland, two branches are operated in 

Hazleton at the extreme southern end of the county. The trade area served by 

Citizens Bank consists of the southern part of Luzerne County and small 

portions of Carbon and Schuylkill Counties. The economy of Luzerne County

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 123

was primarily dependent for many years on anthracite coal production and 

railroad transportation to market. The area has experienced depressed economic conditions for years, and its population has been declining. The trade 

area of Citizens Bank is estimated to have a present population of about

41,000 persons. There has been some moderate recent success in attracting new 

and diversified industries to the area, and a modest uptrend is discernible.

The office of First Valley Bank in Lansford is approximately 17 road miles 

from one of the offices of Citizens Bank in Hazleton, and this represents the 

shortest distance between offices of the two banks. The intervening area, however, is mountainous, and travel between the two locations is restricted by the 

poor highway systems in the area. An analysis of the application indicates that 

there is little existing competition between Valley Bank and Citizens Bank 

which would be eliminated by their proposed merger.

Within a 10-mile radius of Freeland, seven commercial banks operate a total 

of 19 offices. The largest share of this local market, 29.0 percent, was held as 

of June 30, 1970, by the five offices of a Hazelton-based bank with total 

resources of $75 million. The second largest share, 21.8 percent, was held by 

two offices of a Scranton-based bank with total resources of $387 million. 

Another Hazelton-based bank had the third largest share, 21.4 percent, and 

Citizens Bank had the fourth largest share, with 12.0 percent. Three offices of 

a Wilkes-Barre-based bank (total resources $260 million) had 6.5 percent, two 

offices at a small West Hazleton-based bank had 5.2 percent, and one office of 

a Reading-based bank (total resources $716 million) had 4.1 percent, the 

smallest share. Since First Valley Bank is not presently represented in this local 

banking market, its acquisition of Citizens Bank would not increase the concentration of banking resources within that market. Rather, its acquisition of 

the fourth-ranking area bank could tend to deconcentrate such resources in the 

future.

Under Pennsylvania law, First Valley Bank can branch de novo or merge in 

Luzerne, Carbon, Northampton, Lehigh, Monroe, and Schuylkill Counties 

while Citizens Bank can branch de novo or merge within four of these same 

counties— Luzerne, Carbon, Monroe, and Schuylkill— as well as counties to the 

north of Luzerne. Carbon, Monroe, and Schuylkill Counties do not appear 

attractive at the present time for de novo branching. All have relatively low 

populations for each existing commercial bank office, all have income levels 

below the statewide average, and Schuylkill and Carbon Counties in addition 

have had stagnant or depressed economies for some time. The local banking 

market which Citizens Bank presently serves already has numerous large banks 

competing, a population for each commercial bank office approximating 2,100 

persons, and a declining overall population. While both banks might branch de

novo in northern Luzerne County, including the area around Wilkes-Barre, 

thus bringing them into greater competition in the future, a depressed economy and the recent flood disaster in this part of Luzerne County make de novo

branching unlikely for the immediate future. Longer range, there are a number 

of large banks besides First Valley Bank which could find northern Luzerne 

County attractive for de novo expansion should future growth in the economy 

warrant such expansion.

Within the six-county area where the resulting bank could legally establish 

branches, it would control approximately 8 percent of all commercial bank IPC 

deposits held at offices in the six counties, ranking second in this regard among 

74 commercial banks.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
124 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Corporation concludes that the proposed merger would eliminate no 

significant potential for increased competition in the future between the two 

banks and should not adversely affect future commercial bank competition in 

any relevant area.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors believes that the proposed 

merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of 

trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. First Valley Bank 

and Citizens Bank both have satisfactory financial and managerial resources, as 

would the resulting bank. Future prospects for the resulting bank would be 

favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would have little, if any, impact in the present trade areas served by 

First Valley Bank, but in the trade area served by Citizens Bank the proposed 

merger would provide residents and businessmen with an additional option for 

a full range of commercial bank services, including trust services, computer 

programming services, and larger size loans. Increased competition for such 

services, sparked by First Valley Bank's aggressive and capable management, 

should redound to the benefit of all area residents.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

New Conroe Bank 75 — 1

Conroe, Texas

(in organization; change title to

Conroe Bank)

to purchase the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

Conroe Bank 29,282 1

Conroe

Summary report by Attorney General, July 18, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Conroe Bank would 

become a subsidiary of Allied Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding company. The 

instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing bank with a nonoperating institution; as such, and without regard to the acquisition of the 

surviving bank by Allied Bancshares, Inc., it would have no effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, September 25, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for New Conroe Bank, Conroe, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new bank in

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 125

organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumption of 

the liabilities of Conroe Bank, Conroe, Texas, a State nonmember insured bank 

with total resources of $29,282,000 as of June 30, 1972, under the charter of 

New Bank and with the title of Conroe Bank. The resulting bank will operate 

from the one existing office of Conroe Bank.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are designed solely to enable Allied Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, a registered 

bank holding company, to acquire substantially all of the voting shares of the 

bank resulting from the proposed transaction. Application to the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System for approval of the acquisition is 

pending. New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the 

transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking 

business at the existing location of Conroe Bank, and with essentially the same 

management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of 

commercial banking in the relevant market area served by Conroe Bank or 

affect the banking services which Conroe Bank has provided in the past. All 

factors required to be considered pertinent to each application are favorably 

resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

New Continental Bank

Houston, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

Continental Bank)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

Continental Bank

Houston

150,919 1

Summary report by Attorney General, July 14, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Continental Bank 

would become a subsidiary of Allied Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing bank 

with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the acquisition 

of the surviving bank by Allied Bancshares, Inc., it would have no effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, September 25, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for New Continental Bank, Houston, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumpDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
126 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

tion of the liabilities of Continental Bank, Houston, Texas, a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $150,919,000 as of June 30, 1972, under 

the charter of New Bank and with the title of Continental Bank. The resulting 

bank will operate from the one existing office of Continental Bank.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are designed solely to enable Allied Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, a registered 

bank holding company, to acquire substantially all of the voting shares of the 

bank resulting from the proposed transaction. Application for the acquisition 

to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is pending. New 

Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the transaction, 

but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at 

the existing location of Continental Bank, and with essentially the same 

management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of 

commercial banking in the relevant market area served by Continental Bank or 

affect the banking services which Continental Bank has provided in the past. 

All factors required to be considered pertinent to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

op e ra te d

New Merchants Bank

Port Arthur, Texas 

(in organization; change title to 

Merchants Bank)

200 1

to purchase the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

Merchants Bank

Port Arthur

71,784 1

Summary report by Attorney General, July 18, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Merchants Bank would 

become a subsidiary of Allied Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding company. The 

instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing bank with a nonoperating institution; as such, and without regard to the acquisition of the 

surviving bank by Allied Bancshares, Inc. it would have no effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, September 25, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for New Merchants Bank, Port Arthur, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumption of the liabilities of Merchants Bank, Port Arthur, Texas, a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $71,784,000 as of June 30, 1972,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 127

under the charter of New Bank and with the title of Merchants Bank. The 

resulting bank will operate from the one existing office of Merchants Bank.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transactions are designed solely to enable Allied Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, a holding 

company, to acquire substantially all of the voting shares of the bank resulting 

from the proposed transaction. Application for approval of the acquisition to 

the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is pending. New Bank 

will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the transaction, but 

subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the 

existing location of Merchants Bank, and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the relevant market area served by Merchants Bank or affect 

the banking services which Merchants Bank has provided in the past. All factors 

required to be considered pertinent to each application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Second Wallis State Bank

Wallis, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

Wallis State Bank)

50 1

to purchase the assets and assume the

deposit liabilities o f

Wallis State Bank

Wallis

3,777 1

Summary report by Attorney General, June 19, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Wallis State Bank 

would become a subsidiary of First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by First City Bancorporation of Texas, 

Inc., it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, September 25, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second Wallis State Bank, Wallis, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumption of the liabilities of Wallis State Bank, Wallis, Texas ("Operating Bank"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $3,777,000 as of June 

30, 1972, under the charter of New Bank and with the title of Operating Bank. 

The resulting bank will operate from the one existing office of Operating Bank.

The new bank formation and purchase and assumption transaction are deDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
128 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

signed solely to enable First City Bancorporation of Texas, Inc., Houston, 

Texas, a registered bank holding company, to acquire substantially all of the 

voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed transaction. Application 

for approval of the'acquisition to the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System is pending. New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial 

bank prior to the transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate 

the same banking business at the existing location of Operating Bank, and with 

essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the 

competitive structure of commercial banking in the relevant market area served 

by Operating Bank or affect the banking services which Operating Bank has 

provided in the past. All factors required to be considered pertinent to each 

application are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Broadway Savings Bank

New York (Manhattan), New York 

(change title to Prudential Savings 

Bank)

177,518 2 10

to merge w ith

Prudential Savings Bank

New York (Manhattan)

361,842 8

Summary report by Attorney General, July 31, 1972

The nearest offices of the two institutions are about one mile apart. Both 

institutions derive the preponderance of their business from the New York CityNassau County area. Thus, the proposed merger will foreclose existing competition between them for savings deposits. Such competition could be increased through additional branching, of which both banks are capable. Both 

banks also make mortgage loans throughout a somewhat larger area than the 

New York City-Nassau County area; however, the large number of substantial 

lenders in this area lessens any adverse effect the merger may have on competition for mortgage loans.

Each institution holds less than one per cent of the total deposits of the 

th rift institutions in the New York City-Nassau County area. The proposed 

merger will not significantly increase concentration among th rift institutions or 

mutual savings banks in these areas, and its overall effect on competition would 

not be significantly adverse.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 2, 1972

Broadway Savings Bank, New York (Manhattan), New York ("Broadway"), 

(total resources $177,518,000; total deposits $164,561,000), an insured mutual 

savings bank, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior approval of its

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 129

merger with Prudential Savings Bank, New York (Manhattan), New York 

("Prudential"), (total resources $361,842,000; total deposits $338,880,000), 

also an insured mutual savings bank, under Broadway's charter but with the 

title "Prudential Savings Bank." As an incident to the merger, Prudential's 

eight offices would be established as branches of the resulting bank, and 

Prudential's present main office would serve in that same capacity for the 

resulting bank.

Competition. Broadway is headquartered on the lower west side of Manhattan (1970 population 1,524,541; down 10.2 percent from 1960). Its only 

existing branch is located in New York City's downtown financial district near 

City Hall. A third office has received the necessary supervisory approvals and 

will open soon in Yorktown (1970 population 28,064; up 70.6 percent from 

1960), Westchester County, a residential community approximately 60 miles 

north of Broadway's other locations.

Prudential is also headquartered on the lower west side of Manhattan and 

operates two additional offices in Greenwich Village. Three other branches are 

located in Brooklyn (1970 population 2,601,852; down 1.0 percent from 

1960), and two additional offices are located in Nassau County (1970 population 1,422,905; up 9.4 percent from 1960). Prudential has the necessary supervisory approvals for a ninth branch office to be established in Sea Cliff in the 

vicinity of its other Nassau County offices.

Neither Prudential nor Broadway holds a significant share of the deposits or 

loans held by mutual savings banks in either New York County or the New 

York SMSA, consisting of New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, 

and Rockland Counties. Of 25 mutual savings banks which operate offices in 

New York County, neither bank as of June 30, 1970, had more than 1.0 

percent of the savings deposits held at all mutual savings bank offices in 

Manhattan. Prudential currently ranks 33rd largest of 61 mutual savings banks 

in the New York SMSA, with 0.9 percent of the total mutual savings bank 

deposits for that area. Broadway, the smallest mutual savings bank headquartered in Manhattan, has only 0.4 percent of such deposits and ranks 45th 

in asset size. The resulting institution would rank 28th in asset size among 60 

mutual savings banks in the SMSA. Inclusion of the deposit totals held by 

savings and loan associations in the SMSA would further reduce the competitive significance of either bank and of the resulting bank in their present 

markets.

For this reason, the proposed merger is unlikely to have any discernible 

effect on the competitive structure of th rift institutions in Manhattan or in the 

larger SMSA, even though some existing competition between Broadway and 

Prudential and some potential for increased competition in the future between 

them through de novo branching would be eliminated by their proposed merger. Broadway's main office is on the northern periphery of Prudential's 

Manhattan service area about 1 mile from Prudential's nearest office, while 

Broadway's City Hall office is on the southern periphery of that area. Numerous other th rift institutions are within convenient distance of each of these 

offices, however, and the public's choice of alternative facilities would not be 

materially affected. Similarly, although both institutions have the legal authority to branch de novo throughout Manhattan and much of the SMSA, the 

presence of numerous much larger institutions also able to branch de novo in 

the same areas makes this loss of potential competition between the two banks 

insignificant.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
130 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. The financial resources of both institutions are adequate, as are the management resources of 

Prudential. Recent retirements and resignations in middle management ranks at 

Broadway have caused some lack of management depth at that bank, but the 

managerial resources and prospects of the resulting bank would be favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. In view of the 

number of significantly larger th rift institutions in Manhattan and the New 

York SMSA, few benefits to the general public are likely to result from the 

proposed merger, but existing customers of Prudential and Broadway should 

benefit from larger lending resources, more adequate staff and a greater number of offices at which to bank. Broadway customers would also be offered 

property improvement loans for the first time.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffice s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Bank of Yakima

Yakima, Washington

44,341 10 11

to merge w ith

Ellensburg State Bank

Ellensburg

5,210 1

Summary report by Attorney General, July 14, 1972

The closest office of the Yakima Bank to Ellensburg Bank's office is 25 

miles distant, and the area between the offices is sparsely inhabited. The proposed merger would not appear to eliminate significant existing competition.

Ellensburg Bank is the smallest of the three banks with offices in Ellensburg, 

and the only bank headquartered in the city. The three other banking offices in 

Ellensburg are operated by two of the state's largest banking organizations. 

Because of Ellensburg Bank's comparatively small size and the small size of 

Yakima Bank relative to other potential entrants, the proposed merger will not 

have a significantly adverse effect on potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 2, 1972

Bank of Yakima, Yakima, Washington ("Yakima Bank"), an insured State 

nonmember bank having total resources of $44,341,000 and IPC deposits of 

$34,402,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to 

merge with Ellensburg State Bank, Ellensburg, Washington ("Ellensburg 

Bank"), having total resources of $5,210,000 and IPC deposits of $3,339,000. 

These two banks would merge under the charter and title of Yakima Bank and,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 131

as an incident to the merger, the sole office of Ellensburg Bank would become 

a branch of Yakima Bank, increasing to 11 the number of Yakima Bank's 

offices.

Competition. Yakima Bank, the fourth largest of six commercial banks in its 

market, operates a total of 10 offices serving Yakima County and the adjoining 

southwestern portion of Benton County. The economy of this region in southcentral Washington is largely agricultural, while food processing and packing is 

an important industry. Lumbering and forest-related products also contribute 

substantially to the economy of the area.

The city of Ellensburg, county seat of Kittitas County, has a population 

(13,568) that accounts for more than 50 percent of the total inhabitants of the 

county (25,039). Ellensburg is situated 34 miles north of Yakima (population 

45,588— up 5.3 percent in 10 years). No community of a size approaching that 

of Ellensburg lies to the westward within some 95 miles or to the eastward 

within some 60 miles. Kittitas County experienced substantial growth during 

the 1960s, the population of the county increasing by 22.3 percent and that of 

Ellensburg increasing by 57.3 percent. In this section of Washington State, the 

raising of grain, feeding of livestock, and processing of food are major economic 

activities. Central Washington State College is the largest individual employer in 

Ellensburg.

Ellensburg Bank is the smallest of five commercial banks operating in 

Kittitas County in terms of local IPC deposits held on June 30, 1970, with 5.9 

percent of all such deposits. The bank with the largest share of the county's 

IPC deposits is the $643 million-deposit Pacific National Bank of Washington, 

with two branch offices in Ellensburg, while the State's first, second, and 

seventh largest commercial banks hold the balance of the county's IPC deposits.

Ellensburg Bank draws the bulk of its business from the city of Ellensburg 

and its environs, but its banking market may be considered countywide. The 

city of Ellensburg is centrally located within the county. It is the principal 

population center and the principal source of employment and shopping between Yakima and Wenatchee, some 72 miles to the north.

Good roads connect the city with the several other Kittitas County 

communities that have commercial bank offices, all within 25 miles of Ellensburg. Yakima Bank and Ellensburg Bank, with their closest offices being some 

37 miles apart, operate in separate, although adjacent, service areas, and existing competition between them appears to be virtually nonexistent.

Under Washington law, Yakima Bank and Ellensburg Bank both have the 

legal authority to branch de novo into unbanked incorporated areas outside 

their headquarters county. Only two areas are available within Kittitas County 

for de novo entry by Yakima Bank. Neither the town of Kittitas (population 

637) nor South Cle Elum (population 374), however, is large enough to encourage de novo entry by Yakima Bank, while Ellensburg Bank, for its part, 

has neither the managerial nor financial resources nor the experience to sustain 

successful de novo branching outside its present market. Accordingly, no substantial potential exists for increased competition between the two banks in 

the future through de novo expansion and its elimination by the proposed 

merger would be of no competitive significance.

In the State of Washington as a whole, the proposed merger would have no 

effect on competition or banking structure, the resulting bank controlling only

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
132 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

0.7 percent of statewide commercial bank IPC deposits.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of the banks 

has adequate financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

Future prospects for the resulting bank would be favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Although services 

now offered by Ellensburg Bank would not be significantly broadened by the 

resulting bank, the merger would produce a local commercial bank facility with 

a competitive capability strengthened by a more aggressive management and a 

lending lim it increased from $75,000 to $437,000. Certain types of prime 

borrowers should also benefit from somewhat lower rates of interest. To the 

extent services offerd by the resulting bank may be available within Kittitas 

County, at offices of Pacific National Bank of Washington, Seattle-First National Bank, The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, or Seattle Trust & 

Savings Bank, consummation of the proposed merger would provide an alternative source for such services, and competition for certain types of banking 

services within the market should be enhanced.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces { i nB a n kin g O ffic e s

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Commercial Security Bank

Ogden, Utah

166,468 9 11

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

Murray State Bank

Murray

19,161 2

Summary report by Attorney General, August 10, 1972

Commercial Security and Murray State operate offices within five miles of 

each other. They are direct competitors for banking customers, particularly in 

south and central Salt Lake County. Moreover, Commercial Security can and 

intends to expand in the county by opening additional branches. It can enter 

those parts of the county closed to it by virtue of Utah's home office protection statute by chartering new banks. Thus, it can expand directly into those 

areas where Murray State has its offices. The rapid growth of those areas, even 

within the context of Salt Lake County, would seem to create a strong incentive for increased competitive efforts by Commercial Security, which is both 

the largest bank in the state and the county with no office or subsidiary in 

these areas. This transaction would, therefore, eliminate existing competition 

and the potential for increasing that competition. It would also eliminate 

Murray State as a vehicle for entry into Salt Lake County by another bank not

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 133

already located in the county, and perhaps less able to effect de novo expansion than Commercial Security.

Murray State itself has experienced rapid and sustained growth since its 

organization in 1955. It now ranks as the fifteenth largest banking organization 

in the state. It has the potential to be a significant competitor in southern and 

central Salt Lake County in its own right. In combination with one or more 

other banks in the state smaller than Commercial Security it can be a substantial component in a new statewide banking organization.

Concentration analysis is complicated in this case by the recent date of 

Commercial Security's entry into Salt Lake County. On December 31, 1968, it 

acquired Beehive State Bank which had a single office in the county. In the 

three years since that acquisition, deposits in that office have grown over 50 

per cent. On December 31, 1971, Commercial Security merged with Granite 

National Bank which operated two offices in Salt Lake County. However, the 

most recent data available on deposits, by office, June 30, 1970, does not 

reflect the effects of Commercial Security's ownership of these offices. As of 

that time, the offices now owned by Commercial Security held 3.1 per cent of 

all deposits in Salt Lake County, and Murray State held 1.6 per cent of such 

deposits. Inclusion of all offices in the county probably overstates the relevant 

market and thus increases the unrepresentative character of these statistics.

In the state, as a whole, as of December 31, 1971, Murray State held slightly 

less than 1 per cent of deposits in the state while Commercial Security held 

almost 6.5 per cent.

This transaction would eliminate existing competition and the potential for 

increasing that competition. Moreover, the fourth largest bank in the state, 

which is already serving Salt Lake County, would eliminate one of the few 

banks in the county which could be an entry vehicle into the county for some 

other bank. Thus, while the parties to the proposed transaction presently control small shares of the banking business in Salt Lake County, it may have some 

adverse competitive effects.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 10, 1972

Commercial Security Bank, Ogden, Utah ("Commercial"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $166,468,000 and total deposits 

of $139,161,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions 

of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to 

purchase the assets of, and assume liability to pay deposits made in, Murray 

State Bank, Murray, Utah, which has total resources of $19,161,000 and total 

deposits of $16,918,000. The two offices of Other Bank would be operated as 

branches of Commercial, increasing the number of its offices to 11.

Competition. Commercial operates a total of nine offices; three are in 

Ogden and one is in South Ogden (Weber County); three are in Salt Lake City 

(Salt Lake County); and two are in Tooele County, some 40 miles southwest of 

Salt Lake City. Murray State Bank was organized in 1956, and its only branch 

was established de novo in 1963 in the unincorporated area of Midvale approximately 4 miles southeast of the main office in Murray, Salt Lake County. In its 

immediate area, Murray State Bank ranks second to Walker Bank & Trust 

Company, the State's third largest bank, in terms of area deposits held. The 

four other banks which also operate offices in that area include the State's 

first, fifth , sixth, and seventh largest banks.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
134 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The population of the Salt Lake City SMSA, which consists of Davis and 

Salt Lake Counties, increased from 447,795 in 1960 to 557,635 in 1970, an 

increase of 24.5 percent. Salt Lake County alone increased from 383,035 in 

1960 to 458,607 in 1970, but the population of Salt Lake City declined 7.2 

percent from 189,454 to 175,885. The Salt Lake City metropolitan area is the 

financial, commercial, industrial, and distribution center for a large area which 

includes, in addition to Utah, southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and eastern 

Nevada.

The city of Murray, located about 10 miles south of downtown Salt Lake 

City, is an increasingly important and prominent commercial center serving the 

population and businesses of southern Salt Lake County. The population of 

the city of Murray increased 26.2 percent between 1960 and 1970, from 

16,806 to 21,206. Salt Lake City has developed to such an extent in the 

northern areas of the Salt Lake Valley that, in recent years, population growth 

and commercial development in Salt Lake County have been greatest in the 

southern part of the county. As part of this development, a new shopping 

center has been under construction in the southern part of the city of Murray, 

to be known as Fashion Place Mall. When completed, it may well be the largest 

suburban retail shopping center in Salt Lake County. The economic outlook 

for the city of Murray and southern Salt Lake County is favorable.

The main office of Murray State Bank is approximately 5 miles from the 

closest branch of Commercial in Salt Lake City, and these two offices represent 

the nearest offices of the participating banks. There are offices of other commercial banks, however, in the intervening area, and neither Commercial nor 

Murray State Bank draws a substantial amount of business from the trade area 

of the other. Within Salt Lake County as a whole, Commercial held 3.5 percent 

of all commercial bank deposits as of June 30, 1970, and Murray State Bank 

held only 1.8 percent. The Corporation concludes that the proposed acquisition would eliminate no substantial amount of existing competition between 

the two banks.

Under Utah law, Murray State Bank could legally branch de novo into Salt 

Lake City, but this does not seem likely in view of the bank's relatively small 

size and the number of banking offices already established in Salt Lake City. 

The city of Murray itself is closed to de novo branching because of the home 

office protection provisions of Utah law, so that Commercial cannot legally 

enter its incorporated limits by that means. Both banks, however, are capable of 

additional de novo branching in the growing unincorporated areas of southern 

Salt Lake County. The proposed acquisition would eliminate that potential for 

increased competition in the future between the two banks, but there appear 

to be at least four large banks, including one more than twice Commerciars 

size, which are also potential de novo entrants into these sections of Salt Lake 

County.

Commercial banking in the State of Utah is concentrated in its three largest 

banks, which, as of December 31, 1971, held 59.0 percent of the total deposits 

held by the 50 insured commercial banks in the State. The largest share of such 

deposits (27.6 percent) was held by the $730 million First Security Bank of 

Utah, N.A., Ogden, Utah, while Walker Bank & Trust Company and Zions First 

National Bank, both approximating $370 million in size, held 16.2 and 15.2 

percent, respectively, of such deposits. Commercial is the fourth largest commercial bank in the State, with 6.5 percent of such deposits, while Murray

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 135

State Bank is the 15th largest, with 0.8 percent. The resulting bank would still 

be much smaller than the three largest banks, and consummation of the proposed transaction would not substantially change the commercial bank structure of Utah.

Should the proposed acquisition be approved, home office protection would 

be removed from the city of Murray, and several pending applications for de

novo branches in that community could be granted, including one filed by 

Zions First National Bank, the State's second largest bank. Thus, consummation of the proposed transaction should tend to stimulate competition in and 

around Murray by increasing the public's choice of alternative facilities for 

banking services.

The Board of Directors, accordingly, is of the opinion that the proposed 

transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of 

trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Commercial has satisfactory financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. Future 

prospects for the resulting bank are favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. This proposed 

transaction would not have any great effect on present customers of Commercial, but customers of Murray State Bank should benefit from the wider 

range of commercial bank services that would be offered by the resulting bank, 

including a "Golden Passbook" account and trust, credit card, and computer 

services. In addition, the present lending limit of Murray State Bank 

($183,500) would be increased to over $1 million. While similar services are 

now offered by other commercial bank offices in the Murray area, consummation of the proposed transaction would provide a convenient alternative source 

for each of them.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Community State Bank and Trust Company

Linden, New Jersey

80,665 6 8

to merge with

Middletown Banking Company

Middletown Township

21,167 2

Summary report by Attorney General, August 1, 1972

Community State serves the southeastern section of Union County. Its 

closest office to Middletown Bank is approximately 35 miles distant, with 

numerous competing banks in the intervening area. It does not appear that the 

proposed merger would eliminate any significant existing competition.

Community State and Middletown Bank are both located within the same 

banking district, and thus under New Jersey law could be permitted to estabDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
136 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

lish branches in closer proximity to one another. Community State has the 

resources to expand further in this manner; however, in view of Middletown 

Bank's small size relative to other banking institutions in its market area, and 

the existence of several other larger potential entrants, we conclude that the 

proposed merger would have no significant adverse competitive effects.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 20, 1972

Community State Bank and Trust Company, Linden, New Jersey ("Comm u n ity "), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$80,665,000 and total IPC deposits of $63,270,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Middletown Banking Company, 

Middletown Township, New Jersey ("Middletown Bank"), which has total resources of $21,167,000 and total IPC deposits of $16,718,000, under the 

charter and title of Community. Permission is also requested to establish the 

two existing and two approved but unopened offices of Middletown Bank as 

branches of the resulting bank, increasing the number of its offices to 10.

Competition. Community operates a total of six offices, all of which are 

located in Union County, New Jersey. Three are in Linden, two in Rahway, 

and one in Roselle. The two existing offices of Middletown Bank are in Middletown Township, Monmouth County, and the approved but unopened offices 

are also to be in Middletown Township.

All offices of Community are in Union County, which, together with Essex 

and Morris Counties, comprises the Newark SMSA. Between 1960 and 1970, 

the population of the Newark SMSA increased from 1,689,420 to 1,856,556, 

or 9.9 percent. During this same period of time, the population of Union 

County increased 7.7 percent, from 504,255 to 543,116. Community had the 

eighth largest deposit share of 14 commercial banks operating within Union 

County as of June 30, 1970, with 4.8 percent of the total commercial bank 

deposits held at offices in the county. The four largest banks in terms of local 

deposits held 65.2 percent of total Union County commercial bank deposits on 

the same date.

The primary trade area of Community consists of the contiguous communities of Linden (1970 population 41,409, up 3.7 percent from 1960), 

Rahway (1970 population 29,114, up 5.1 percent from 1960), and Roselle 

(1970 population 22,585, up 7.4 percent from 1960). The economic outlook 

for this portion of Union County is favorable.

Monmouth County has experienced rapid growth in the past decade. Its 

1970 population was reported as 459,379, an increase of 37.4 percent over the 

1960 total of 334,401. The rate of growth of Middletown Township was 

similar to the county's rate of growth, increasing from 39,675 to 54,623, or

37.7 percent. Including the adjoining communities, the population in Middletown Bank's primary trade area approximates 113,265, an increase of 25.6 

percent over 1960. While the county is experiencing some industrial and commercial expansion, most of its growth has been residential, with people 

commuting as far as New York and Philadelphia. Middletown Bank was the 

smallest of 11 commercial banks in Monmouth County on June 30, 1970, with

1.3 percent of all deposits held at commercial bank offices in the county.

Community's branches are all situated within 3 miles of its main office in 

Union County, while all of Middletown Bank's branch sites are within 5 miles

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 137

of its main office. Union County and Monmouth County are separated by 

Middlesex County, and the shortest distance between offices of Community 

and Middletown Bank is approximately 25 road miles, with numerous banking 

offices in the intervening area. The trade areas served by the two banks are 

separate and distinct, there appear to be no depositors or borrowers in common, and the volume of business which each bank derives from the service area 

of the other is negligible. The Corporation concludes that there is no significant 

amount of existing competition between Community and Middletown Bank 

which would be eliminated by their proposed merger.

Under New Jersey law, either bank could branch de novo throughout the 

State's Second Banking District, subject to home office protection and subject 

to branch office protection in communities of under 7,500 people. Since there 

are attractive locations in growing areas of Middlesex County, Monmouth 

County, and other parts of the Second Banking District where the two banks 

might find themselves in increasing competition in the future through de novo

branching, some potential competition is likely to be eliminated by their proposed merger. The Corporation has concluded, however, that the elimination 

of this potential for increased competition between Community and Middletown Bank would not have significant adverse consequences within the Second 

Banking District. Numerous banks larger than the two banks combined operate 

throughout the District, and additional banks are affiliates of multibank holding companies. Moreover, the merger would have the effect of opening Middletown Township, Monmouth County's largest community, to de novo branching 

by outside banks.

As of December 31, 1971, the 64 insured commercial banks operating in 

New Jersey's Second Banking District had total deposits of $4.8 billion. Community ranked 23rd, with 1.4 percent of such total deposits, and Middletown 

Bank ranked 52nd, with 0.3 percent. The proposed transaction would have no 

discernible effect on the commercial bank structure of the Second Banking 

District and should improve the competitive capabilities of the resulting bank 

in local markets where it competes with much larger banking organizations.

Accordingly, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the proposed 

transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of 

trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both Community 

and Middletown Bank have satisfactory financial and managerial resources, as 

would the resulting bank. Future prospects for the resulting bank are favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Customers served 

by Community would benefit from a higher lending lim it and trust services. 

Customers of Middletown Bank would be offered a broader and more sophisticated range of banking services, including computerized account reconciliation, 

payroll servicing, and trust services. The lending limit of the resulting bank 

($911,000) would also be significantly higher than the present lending lim it of 

Middletown Bank ($160,000), and longer banking hours would be in force. 

While most such services are presently available at the offices of larger competitors in Monmouth County, the resulting bank would provide an alternative 

source for many customers. The proposed merger would, as previously noted, 

open Middletown Township to de novo entry by other banks— some of which 

have already applied for entry— a development which would provide local

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
138 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

residents with additional convenient facilities for commercial bank services.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

State Bank of Dyersburg

Dyersburg, Tennessee 

(in organization; change title to 

First Bank and Trust Co.)

113 2

to merge w ith

First Bank and Trust Co.

Dyersburg

19,321 2

Summary report by Attorney General, August 18, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which First Bank and Trust 

Co. would become a subsidiary of First Tennessee National Corporation, a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by First Tennessee National Corporation, it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 20, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance for State Bank of Dyersburg, Dyersburg, Tennessee ("State Bank"), a 

proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with First 

Bank and Trust Co., Dyersburg, Tennessee ("First Bank"), a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $19,152,000, under the charter of State 

Bank and with the title of First Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the 

two existing offices of First Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a vehicle by 

which First Tennessee National Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, a registered 

bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of the 

bank resulting from the proposed merger. Application for said acquisition is 

pending approval by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

State Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, 

but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at 

the existing locations of First Bank, and with essentially the same management. 

The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial 

banking in the trade area served by First Bank or affect the banking services 

which First Bank has provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent 

specifically to the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 139

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resources I

B a n k in g O ffic e s

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Airline Commerce Bank

Houston, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

Airline Bank)

200 1

to merge with

Airline Bank

Houston

29,360 1

Summary report by Attorney General, April 13, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Airline Bank would 

become a subsidiary of Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding 

company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing 

bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the 

acquisition of the surviving bank by Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 20, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Airline Commerce Bank, Houston, Texas ("New Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Airline Bank, 

Houston, Texas ("Existing Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total 

resources of $29,360,000, under the charter of New Bank and with the title of 

Existing Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the one office of Existing 

Bank.

The new bank formation and merger transaction are designed solely as a 

means by which Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, a registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed 

transaction. Application for said acquisition was approved by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on September 1, 1972. New bank will 

not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger transaction, but 

subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the 

existing location of Existing Bank, and with the same management. The 

proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Existing Bank or affect the banking services 

which Existing Bank has provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent 

specifically to the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
140 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resources

(i n

B a n kin g O ffic e s

u n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Reagan Commerce Bank

Houston, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

Reagan Bank)

200 1

to merge with

Reagan State Bank of Houston

Houston

74,624 1

Summary report by Attorney General, May 8, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Reagan State Bank of 

Houston would become a subsidiary of Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., 

it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 20, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance for Reagan Commerce Bank, Houston, Texas ("Commerce"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Reagan State 

Bank of Houston, Houston, Texas ("Reagan"), a State nonmember insured 

bank with total resources of $74,624,000. The resulting bank will operate from 

the one existing office of Reagan and with the title "Reagan Bank."

The new bank formation and merger transaction are designed solely as a 

means by which Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, a registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed 

transaction. Application for said acquisition was approved by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on September 1, 1972. Commerce 

will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger transaction, 

but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at 

the existing location of Reagan, and with the same management. The proposal 

will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the 

trade area served by Reagan or affect the banking services which Reagan has 

provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two 

subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 141

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Peoples Bank and Trust Company

Madisonville, Kentucky

18,620 4 5

to merge with

The Nortonville Bank

Nortonville

4,593 1

Summary report by Attorney General, August 1, 1972

The Peoples office closest to Bank is its branch in Earlington, seven miles 

northwest of Nortonville. A branch of the county's largest bank (operated in 

Mortons Gap) intervenes between them. The application indicates that Peoples 

draws about $175,000 in loans from Bank's service area — an amount equal to 

about 11 per cent of Bank's total loans. The application also notes, however, 

that many of these loans are consumer loans, a service not presently offered by 

Bank. In any event, considering that both Earlington and Madisonville are 

easily accessible from Nortonville by a direct highway link, and that Madisonville is the county seat, employment center and nearest community of any size, 

it would appear that some existing competition between the banks would be 

eliminated by their merging.

Commercial banking in Hopkins County is highly concentrated. Five banks 

currently operate in the county. The largest three banks, all headquartered in 

Madisonville, hold about 84.5 per cent of total deposits. Peoples, with about

20.8 per cent of total county deposits, ranks third in the county, while Bank, 

with about 5.1 per cent, is the county's smallest. Should this merger be consummated Peoples would become the second largest bank in the county, 

increasing its deposit share to about 26 per cent, and the three large Madisonville banks would control almost 90 per cent of the county's deposits. In 

addition, the number of banking alternatives in Hopkins County would be 

further reduced from five to four.

On the basis of the foregoing, therefore, we conclude that the proposed 

merger of Bank into Peoples would have some adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 30, 1972

Peoples Bank and Trust Company, Madisonville, Kentucky ("Peoples 

B a n k "), a State nonmember insured bank having total resources of 

$18,620,000 and total IPC deposits of $14,866,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with The Nortonville Bank, Nortonville, Kentucky, total resources $4,593,000 and total IPC deposits $3,909,000. 

The banks would merge under the charter and title of Peoples Bank and, as an 

incident to the transaction, the sole office of The Nortonville Bank would 

become a branch of the resulting bank, increasing the number of its offices to 

five.*

*O n May 5, 1972, the president of Peoples Bank, as trustee, purchased 80.2 percent o f 

The N o rto n ville Bank's outstanding stock, and since th a t tim e The N o rto n ville Bank has 

been operated essentially as a branch o f Peoples Bank. This ap plication represents the 

firs t supervisory o p p o rtu n ity to review th a t change o f co n tro l, and the C orp ora tio n w ill, 

in accordance w ith past agency practice, disregard the present co n tro l o f The N o rto n ville 

Bank by Peoples Bank and consider the ap plicatio n in lig ht o f the circumstances existing 

p rio r to May 1972.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
142 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Competition. Peoples Bank operates its main office and one branch in 

Madisonville, Kentucky (population 15,332), the seat of Hopkins County, in 

west-central Kentucky about 140 miles southwest of Louisville. It has branches 

in Earlington, 5 miles south, and Slaughters, 12 miles north, for a total of four 

offices. Peoples Bank is the third largest of five commercial banks located in 

Hopkins County, holding 20.3 percent of total IPC deposits.

The Nortonville Bank's only office is located in Nortonville, Kentucky 

(population 699), about 13 miles south of Madisonville. It is the smallest 

commercial bank in the county, with only 5.6 percent of total IPC deposits.

Coal mining and agriculture are the principal economic activities of Hopkins 

County, although Madisonville has been the site, in recent years, of some 

industrial expansion, with plants there now employing over 2,700 people. 

Between 1960 and 1970, the population of Hopkins County declined 0.8 

percent, to 38,167 persons. Madisonville's population grew 16.9 percent during 

the same period, while Nortonville lost population. Median household income 

in Hopkins County in 1971 was $7,534, reflecting the increased economic 

activity in Madisonville. This was somewhat higher than the median household 

income figure for Kentucky as a whole ($6,682), but lower than the comparable 

nationwide figure ($8,463).

Madisonville is centrally located in Hopkins County and is five times larger 

in population than any other community in the county. Besides being the 

county seat, Madisonville is the only shopping and employment center of any 

size between Evansville, Indiana, some 45 miles to the north, and Hopkinsville, 

Kentucky, some 30 miles to the south. The three largest banks in the county, 

of which Peoples Bank ranks third in deposit size, are all headquartered in 

Madisonville and represent reasonably convenient alternatives for customers of 

the two remaining smaller banks in the county, that is, The Nortonville Bank, 

located 13 miles south of Madisonville and 8 miles southeast of People's nearest branch in Earlington, and Commercial Bank of Dawson in Dawson Springs. 

Peoples Bank and The Nortonville Bank may, therefore, be considered competitors in the same general banking market, even though Peoples Bank draws 

most of its business from those parts of Hopkins County north of the Western 

Kentucky Parkway, about 3 miles north of Nortonville, and The Nortonville 

Bank draws almost all of its business from the general area surrounding its main 

office. The banks have few customers in common, but Peoples Bank draws 

about $175,000 of its consumer loans from the Nortonville area, possibly 

because these loans are not sought by The Nortonville Bank. The merger of the 

two banks, accordingly, would eliminate only a limited amount of existing 

competition between them.

The potential for increased competition between the two banks in the future is also limited. Kentucky law permits merging and de novo branching 

activity only within a bank's headquarters county, and prohibits branching into 

the home office community of another bank. Peoples Bank cannot branch 

directly, therefore, into Nortonville, nor can The Nortonville Bank branch de

novo into Madisonville. No community other than Madisonville has more than 

2,900 people, the largest such communities all have a commercial bank office 

today, and Hopkins County as a whole has both a stable population and one 

banking office already for each 3,180 persons. De novo branching by either 

bank, and increased competition between them in the future through such 

branching, thus appears remote.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 143

Consummation of the merger proposed, however, would reduce from five to 

four the banking alternatives in Hopkins County and would increase the concentration of the county's banking resources held by the county's three largest 

banks in Madisonville. These consequences have less significance in a county of 

38,167 persons than they might in a more populous market, and there are 

other ameliorating factors as well. Peoples Bank is the smallest of the three 

banks in Madisonville, and the merger of the smallest bank in the county with 

Peoples Bank would not significantly alter the banking structure of Hopkins 

County. Furthermore, a merger with any of the other three banks that are 

potential merger partners for The Nortonville Bank would present varying 

anticompetitive problems that make it impossible to conclude that any alternative merger would be less anticompetitive than the merger proposed.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopolv, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of these factors 

is satisfactory for Peoples Bank, as they would be for the resulting bank. The 

Nortonville Bank is in need of top management, and without it the bank's 

future prospects cannot be considered favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. People in and 

around Nortonville would benefit from the proposed merger since the resulting 

bank would provide trust services, credit cards, student loans, more comprehensive instalment loan services, a wider range of deposit services (including a 5 

percent time open account and 2-year 5% percent certificates of deposit), and a 

higher lending limit. Competition with the Mortons Gap branch of Kentucky 

Bank and Trust Company and with the second largest Madisonville bank should 

be enhanced as a result.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

op e ra te d

Bank of the West

Bellevue, Washington

47,730 9 15

to merge with

Bank of Cowlitz County

Longview

38,596 6

Summary report by Attorney General, August 4, 1972

Since the nearest offices of the two banks are about 115 miles apart, the 

proposed merger will not eliminate any existing competition.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
144 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Washington law limits de novo branching to the city in which a bank is 

headquartered, the unincorporated areas of the county in which it is headquartered, and incorporated areas which have no banking offices. It would 

appear that the parties to the proposed transaction could not significantly 

increase their competitive efforts in each other's servjce area through de novo

branching. However, banks in Washington may also establish a branch office in 

other communities by sponsoring the creation of a new bank and subsequently 

merging with the sponsored bank. This means has been used by the larger 

banks in Washington to expand into areas closed to de novo branching. West 

Bank and Cowlitz Bank are the thirteenth and fifteenth largest banks in the 

state, respectively. Given the size of West Bank and Cowlitz Bank, their ability 

to use this indirect means of expansion is limited. Therefore, the proposed 

merger is not likely to significantly lessen potential competition.

Washington banking is presently highly concentrated with the five largest 

banking organizations controlling over 75 per cent of all commercial bank 

deposits in the state. The merged bank, with $65 million in deposits and a 

lending lim it of over $700,000 on any one loan, will rank about tenth in the 

state. This merger of two middle sized banks will thus create a new bank more 

able to compete with the large banks of the state for major accounts without 

eliminating any significant amount of actual or potential competition for 

smaller accounts. In sum, there may be pro-competitive effects to this merger 

and no significant anticompetitive effects.

Basis for Corporation approval, October 30, 1972

Bank of the West, Bellevue, Washington, an insured State nonmember bank 

having total resources of $47,730,000 and IPC deposits of $33,863,000, has 

applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Bank of 

Cowlitz County, Longview, Washington ("Cowlitz Bank"), which has total 

resources of $38,596,000 and IPC deposits of $30,429,000. The two banks 

would merge under the charter and title of Bank of the West and, as an 

incident to the merger, the 7 approved offices of Cowlitz Bank would become 

branches of Bank of the West, increasing to 1 6 the number of its offices.

Competition. Bank of the West, the ninth largest commercial bank in the 

Seattle-Everett SMSA, operates nine offices serving, in addition to the city of 

Bellevue, a number of communities in west-central King County, including 

Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Mercer Island, Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. The 

city of Bellevue is largely a residential area whose inhabitants are employed 

throughout the Seattle area. This region has been in major part dependent on 

the aerospace industry for a number of years. Substantial cutbacks in that 

industry have resulted in depressed economic conditions for more than 2 years, 

but efforts to broaden the economic base are meeting with gradual success, and 

future prospects are reasonably favorable. Bank of the West holds about 10 

percent of the total commercial bank deposits in its immediate trade area but 

less than 2 percent of the total commercial bank deposits in the Seattle-Everett 

SMSA.

Four of the six operating offices of Cowlitz Bank are located either in the 

city of Longview, the principal city of Cowlitz County, or in the neighboring 

city of Kelso. Its two other offices are located in Castle Rock, about 12 miles 

north of Longview, and Woodland, about 22 miles southeast. Longview, in

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BAN K ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 145

southwestern Washington, is a deepwater port on the Columbia River, situated 

some 50 miles north of Portland, Oregon, and 130 miles south of Seattle. Its

1970 population was 28,373, having increased 21.5 percent since 1960. During 

the same 10-year period, Cowlitz County had a population increase of 18.7 

percent, to 68,616 inhabitants. The economy of the county is based upon 

lumbering, forest products, shipping, and dairying. Cowlitz Bank is the third 

largest of four commercial banks operating in the county in terms of local IPC 

deposits controlled, with 24.6 percent of such deposits as of June 30, 1970. 

The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle held the largest share of such 

deposits, while Seattle-First National Bank held the second largest share, and 

Pacific National Bank of Washington held the balance.

The closest offices of Bank of the West and Cowlitz Bank are about 100 

miles apart. The two banks operate in separate markets, neither draws more 

than nominal business from areas served by the other, and there appear to be 

no common customers. The proposed merger, accordingly, would eliminate no 

significant existing competition between the two banks.

Under Washington law, Bank of the West and Cowlitz Bank may branch de 

novo into unbanked incorporated areas throughout the State. There is, however, no such area in Cowlitz County available to Bank of the West. While 

Cowlitz Bank could find a number of such areas available to it in King County, 

de novo branching is not likely to be attractive to it because of the distances 

involved from the rest of the bank's operations, the limited populations of 

these communities, and the competition from much larger banks nearby that 

would be encountered. The proposed merger would, accordingly, eliminate no 

significant potential for increased competition in the future between the two 

banks through de novo branching.

Commercial banking in the State of Washington is highly concentrated, with 

the five largest banks controlling, as of December 31, 1971, more than 76 

percent of the aggregate deposits held by the State's 90 commercial banks. The 

proposed merger would unite the 14th largest with the 16th largest commercial 

bank in the State, creating a bank that would rank 10th largest, but holding in 

the aggregate about 1 percent of the State's total commercial bank deposits. 

Such a merger should enable the resulting bank to compete more effectively 

with the State's largest banks, both in the Seattle area and in Cowlitz County, 

and may thus be viewed as having procompetitive effects.

The Board of Directors, for the reasons stated, is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. The resulting bank 

would have adequate financial and managerial resources. Future prospects for 

the resulting bank are considered favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Communities to be Served. Competition in 

the Cowlitz County area would be stimulated by the offering of specialized real 

estate financing by a subsidiary of Bank of the West and by the introduction of 

credit cards at the present offices of Cowlitz Bank. In both of the separate 

markets served by the two banks, a lending lim it of $730,000 should enhance 

the competitive capabilities of the resulting bank, while in the Seattle banking 

market, trust services, and a higher rate of interest on passbook savings 

accounts should benefit present customers of Bank of the West.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
146 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

New Bank of Marin

San Rafael, California 

(in organization; change title 

to Bank of Marin)

125 7

to merge with

Bank of Marin

San Rafael

89,188 7

Summary report by Attorney General, September 20, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Bank of Marin would 

become a subsidiary of Independent Bankshares Corporation, a bank holding 

company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing 

bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the 

acquisition of the surviving bank by Independent Bankshares Corporation, it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 6, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and the other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, application for Federal deposit insurance has been filed 

on behalf of New Bank of Marin, San Rafael, California ("New Bank"), a 

proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with the 

Bank of Marin, San Rafael, California ("Present Bank"), a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $89,188,000. The main office of Present 

Bank will become the main office of the resulting bank, and the six authorized 

branches of Present Bank will be operated as branches by the resulting bank. 

The formation of New Bank and its merger with Present Bank will effect a 

corporate reorganization whose sole purpose is to enable Independent Bankshares Corporation, San Rafael, California, a registered bank holding company, 

to acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of 

the bank resulting from the proposed merger. Application to become a holding 

company and for said acquisition was approved by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System on September 21, 1972. New Bank will not be in 

operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, and subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing locations 

of Present Bank, and with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, 

have any effect on the competitive structure of commercial banking in the 

market area served by Present Bank or alter the banking services which Present 

Bank has offered in the past. All factors considered pertinent to the two 

subject applications are resolved favorably.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 147

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

New Bank of Sonoma County

Sebastopol, California 

(in organization; change title to Bank 

of Sonoma County)

63 3

to merge with

Bank of Sonoma County

Sebastopol

33,917 3

Summary report by Attorney General, September 20, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Bank of Sonoma 

County would become a subsidiary of Independent Bankshares Corporation, a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by Independent Bankshares Corporation, it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 6, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and the other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, application for Federal deposit insurance has been filed 

on behalf of New Bank of Sonoma County, Sebastopol, California ("New 

Bank"), a proposed new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger 

with the Bank of Sonoma County, Sebastopol, California ("Present Bank"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $33,917,000. The main 

office of Present Bank will become the main office of the resulting bank, and 

the four authorized branches of Present Bank will be operated as branches by 

the resulting bank. The formation of New Bank and its merger with Present 

Bank will effect a corporate reorganization whose sole purpose is to enable 

Independent Bankshares Corporation, San Rafael, California, a registered bank 

holding company, to acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying shares) of 

the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed merger. Application 

to become a holding company and for said acquisition was approved by the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on September 21, 1972. 

New Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, 

and subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at 

the existing locations of Present Bank, and with the same management. The 

proposal will not, per se, have any effect on the competitive structure of 

commercial banking in the market area served by Present Bank or alter the 

banking services which Present Bank has offered in the past. All factors considered pertinent to the two subject applications are resolved favorably.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

148 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Columbus Bank and Trust Company

Columbus, Georgia

132,995 12 12

to merge w ith

Muscogee Banking Company

Columbus 

(in organization)

600

Summary report by Attorney General, September 20, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Columbus Bank and 

Trust Company would become a subsidiary of CB&T Bancshares, Inc., a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by CB&T Bancshares, Inc., it would have 

no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 6, 1972

Pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed by Columbus Bank and Trust Company, 

Columbus, Georgia ("First Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total 

resources of $132,995,000, for consent to merge with the Muscogee Banking 

Company, Columbus, Georgia ("Second Bank"), a proposed new bank in 

organization, under the charter and title of First Bank. The resulting bank will 

operate from the 12 existing offices of First Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which CB&T Bancshares, Inc., Columbus, Georgia, may acquire 100 percent of 

the voting stock (less directors' qualifying shares) of First Bank pursuant to 

registering as a one-bank holding company. Application for said acquisition was 

approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on 

September 15, 1972. Second Bank will never actually operate and upon consummation of the merger will surrender its charter to the State. Upon cpnsummation, First Bank will operate the same banking business at the same 

locations with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the 

competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by First 

Bank or affect the banking services which First Bank has provided in the past. 

All factors considered pertinent specifically to the subject application are 

favorably resolved.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

BAN K ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 149

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Bank of Virginia-Fairfax

Falls Church, Virginia 

(change title to Bank of 

Virginia-Potomac)

18,087 5 25

to merge with

Bank of Virginia-Potomac

Woodbridge

109,960 20

Summary report by Attorney General, March 31, 1972

Both of these banks are subsidiaries of Virginia Commonwealth Bankshares, 

Inc. ("VCB"). The proposed merger is simply a combination of two subsidiary 

banks which operate in essentially the same geographic area. As such, it is 

basically part of a corporate reorganization and will have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 6, 1972

Bank of Virginia-Fairfax, Fairfax County (P.O. Falls Church), Virginia 

("Fairfax Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of 

$18,087,000 and total deposits of $15,036,000 as of June 30, 1972, has 

applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Bank of 

Virginia-Potomac, Woodbridge, Virginia ("Potomac Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $109,960,000 and total deposits of 

$94,014,000 as of June 30, 1972, under the charter of Fairfax Bank and with 

the title of Potomac Bank. The 22 authorized offices of Potomac Bank would 

be operated as branches of the resulting bank.

This proposed transaction is designed solely as a means by which Bank of 

Virginia Company, Richmond, Virginia, a registered bank holding company, 

can consolidate its operations in Northern Virginia. Both Fairfax Bank and 

Potomac Bank are owned by Bank of Virginia Company, and this proposed 

transaction would not in itself change the structure of competition in the area 

nor should it affect the banking services which are provided.

The Board of Directors is of the opinion that the proposed transaction 

would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, 

tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of trade. All 

other factors requiring consideration are favorably resolved.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
150 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffice s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Alabama Bank of Mobile

Mobile, Alabama

(in organization; change title to

Commercial Guaranty Bank of Mobile)

200 4

to merge with

Commercial Guaranty Bank of Mobile

Mobile

31,881 4

Summary report by Attorney General, September 20, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Commercial Guaranty 

Bank of Mobile would become a subsidiary of Alabama Financial Group, Inc., 

a bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by Alabama Financial Group, Inc., it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Alabama Bank of Mobile, Mobile, Alabama ("First Bank"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Commercial Guaranty 

Bank of Mobile, Mobile, Alabama ("Second Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $31,881,000, under the charter of First 

Bank and with the title of Second Bank. The resulting bank will operate from 

the four existing offices of Second Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which The Alabama Financial Group, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama, a registered 

bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying 

shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed merger. 

Application for said acquisition was approved by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System on August 18, 1972. First Bank will not be in 

operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing locations 

of Second Bank, and with essentially the same management. The proposal will 

not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the 

trade area served by Second Bank or affect the banking services which Second 

Bank has provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to 

the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 151

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

Guaranty Trust Company

Waltham, Massachusetts 

(change title to Guaranty-First Trust 

Company)

41,116 7 13

to merge with

First National Bank of Natick

Natick

25,943 6

Summary report by Attorney General, September 8, 1972

The head offices of the merging banks are located approximately 10 miles 

apart. One of Guaranty's branches is located in Natick, only about 1,000 feet 

from First National Bank of Natick. Consequently, the service areas of the 

participating banks overlap to some extent. For example, 34 per cent of First 

National Bank of Natick's deposits, totaling $6.6 million, are derived from the 

area described in the application as Guaranty's primary service area. Similarly, 

Guaranty derives 6.2 percent of its deposits, totaling $2.0 million, and 6.6 per 

cent of its loans, totaling $1.4 million, from the area described in the application as First National Bank of Natick's primary service area. Continuing growth 

in the service areas of the merging banks and the legal ability of each bank to 

branch throughout Middlesex County indicates that this competition could 

increase. Thus, substantial existing and potentially increasing competition 

between First National Bank of Natick and Guaranty would be eliminated by 

the proposed merger.

A total of 14 banks operate approximately 87 offices within the combined 

service areas of Guaranty and First National Bank of Natick, an area which 

may overstate the particular local banking markets which would be affected by 

the proposed merger. Guaranty accounts for 4.9 per cent of the total deposits 

held in these banking offices and First National Bank of Natick accounts for

3.8 per cent of such deposits. The four largest banking organizations with 

offices there account for 61 per cent of total deposits. If the proposed merger 

is consummated, the resulting bank will be the fifth largest in the area, with 8.7 

per cent of area deposits.

We conclude that the proposed merger would have an adverse competitive 

effect.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

Guaranty Trust Company, Waltham, Massachusetts ("Guaranty"), a State 

nonmember insured bank with total resources of $41,116,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $26,881,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to merge with First National Bank of Natick, Natick, Massachusetts 

("FNB Natick"), with total resources of $25,943,000 and total IPC deposits of 

$20,623,000. The banks would merge under the charter of Guaranty and with 

the title “ Guaranty-First Trust Company," and as an incident to the merger, 

the main office and five branches of FNB Natick would become branches of 

the resulting bank, increasing the number of its offices to 13.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
152 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Competition. Guaranty operates its main office and four branches in 

Waltham, Massachusetts, and has one branch each in Natick and Belmont, all 

communities in southern Middlesex County. FNB Natick operates its main 

office and two branches in Natick and has one branch each in Holliston, 

Framingham, and Sudbury, all of which are also in southern Middlesex County.

Middlesex County, in eastern Massachusetts, is the most populous county in 

the Commonwealth, and its southern half, where all offices of both participating banks are located, is an integral part of the Boston SMSA. The southern 

half of Middlesex County had a 1970 population of 1,052,027, up 7.9 percent 

from 1960's 975,287, compared to increases of 10.5 percent for the State as a 

whole and 6.1 percent for the entire SMSA. In 1970, 38.2 percent of the 

SMSA's population was accounted for by its Middlesex County portion. The 

economy of Middlesex County is well diversified and is second only to that of 

Boston in its importance to Massachusetts.

Although the main offices of the participating banks are about 8 miles apart 

in a densely populated area, Guaranty's Natick branch, established in 1959, is 

only a few blocks from FNB Natick's main office, and there is some overlapping of service areas. This branch, however, is located on the periphery of 

the general business area of Natick, access is difficult, and it has never become 

a significant competitive factor in the Natick community. Each bank also 

derives a limited amount of business from areas primarily served by the other. 

The proposed merger would eliminate a limited amount of existing competition between Guaranty and FNB Natick, but in view of the small size of each 

bank, their small share of total commercial bank deposits and loans in both 

Middlesex County and the Boston SMSA, and the dominance of much larger 

banking systems in each such area, this consequence of the proposed merger is 

not considered a matter of significance.

Massachusetts law permits countywide branching and merging and statewide 

holding companies. Thus, each of the participating banks could branch de novo

into areas served by the other or into areas of Middlesex County which neither 

presently serves, thereby increasing competition between them in the future. 

The significance of eliminating this potential for increased competition between the two banks is substantially reduced, however, by the presence of 

numerous alternatives for commercial banking service within southern Middlesex County and in the Boston SMSA and by the likelihood of future de novo

branching in Middlesex County by much larger banks and bank holding company systems.

There are 35 commercial banks operating 210 offices in Middlesex County. 

Of these, Guaranty is 15th largest, with 1.9 percent of the total deposits, and 

FNB Natick ranks 17th, with 1.4 percent. The bank resulting from the proposed merger would be 10th largest, with 3.3 percent of the total commercial 

bank deposits in the county. On a statewide basis, the resulting bank would 

control less than 0.5 percent of the State's total commercial bank deposits.

Commercial banking in Middlesex County is dominated by two large 

Boston-based holding companies which, between them, control 10 banks 

(including the three largest) operating 109, or 51.9 percent, of the commercial 

banking offices and having an aggregate of 55.3 percent of the county's total 

commercial bank deposits.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 153

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. FNB Natick and the 

resulting bank have satisfactory financial and managerial resources and satisfactory prospects for the future. The proposed merger would resolve a number 

of management problems at Guaranty, and its future prospects would appear 

to be more favorable as part of the resulting bank than operating 

independently.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. In view of the 

numerous commercial banking alternatives in southern Middlesex County and 

the reasonably convenient availability of large Boston banks and of affiliates of 

Boston-based holding companies, the proposed merger would have only limited 

effect on the convenience and needs of the communities where the participating banks have offices. It would, however, allow the resulting bank to offer 

customers of both banks more sophisticated trust services and more specialized 

services. More effective competition with larger banks in southern Middlesex 

County should in time produce continuing benefits to customers of the resulting bank and the public at large.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Peoples Bank

Starkville, Mississippi

25,130 3 4

to merge with

Maben Home Bank

Maben

6,101 1

Summary report by Attorney General, November 3, 1972

Starkville and Maben are approximately 19 miles apart, and no banking 

offices directly intervene in the sparsely populated area between them. Security State Bank (the largest bank headquartered in the county with deposits 

totalling about $26.5 million), however, operates its main office and two 

branches in Starkville, a branch bank in Sturgis, also in Oktibbeha County, 

about 15 miles south of Maben and a branch bank in Mathiston (population 

570), Webster County, located only two miles southwest of Maben. The 

Application states that neither of the merging banks draws more than an insignificant share of its deposits or loans from the service area of the other. 

Consummation of the proposed merger would appear to eliminate only some 

small amount of direct competition presently existing between the two banks 

for customers located in parts of western Oktibbeha County.

This proposed merger would reduce the number of banking alternatives 

available in the county, which appears to overstate the relevant market, from

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
154 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

three to two. As a result of the merger, Peoples Bank's share of deposits would 

be increased to about 49 per cent of all deposits attributable to banks headquartered in Oktibbeha County.

Mississippi law permits banks to establish branch offices in both their home 

and adjacent counties and establish branch banks within a radius of 100 miles 

of the parent bank. Home office protection, however, is afforded banks or 

branch banks operating in communities of less than 3,500 population against 

the establishment of branch offices. Banks operating in communities of less 

than 3,100 population are afforded protection against the establishment of 

branch banks. Maben, and it would appear Mathiston as well, are closed to the 

establishment of branch offices by any bank. However, it appears that Peoples 

Bank could establish a branch office outside the corporate limits of either 

community or even a branch bank in Mathiston. The size of the two and 

nearby communities and the present level of economic development in the area 

does not appear to make such expansion attractive or feasible, though realization of the substantial growth predicted for the area could enhance its attractiveness in the foreseeable future. There are, however, quite a number of banks 

larger than Peoples Bank which could also branch, under virtually the same 

limitations, into Oktibbeha County and the Maben-Mathiston area.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

Peoples Bank, Starkville, Mississippi, an insured State nonmember bank with 

total resources of $25,130,000 and total deposits of $22,688,000, has applied, 

pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Maben Home 

Bank, Maben, Mississippi ("Home Bank"), with total resources of $6,101,000 

and total deposits of $5,232,000. The banks would merge under the charter 

and title of Peoples Bank and, as an incident to the merger, the sole office of 

Home Bank would become a branch of the resulting bank, increasing the 

number of its offices to four.

Competition. Peoples Bank operates its three offices in the city of Starkville 

(population 11,369), the county seat of Oktibbeha County in northeast 

Mississippi. In addition to the resident population of Starkville, more than

5,000 persons reside outside the city in the State College area and are considered part of the immediate community. Starkville's economy is geared to a 

large degree to the activities of Mississippi State University, a facility with 

approximately 10,000 students. Numerous small industries employing over 

1,400 people also serve the city.

Home Bank operates its sole office in Maben, a community of 862 persons

19 miles northwest of Starkville on the Oktibbeha-Webster County line. The 

economy of the town is oriented toward agricultural activities, although several 

small industries and some industrial construction in process indicate that industry is becoming a factor there.

Oktibbeha County had a modest population increase in the 1960s (9.8 

percent), from 26,175 in 1960 to 28,752 in 1970. Except for the small industries noted above and the impact of the University, the economy of the county 

is predominantly agricultural.

Peoples Bank and Home Bank, as previously noted, are located 19 miles 

apart within Oktibbeha County. While there are no intervening offices of other

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 155

banks along the principal road between the two locations, there is little direct 

competition between the two institutions, and the volume of business each 

bank generates from areas served by the other is nominal. Home Bank, moreover, because of various internal problems, has been an ineffective competitor 

within the relevant local market. It is concluded, accordingly, that the proposed merger would not eliminate any significant existing competition between 

the two banks.

Under Mississippi law, Peoples Bank is foreclosed from branching de novo

into Maben although it could legally branch into the surrounding area. The 

sparse population of Home Bank's market, however, as well as the existence of 

commercial bank offices in nearby Mathiston, Euphora, and Mantee, indicates 

that the likelihood of such activity on the part of Peoples Bank is remote. 

Home Bank, for its part, does not have the resources, management, capital, or 

experience to branch de novo into the Starkville area. The Corporation concludes that the proposed merger would eliminate no significant potential for 

increased competition between the two banks in the future through de novo

branching. Further, there are a number of other banks, some larger than 

Peoples Bank, which would be equally capable of de novo branching in Oktibbeha County in the future should economic developments warrant such 

branching.

Peoples Bank is the fifth largest bank in the seven-county area in which it 

could establish a "branch office" (as distinct from a "branch bank"), with 9.5 

percent of the total commercial bank deposits, as of June 30, 1972, while 

Home Bank held 2.2 percent of such deposits on the same date. The resulting 

bank's share would be 11.7 percent, with three banks in the area continuing to 

hold a larger share (First-Columbus National Bank, Granada Bank, and Security 

State Bank— Peoples Bank's principal competitor in Starkville). The transaction, accordingly, should have no adverse effect on the structure of commercial 

banking in this northeastern area of Mississippi.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Peoples Bank has 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources and satisfactory prospects for 

the future. Home Bank, by contrast, has both financial and managerial problems as well as unsatisfactory prospects for the future, all of which would be 

resolved by the proposed merger.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would serve the convenience of at least some customers of the two 

banks. Peoples Bank is a more aggressive institution with a history of satisfactory service to the community in which it operates. It can offer the populace 

of Maben the benefits of increased lending power as well as make available such 

services as construction loans, government agency participation loans, and 

more sophisticated trust services not available through Home Bank. Although 

these services are available at other commercial bank offices in the Maben area, 

approval of the proposed merger would provide the public in and around 

Maben with the benefits of an additional alternative.

In light of all the circumstances, the Board of Directors has concluded that 

approval of the application is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
156 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Resou rces / I p B a n kin g O ffic e s

\i n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Exchange Bank

Hollywood, South Carolina

(change title to American Bank & Trust)

4,212 2 25*

to merge with

American Bank & Trust

Orangeburg

104,320 23*

Summary report by Attorney General, November 10, 1972

The distance between the nearest offices of American and Exchange is 90 

miles, with a large number of other banking offices intervening between them. 

Furthermore, the application indicates that neither bank draws deposits or 

loans from the service areas of the other. It would appear, therefore, that the 

proposed merger would not eliminate actual competition existing between the 

two banks.

Exchange is the smallest of the six banks operating in Charleston and 

Charleston County. It holds somewhat less than 1 per cent of deposits in 

Charleston where it competes with branches of the state's five largest banks — 

the two largest of which are headquartered there. Though South Carolina law 

permits statewide branching and American, the closest major banking organization which has not yet entered the market, could branch de novo into Charleston, its merger with the smallest bank in the Charleston area, with less than 1 

per cent of total deposits, constitutes a foothold entry into that area by 

American and therefore would not appear to have an adverse effect on 

potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

Exchange Bank, Hollywood, South Carolina, a State nonmember insured 

bank with total resources of $4,212,000 and total IPC deposits of $3,041,000, 

has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with 

American Bank & Trust, Orangeburg, South Carolina ("American"), also a 

State nonmember insured bank, with total resources of $104,320,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $71,837,000. The banks would merge under the charter of 

Exchange Bank, but with the title of American. Application is also made, 

under Section 18(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, to establish 

American's 25 authorized offices (including two to be acquired in the proposed 

merger of American and Bank of Ridgeland, which the Corporation is also 

approving today) as branches of the resulting bank and to relocate the main 

office of the resulting bank from Hollywood, South Carolina, to American's 

present main office in Orangeburg, South Carolina. The result of this procedure 

will be to permit American to become the subsidiary of a one-bank holding 

company, utilizing an existing corporation which presently controls Exchange 

Bank.

Competition. American has 25 authorized offices (including the two to be 

acquired as a result of American's proposed merger with Bank of Ridgeland) in

10 of South Carolina's 46 counties. Most of these are located in the central and

* Includes tw o branch offices to be acquired under ap plication to merge Bank o f Ridgeland.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 157

south-central sections of the State, and none is located in Charleston County. 

American is the eighth largest commercial bank in South Carolina, with 3.1 

percent of statewide commercial bank deposits. The 4 largest banks in the 

State hold, respectively, 21.2 percent, 13.6 percent, 9.7 percent, and 8.5 percent of such deposits.

Exchange Bank operates its main office in Hollywood (population 339), 

about 20 miles west of Charleston (population 66,945), and its only branch is 

located on the outskirts of that city. Both branches are in Charleston County 

(population 247,650) in southeast South Carolina on the Atlantic Coast. 

Government installations contribute significantly to the economy of Charleston County, but there is wide diversification in its economy, Charleston being 

the State's most populous county. Exchange Bank is an insignificant factor in 

the Charleston banking market (an area which may be defined as Charleston 

County and the southern portion of adjacent Berkeley County). Exchange 

Bank held 1.3 percent of the IPC deposits of this area as of June 30, 1972, 

while the State's five largest commercial banks held the balance of such deposits.

The nearest office of American to Exchange Bank is some 65 miles distant, 

and the two banks serve different markets. Further, the shortest distance 

between offices of Bank of Ridgeland and Exchange Bank is 59 miles, so that 

all three banks have separate and distinct service areas. The proposed merger, 

therefore, would not eliminate any existing competition.

South Carolina law permits statewide branch banking, but any elimination 

of potential competition between American and Exchange Bank through de

novo branching must be considered relatively insignificant— the proposed 

merger being tantamount to de novo entry by American in view of the small 

size of Exchange Bank and its small share of the Charleston banking market. 

The potential for increased competition between Bank of Ridgeland and 

Exchange Bank through de novo branching in the future is also considered 

minimal in view of the limited resources of each and the distances involved.

The proposed merger would have no adverse effect on the structure of 

commercial banking in South Carolina as a whole since American's relatively 

small share of the statewide banking market would be increased to only 3.5 

percent by the proposed mergers with Bank of Ridgeland and Exchange Bank.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. American has satisfactory financial and managerial resources and favorable future prospects, as 

would the resulting bank. The future prospects of Exchange Bank appear to be 

more favorable as part of the resulting bank than as an independent institution 

forced to compete with the State's five largest banks.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would benefit Charleston County residents and businesses by adding 

another alternative for the full range of commercial bank services presently 

being offered there by the State's five largest banks, thereby enhancing competition in a highly concentrated banking market. Exchange Bank customers 

would find the limited range of services offered by that bank replaced with a 

broader range of services, including specialized loan services, trust services, and 

computer services.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
158 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces l i r->

B a n kin g O ffic e s

\ i n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

1 n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

American Bank & Trust

Orangeburg, South Carolina

104,320 21 23

to merge with

Bank of Ridgeland

Ridgeland

8,360 2

Summary report by Attorney General, September 20, 1972

The closest branch of American Bank to Bank is located in Barnwell about 

56 miles northwest, with several banks intervening. Thus, it does not appear 

that any significant amount of direct competition will be eliminated by the 

proposed merger.

The only other banking office in the county is a branch of First National 

Bank in Orangeburg (total deposits $36.3 million), the state's tenth largest 

bank. Bank holds the larger share of bank deposits originating in the county. 

The application notes, however, that the Savannah and adjacent Beaufort 

County banks also exert a significant influence in Bank's market.

Since statewide branching is permitted in South Carolina, American Bank 

could open a de novo branch in the area presently served by Bank. However, 

considering that the area has been one of below average growth and the overall 

economic situation in Jasper County, it would appear that the attractiveness of 

the area for de novo branching is diminished. Moreover, there are at least six 

banks larger than American Bank which may also be considered prospective 

potential entrants.

We conclude, therefore, that the proposed merger would not adversely 

affect existing or potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

American Bank & Trust, Orangeburg, South Carolina ("American"), a State 

nonmember insured bank with total resources of $104,320,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $71,837,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to merge with Bank of Ridgeland, Ridgeland, South Carolina, with 

total resources of $8,360,000 and total IPC deposits of $7,044,000. The banks 

would merge under the charter and title of American and, as an incident to the 

merger, the two offices of Bank of Ridgeland would become branches of the 

resulting bank, which would then have a total of 25 authorized offices.

Competition. American has 23 authorized offices in nine of the 46 counties 

of the State, most of which are located in the central and south-central sections 

of South Carolina. American has no office in Jasper County or in any county 

adjacent thereto. It is the eighth largest commercial bank in South Carolina, 

with 3.1 percent of statewide commercial bank deposits. The four largest banks

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 159

in the State hold, respectively, 21.2 percent, 13.6 percent, 9.7 percent, and 8.5 

percent of such deposits.

Bank of Ridgeland has its main office in Ridgeland (population 1,165) and 

its only branch in Hardeeville (population 853). Both towns are in Jasper 

County (population 11,885), which is located at the southernmost corner of 

South Carolina, adjacent to Savannah, Georgia. Jasper County is sparsely 

populated and has a relatively low level of economic activity. It suffered a 2.9 

percent decline in population between 1960 and 1970 and has a population per 

square mile of only 18.2 persons, the lowest of any county in the State. The

1971 median household income in Jasper County was $4,195, compared to 

$7,012 for the State, and about one-third of the working population of the 

county is employed outside the county. Economic activity in Jasper County 

includes agriculture and some light industry, with tourism and service industries expected to become more significant in the future. There is only one 

other banking office in the county, the Ridgeland branch of the $38 milliondeposit First National Bank in Orangeburg, the State's 10th largest commercial 

bank.

The effects of the proposed merger would be almost entirely confined to 

Jasper County. The closest office of American to either office of Bank of 

Ridgeland is in Branchville, about 61 miles north of Ridgeland. The two banks 

serve completely different trade areas, and numerous offices of other banks are 

located in between. The proposed merger, accordingly, would not eliminate 

any existing competition.

South Carolina law permits statewide branch banking, but the potential for 

increased competition between American and Bank of Ridgeland appears 

insignificant. Bank of Ridgeland does not have the financial or managerial 

resources to expand in any meaningful way, while American is unlikely to find 

Jasper County attractive for de novo branching because it is sparsely populated 

and has limited economic activity. There are, moreover, six or seven banks 

larger than American that must also be considered potential de novo entrants 

into Jasper County in the future if economic growth in the county should 

warrant any additional de novo branching.

The proposed merger would not eliminate any banking alternatives in Jasper 

County and would not have any appreciable effect on the banking structure in 

any relevant market. In the local Jasper County banking market, a small, 

two-office bank would be replaced by offices of a much larger, full-service 

institution. Statewide, American would increase its limited share of total 

commercial bank deposits by 0.2 percent— the resulting bank holding only 3.3 

percent of such deposits.

The Board of Directors, accordingly, is of the opinion that the proposed 

merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of 

trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. The financial and 

managerial resources and future prospects of American and the resulting bank 

are considered satisfactory. Bank of Ridgeland's financial and managerial 

resources would be strengthened by the proposed merger, and its future prospects would appear to be more favorable as part of the resulting bank than as 

an independent institution.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The effects of the 

proposed merger would be almost wholly confined to Jasper County, where a

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
160 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

full range of banking services would be offered by the resulting bank, including 

more specialized commercial loan services and trust and computer services. In 

addition, the resulting bank's substantially larger lending lim it and the increased availability of mortgage credit should prove beneficial to Jasper County 

residents.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Bank of Virginia-Norfolk

Norfolk, Virginia 

(in organization)

50 9*

to acquire certain assets and assume

a portion o f the deposit liabilities o f

Bank of Virginia-Central

Richmond

67,719 ** 4**

Summary report by Attorney General, November 10, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Bank of Virginia 

Company, a bank holding company, seeks to consolidate banking offices 

currently operated by two different subsidiaries, Bank of Virginia-Central and 

Bank of Virginia-Tidewater, into a new subsidiary bank which will be known as 

Bank of Virginia-Tidewater. Since all the banks involved in this plan are 

wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank of Virginia Company, their combination is 

simply an internal reorganization, and as such will have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

and consent to exercise trust powers for Bank of Virginia-Norfolk, Norfolk, 

Virginia ("Norfolk Bank"), with total assets of $50,000, a proposed new bank 

in organization, and for consent to its acquiring the assets and assuming the 

liability to pay deposits made in four branches of Bank of Virginia-Central, 

Richmond, Virginia, a State member bank located in the independent cities of 

Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia ("Central Bank Offices"), with total resources of $67,719,000, under the charter and with the title of Norfolk Bank. 

The resulting bank will operate from its new main office and the four existing 

Central Bank Offices.

The new bank formation and acquisition are designed as a means by which

* Includes offices resulting fro m sim ultaneous application of Bank o f V irg in ia -N o rfo lk to 

merge Bank of V irginia-T idew ater. Excludes tw o authorized b u t unopened offices of 

Bank o f V irginia-T idew ater.

**Resources o f fo u r branch offices to be acquired by Bank o f V irg in ia -N o rfo lk.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 161

Bank of Virginia Company, Richmond, Virginia, a registered bank holding 

company of which Bank of Virginia-Central is a subsidiary, can reorganize and 

consolidate its operations to more effectively compete with the larger banks in 

the area. This reorganization will enable Norfolk Bank to legally establish de

novo branches, which the holding company cannot do under current organization. Application by holding company to acquire 100 percent of the voting 

shares of the successor bank is pending approval by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System. Norfolk Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it will 

operate the same banking business at the existing locations of Central Bank 

Offices, in addition to its new main office, and with essentially the same 

management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of 

commercial banking in the trade area served by Central Bank Offices, but the 

end result will be to intensify competition through the resultant bank's ability 

to branch de novo. There will be no effect on the banking services which 

Central Bank Offices provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent 

specifically to the subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resou rces ( i

B a n k in g O ffic e s

\ i n

th ousands 

o f d o lla rs)

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Bank of Virginia-Norfolk

Norfolk, Virginia 

(proposed new bank; change title 

to Bank of Virginia-Tidewater)

50 9*

to merge with

Bank of Virginia-Tidewater

Virginia Beach

10,222 4

Summary report by Attorney General, November 10, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Bank of Virginia 

Company, a bank holding company, seeks to consolidate banking offices 

currently operated by two different subsidiaries, Bank of Virginia-Tidewater 

and Bank of Virginia-Central, into a new subsidiary bank which will be known 

as Bank of Virginia-Tidewater. Since all the banks involved in this plan are 

wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank of Virginia Company, their combination is 

simply an internal reorganization, and as such will have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, November 29, 1972

Bank of Virginia-Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia ("Norfolk Bank"), a proposed 

new bank in organization with total resources of $50,000, has applied, pur­

*lncludes offices resulting fro m sim ultaneous application of Bank o f V irg in ia -N o rfo lk to 

acquire fo u r branches o f Bank of V irginia-C entral, R ichm ond. Excludes tw o authorized 

bu t unopened offices o f Bank of V irginia-T idew ater.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
162 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

suant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Bank of VirginiaTidewater, Virginia Beach, Virginia ("Tidewater Bank"), a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $10,222,000 and total deposits of 

$8,286,000, under the charter of Norfolk Bank and with the title of Tidewater 

Bank. The six authorized offices of Tidewater Bank would be operated as 

branches of the resulting bank.

This proposed transaction is designed solely as a means by which Bank of 

Virginia Company, Richmond, Virginia, a registered bank holding company, 

can consolidate its operations in southeastern Virginia. Both Norfolk Bank and 

Tidewater Bank are owned by Bank of Virginia Company, and this proposed 

transaction would not in itself change the structure of competition in the area. 

A marginal increase in banking services will occur as the resulting bank will 

bring trust services to the customers of Tidewater Bank.

The Board of Directors is of the opinion that the proposed transaction 

would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen competition, 

tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of trade. All 

other factors requiring consideration are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the application is warranted.

Resources 

(in 

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

United Penn Bank

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

303,945 13 15

to merge w ith

The First National Bank of

Meshoppen

Meshoppen

5,800 2

Summary report by Attorney General, August 1, 1972

United's Tunkhannock branch is located approximately seven miles from 

Meshoppen Bank, the only bank in Meshoppen (1970 population 500). The 

present amounts of deposit and loan overlaps between the banks are limited. 

However, United's Tunkhannock office, and that of the Wyoming Natinal Bank 

of Wilkes-Barre, are among the closest available banking alternatives to customers in the Meshoppen-Mehoopany area. If the proposed acquisition is approved, some existing competition would be eliminated.

Under Pennsylvania banking law, each of the banks may be permitted to 

branch de novo into the areas served by the other. While Meshoppen Bank's 

size indicates that it is not a significant potential entrant into areas served by 

United, the latter is clearly one of the most capable and significant potential 

entrants into new markets. However, in view of the size of the communities 

served by Meshoppen Bank, opportunities for de novo branching therein are 

limited. Nonetheless, in view of the proximity of United's Tunkhannock office, 

it would appear that this bank could increase its competitive presence in the 

Meshoppen-Mehoopany area without actually establishing additional branches. 

Moreover, acquisition of Meshoppen Bank by United would eliminate the 

former as an entry vehicle for another capable bank not already serving this

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 163

area of Wyoming County.

We conclude that the proposed merger would have some adverse effect on 

competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 1, 1972

United Penn Bank, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania ("United"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $303,945,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $253,502,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to merge with The First National Bank of Meshoppen, Meshoppen, 

Pennsylvania ("First"), with total resources of $5,800,000 and total IPC deposits of $4,934,000. The banks would merge under the charter and title of 

United and the two offices of First would become branches of the resulting 

bank, increasing the number of its permanent offices to 14.

Competition. United now operates 12 permanent offices and one temporary 

office. The main office and nine branches are located in Wilkes-Barre and the 

Wyoming Valley area of Luzerne County. Additional branch offices are located 

in Bloomsburg in Columbia County, 35 miles southwest of Wilkes-Barre, and in 

Tunkhannock, the county seat of Wyoming County, 30 miles northwest of 

Wilkes-Barre. After the recent flood destroyed one of the two bridges connecting Wilkes-Barre and Kingston, the management of United established a temporary branch in Kingston as a convenience for its customers residing there.

The population of the Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton SMSA, which consists of 

Luzerne County, declined 1.3 percent from 1960 to 1970 and now stands at 

342,301. During this same period of time, the population of the city of 

Wilkes-Barre declined 7.4 percent, to 58,856. Formerly dependent upon anthracite mining and its transport, the area now has diversified industrial activity of consequence. United's branch in Tunkhannock is centrally located in 

sparsely populated Wyoming County, where the two offices of First are also 

located. In 1970, the population of Wyoming County was 19,082, an increase 

of 13.5 percent over 1960.

The two offices of First are located in the northwestern corner of Wyoming 

County on the banks of the Susquehanna River. The 1970 population of the 

Borough of Meshoppen was only 482, while the population of the township of 

Mehoopany, in which First has its only branch, was 677. Until approximately 7 

years ago, farming and timbering were the only significant business activities in 

this area. Since then, eight manufacturing companies have entered the area and 

have made a capital investment of over $350 million; these facilities now 

employ a work force of 2,700. The principal company in the area has 43 acres 

under roof, 2 miles east of Mehoopany, and employs 1,100 people.

The area in which the competitive impact of this proposed transaction 

would be most immediate and direct may be approximated by the northwestern and central segment of Wyoming County (including Tunkhannock), 

the Borough of Wyalusing, located in the southeastern portion of Bradford 

County and the southwestern portion of Susquehanna County. This market 

area of approximately 27,000 people extends roughly over a 15- to 20-mile 

radius around Meshoppen. A t present there are nine commercial banks operating 14 offices in this local banking market. The Tunkhannock office of 

United has the third largest share of the market, with 13.7 percent of total 

deposits, and First ranks seventh, with 6.3 percent. The largest share, 24.6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
164 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

percent, is held by the three offices of a Montrose-based bank. United's most 

immediate competitor is The Wyoming National Bank of Wilkes-Barre, a $96 

million institution with a branch in Tunkhannock. This branch has the fourth 

largest share of the market, 13 percent, and offers a full line of services.

United's closest office to First is at Tunkhannock, 8 miles southeast of 

Meshoppen. There are no other banking offices in the sparsely populated intervening area. While this proposed transaction would eliminate some degree of 

choice for residents of the area and some direct existing competition between 

United's office in Tunkhannock and First, the former is reduced in importance 

by the large number of banks operating in the market, while the latter is not a 

significant amount in terms of dollar volume. First, moreover, is not a strong 

competitor, being hampered by both limited financial resources and limited 

management resources. The Corporation concludes that the proposed merger 

would have no substantial effect on existing competition.

First could legally branch de novo into other parts of Wyoming County, 

into Luzerne County, and into a number of other contiguous counties, but this 

does not seem probable in view of its limited resources, its lack of management 

depth, and the competition from much larger banks it could expect in places 

attractive to de novo branching. While United has the capacity and resources to 

open de novo branches in those portions of Wyoming County near Meshoppen 

and Mehoopany, this is unlikely to be attractive for several years, in view of the 

limited population presently being served by commercial banking offices in the 

area, averaging about 2,000 people per office.

Within the eight-county area where United may legally establish branches, its 

greatest potential market, 84 commercial banks were operating 199 offices as 

of June 30, 1970. A Scranton-based bank held the largest share of this market, 

with 12.3 percent of the IPC deposits. The second largest share, 8.4 percent, 

was held by United, and its share after consummation of the proposed merger 

would be 8.6 percent.

In 1971, United acquired 570 shares, or 7.6 percent, of the outstanding 

stock of The First National Bank of Factoryville, a unit bank also located in 

Wyoming County and only about 10-miles east of Tunkhannock, with no 

offices of other commercial banks intervening. The trade areas served by The 

First National Bank of Factoryville and United's Tunkhannock branch overlap, 

and there is some existing competition between them. While United does not 

control 10 percent or more of the commercial bank deposits in its overall 

banking and merging area, and so does not fall within the precise language of 

the Corporation's policy requiring a divestiture of all stocks which such a bank 

might own in other banks within its branching and merging area, it will control

20 percent of a local banking market in which First National Bank of Factoryville also competes and which is located within that larger area.* The Corporation considers it advisable, therefore, if the proposed merger is approved, to 

require United to divest itself, within a reasonable period of time, of the stock 

it now holds in this competing bank, in the interest of a freely competitive 

local banking market.

*See the C orp ora tio n's decision of December 1, 1970, w ith respect to the proposed 

merger o f The Pennsylvania Bank and T rust C om pany, T itu sville , and The Exchange 

Bank and T rust Com pany, F ra n klin , and its decision o f July 19, 1971, w ith respect to 

Am erican Bank and T rust Com pany o f Pennsylvania, Reading, and S latington National 

Bank and T rust C om pany, S latington.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 165

For the reasons stated, and with such a divestiture of stock in First National 

Bank of Factoryville, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each of the participating banks has adequate financial resources, as would the resulting bank. 

Consummation of the proposed transaction would solve the problem of successor management at First, and the resulting bank would have satisfactory 

managerial resources. The future prospects of the resulting bank would also be 

favorable.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would have virtually no effect in the trade areas now served by United. 

Customers of First would benefit from the full range of specialized lending 

services (including FHA and VA mortgage loans), trust department services, 

and additional funds for housing construction, which could be provided by 

United. Local businesses would also benefit from a legal lending lim it over 50 

times larger than First's present lim it of $50,000 and from the availability of 

larger denomination certificates of deposit issued at the maximum rates of 

interest allowed by current regulations. While these services are presently available at other banks in the relevant local market, the proposed merger would 

make them more conveniently available to* residents and businessmen in the 

Meshoppen and Mehoopany areas.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources

(in

B a n k in g O ffic e s

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Bartholomew County Bank

Columbus, Indiana 

(in organization; change title to Irwin 

Union Bank and Trust Company)

200 6

to merge with

Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company

Columbus

134,278 6

Summary report by Attorney General, September 8, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Irwin Union and Trust 

Company would become a subsidiary of Irwin Union Corporation, a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by Irwin Union Corporation, it would 

have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 4, 1972 

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal DeDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
166 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

posit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Bartholomew County Bank, Columbus, Indiana (“ First Bank"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Irwin Union Bank 

and Trust Company, Columbus, Indiana (“ Second Bank” ), a State nonmember 

insured bank with total resources of $134,277,900, under the charter of First 

Bank and with the title of Second Bank. The resulting bank will operate from 

the six existing offices of Second Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed solely as a means by 

which Irwin Union Corporation, Columbus, Indiana, a registered bank holding 

company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying shares) of the 

voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed merger. Application for 

said acquisition was approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on August 10, 1972. First Bank will not be in operation as a 

commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to consummation it will 

operate the same banking business at the existing locations of Second Bank, 

and with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the 

competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by Second Bank or affect the banking services which Second Bank has provided in 

the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject 

applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

ope ra te d

American Bank

Odessa, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

American Bank of Commerce)

200 1

to merge with

American Bank of Commerce

Odessa

46,549 1

Summary report by Attorney General, October 10, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which American Bank of 

Commerce would become a subsidiary of Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a 

bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine 

an existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard 

to the acquisition of the surviving bank by Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc., 

it would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 4, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for American Bank, Odessa, Texas (“ New Bank“ ), a proposed new bank in 

organization, and for consent to its merger with American Bank of Commerce,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 167

Odessa, Texas ("Operating Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total 

resources of $46,549,000 as of June 30, 1972, under the charter of New Bank 

and with the title of Operating Bank.

The new bank formation and merger are designed soleiy to enable Texas 

Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas, a registered bank holding company, to acquire substantially all of the voting shares of the successor. The 

application by the holding company for permission to acquire 100 percent (less 

directors' qualifying shares) of the outstanding shares is pending approval by 

the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. New Bank will not be 

in operation as a commercial bank prior to the merger, but subsequent to 

consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing location of Operating Bank, and with essentially the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking 

in the trade area served by Operating Bank nor affect the banking services 

which Operating Bank has provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces

li n

B a n kin g O ffice s

\ 1 n

th o u san d s 

o f d olla rs)

1 n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Second State Bank of Alamo

Alamo, Texas

(in organization; change title to First 

State Bank of Alamo)

50 1

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities o f

First State Bank of Alamo

Alamo

7,076 1

Summary report by Attorney General, November 10, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which First State Bank of 

Alamo would become a subsidiary of American Capital Corporation, a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by American Capital Corporation, it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 18, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second State Bank of Alamo, Alamo, Texas ("Second"), a proposed new 

bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and assumption of the liabilities of the First State Bank of Alamo, Alamo, Texas ("First"),

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
168 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $7,076,000. The 

resulting bank will operate from the one existing office of First and with the 

title "First State Bank of Alamo."

The new bank formation and the purchase and assumption transaction are 

designed solely as a means by which the American Capital Corporation, 

Houston, Texas, a registered bank holding company can acquire 100 percent 

(less directors' qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting 

from the proposed transaction. Application for said acquisition is pending 

before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Second will not 

be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the purchase and assumption 

transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking 

business at the existing location of First, and with the same management. The 

proposal will not, per se, change the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by First or affect the banking services which First 

has provided in the past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the 

two subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces

( i n

B anking Offices

11 r l

th o u s a n d s

of dollars)

1 n

operation

T o be

operated

Second Bank of Commerce

Fort Worth, Texas 

(in organization; change title to 

Bank of Commerce)

200 1

to merge with

Bank of Commerce

Fort Worth

43,949 1

Summary report by Attorney General, November 17, 1972

The proposed merger is part of a plan through which Bank of Commerce 

would become a subsidiary of Commerce Financial Corporation, a bank holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an existing 

bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to the 

acquisition of the surviving bank by Commerce Financial Corporation, it would 

have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 18, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, applications have been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second Bank of Commerce, Fort Worth, Texas ("Second"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its merger with Bank of Commerce, Fort Worth, Texas ("Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with 

total resources of $43,949,000. The resulting bank will operate from the one 

existing office of Bank and with the title "Bank of Commerce."

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 169

The new bank formation and merger transaction are designed solely as a 

means by which the Commerce Financial Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas, a 

registered bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' 

qualifying shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed 

transaction. Application for said acquisition is pending before the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Second will not be in operation as a 

commercial bank prior to the merger transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing location of 

Bank, and with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change 

the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by 

Bank or affect the banking services which Bank has provided in the past. All 

factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are 

favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Resou rces 

l i

B a n kin g O ffic e s

\ i n

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

California Republic Bank

Bakersfield, California

30,341 9 13

to merge w ith

Ranchers Bank

Quartz Hill

7,935 4

Summary report by Attorney General, December 8, 1972

The Lancaster area is presently served by six banks including four of the 

largest banks in the state. In the absence of this merger Republic would be the 

seventh bank in the Lancaster area. Hence, this merger will eliminate the certainty of some competition between Ranchers and Republic which would have 

commenced as soon as Republic's Lancaster office is opened. Moreover, 

Republic could have increased that competition by opening additional offices 

in the area.

In the Lancaster area Ranchers ranks fifth out of six banks. As of June 30, 

1970, the three largest banks in the market held 83.3 per cent of total deposits, 

while Ranchers held 4.4 per cent of total deposits. Republic has no market 

share in the area at the present time. Thus, while this merger will eliminate 

prospective actual competition, given the small absolute and relative size of the 

banks involved, it appears that the merger would not have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 22, 1972

California Republic Bank, Bakersfield, California ("Republic Bank"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $30,341,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $21,985,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

approval of its merger with Ranchers Bank, Quartz Hill, California, which has 

total resources of $7,935,000 and total IPC deposits of $6,335,000, under the 

charter and title of Republic Bank. Permission is also requested to establish the

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
170 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

existing and approved but unopened offices of both banks, after which the 

resulting bank would have a total of 15 offices.

Competition. Republic Bank now operates a total of nine offices, all of 

which are in Kern County. The main office and three branches are in Bakersfield, and the other offices are located in Oildale, California City, Frazier Park, 

Rosedale, and Tehachapi. Republic Bank has only 4.0 percent of Kern County 

commercial bank deposits, however, ranking fifth in this regard among 10 

commercial banks with offices in the county. The State's five largest banks all 

compete in Kern County, with Bank of America holding slightly less than half 

of all the county's commercial bank deposits. Republic Bank also has the 

necessary supervisory approvals to establish a de novo branch in Lancaster, in 

Los Angeles County.

Ranchers Bank operates a total of three full-time offices and one seasonal 

office, all in Los Angeles County. The main office and one branch are in 

Quartz Hill, and the other full-time branch is in Lancaster. Ranchers Bank also 

operates a seasonal branch over the Labor Day weekend at the Antelope Valley 

Fair, in Lancaster, and has the necessary approvals to establish a de novo

branch in Littlerock, in Los Angeles County. Neither Republic Bank nor 

Ranchers Bank has trust powers.

The existing offices of Ranchers Bank are located approximately 87 road 

miles southeast of Republic Bank's main office in Bakersfield and about 75 

road miles northeast of the city of Los Angeles in Los Angeles County's high 

desert, known as Antelope Valley. Economic activity in this area revolves 

around the twin cities of Lancaster and Palmdale. Quartz Hill, which grew from 

3,325 to 4,935 persons in the 1960s, is only a few miles from, and serves as a 

bedroom community for, both cities. The population of Lancaster increased 19 

percent between 1960 and 1970, from 26,012 to 30,948, and the population 

of Palmdale was 8,511 in 1970. Principal employment is that of aircraft production, with Lockheed Aircraft the largest employer. Population growth in 

the area has been steady but is expected to expand rapidly in the future, in 

connection with construction and operation of the new Palmdale International 

Airport, which will be the main airport for Los Angeles. Littlerock is located

11 miles southeast of Palmdale and has a population of less than 1,000.

The proposed merger would have its most direct and immediate effect in the 

northeastern corner of Los Angeles County presently served by Ranchers Bank. 

Within this area, six commercial banks operated 15 offices as of June 30, 1972, 

with total deposits of $100,445,000. The largest share of this market, 47.5 

percent, was held by Bank of America, with three others of the State's five 

largest banks also represented. Ranchers Bank, with 7 percent of the market's 

total commercial bank deposits, ranked fifth of the six banks, in terms of local 

market share.

At present the shortest distance between offices of Republic Bank and 

Ranchers Bank is the approximately 40 miles between California City and 

Lancaster. The intervening area is sparsely populated, and there is no significant amount of existing competition which would be eliminated by this proposed transaction. The resulting bank, moreover, should be able to compete 

more effectively, than either Republic Bank or Ranchers Bank, with the much 

larger banks having offices in both their service areas.

Republic Bank has the necessary approvals to establish adenovo branch in 

Lancaster, but it is to be located in the southeastern portion of the city, while 

the Lancaster office of Ranchers Bank is located in the northwestern part of

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B A N K A BSO RPTIO NS A PP R O V E D BY T H E C O R P O R A T IO N 171

the city. Branch offices of the largest banks in the State are located in the 

intervening area, and Bank of America has the necessary approvals to establish 

a de novo branch in close proximity to the site selected for Republic Bank's 

Lancaster office. Thus, even after Republic Bank establishes its contemplated 

branch in Lancaster, there is unlikely to be any substantial amount of competition between it and the Lancaster office of Ranchers Bank.

California State law permits statewide de novo branching, so that either of 

the participating banks could legally branch de novo into the trade area of the 

other. This does not seem likely on the part of Ranchers Bank, however, in 

view of its limited financial and managerial resources and the formidable competition it would encounter. While Republic Bank plans to establish adenovo

branch in Lancaster and might have an incentive to expand in Ranchers Bank's 

market, any loss of potential competition between these two banks in the 

future by consummation of their proposed merger can be viewed as relatively 

insignificant competitively because of the presence of banks in California much 

larger than Republic Bank which would be even more capable of such de novo

branching.

Commercial banking in the State of California is highly concentrated with 

the three largest banks holding 59.8 percent of total commercial bank deposits 

and the five largest, 75.8 percent. Republic Bank is the 76th largest commercial 

bank in the State, and the resulting bank would have less than 1 percent of 

statewide total commercial bank deposits. The proposed merger would obviously have no effect on the structure of commercial banking in the State of 

California.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed transaction would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in 

restraint of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Republic Bank has 

adequate financial and managerial resources, as would the resulting bank. The 

future prospects for the resulting bank are favorable.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposed transaction would result in few, if any, benefits to members of 

the public in areas served by either bank since the resulting bank would not 

provide any services not presently conveniently available at offices of the 

largest statewide branch banks also operating in these areas. Customers of 

Ranchers Bank would benefit from a lending limit more than six times its 

present $38,600 limit.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

First State Bank of Saginaw

Saginaw, Michigan

17,459 4 5

to consolidate with

Hemlock State Bank

Hemlock

7,269 1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
172 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Summary report by Attorney General, November 10, 1972

Hemlock Bank is located approximately 16 miles from First State's home 

office and 14 miles from the nearest branch of First State. Both the home 

offices and branches of several other banks lie in the intervening area between 

the two participating banks. Approximately 79 per cent of Hemlock Bank's 

total deposits are derived from a four township area surrounding the village 

itself. First State also draws a small amount of deposits ($147,000 or 1 per cent 

of its total) from this area, but the proposed consolidation would not eliminate 

substantial competition.

First State is presently the third largest of the three banks headquartered in 

the City of Saginaw. It is the sixth largest, and Hemlock Bank the eighth 

largest, of the nine banks headquartered in Saginaw County. As of June 30, 

1970, First State, having been in operation for less than a year, had the smallest market share in the county with less than 1 per cent each of IPC demand 

deposits and total deposits. Hemlock Bank had about 1-1/2 per cent each of 

the IPC demand deposits and total deposits in Saginaw County at that time. 

Since 1970, First State has experienced rapid growth, opening three branches, 

and now estimates its share of the total deposits in Saginaw County at 2-1/2 

per cent.

Michigan law allows banks to branch anywhere within the county in which 

the home office is located, but there is branch and home office protection 

which precludes First State or any other bank from branching de novo into the 

village of Hemlock itself. This protection does not extend to the area adjacent 

to the village, and First State could legally open a branch there, still placing 

itself near the Hemlock Bank, which is now located about five miles from the 

nearest office of any other bank. However, the lack of significant population 

growth in Hemlock makes it unlikely that First State could branch into the 

area at this time, and the relatively small position of both First State and 

Hemlock Bank in the Saginaw County market suggests that the removal of 

First State as a potential entrant into the Hemlock area would be unlikely to 

have an adverse effect on potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 22, 1972

First State Bank of Saginaw, Saginaw, Michigan ("First State Bank"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $17,459,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $11,269,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and other 

provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior 

consent to consolidate with Hemlock State Bank, Hemlock, Michigan ("Hemlock Bank"), with total resources of $7,269,000 and total IPC deposits of 

$5,974,000. The banks would consolidate under the title and charter of First 

State Bank and, as an incident to the consolidation, the single office of 

Hemlock Bank would become a branch of the resulting bank, increasing the 

number of its offices to five.

Competition. First State Bank is located in the city of Saginaw (population 

91,849), the seat of Saginaw County, in central Michigan. Saginaw County's 

1970 population was 219,743, an increase of 15 percent over its population in 

1960, and income levels in this heavily industrialized area are commensurate 

with statewide averages, In addition to the main office, First State Bank operates three branches in and around Saginaw, and it draws most of its banking 

business from the city of Saginaw, Saginaw Township, and the northern portion of Spaulding Township.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 173

The single office of Hemlock Bank is located in Hemlock, Michigan, an 

unincorporated village with an estimated population of 850. It is located 17 

road miles west of First State Bank's main office and 16 miles west of its 

closest office, with nine banking offices of other banks located in the intervening area. Hemlock Bank draws most of its banking business from an 

8,000-person area consisting of Richland and Fremont Townships and a small 

portion of Thomas Township. Hemlock and its environs have long been dependent on agriculture, but this activity is now declining in importance and the 

area is becoming a bedroom community for residents employed elsewhere, 

primarily in the city of Saginaw.

The proposed consolidation would have its most direct and immediate 

effect in Saginaw County, which comprises the Saginaw SMSA. Fourteen 

offices of Second National Bank of Saginaw dominate this local banking market, holding about 47 percent of the county's total commercial bank IPC 

deposits. A branch of Michigan National Bank holds the second largest share of 

countywide IPC deposits, while First State Bank, established only in 1969, 

ranks sixth of 10 banks, in terms of local market shares, with 2.8 percent of 

such deposits. Hemlock Bank ranks ninth, with only 1.5 percent of such deposits, down slightly from the 1.7 percent it held as of June 30, 1970. While 

the proposed consolidation would eliminate some existing competition between First State Bank and Hemlock Bank, particularly for the banking business of Hemlock area residents who commute to Saginaw to work, the respective market shares of the two banks indicate that the amount of this existing 

competition is not substantial. Hemlock Bank, moreover, has been an unaggressive competitor. Its consolidation with a larger and more aggressive city 

bank should enhance competition in its immediate service area with the dominant bank in the county.

The possibility of increased competition in the future between First State 

Bank and Hemlock Bank through de novo branching appears remote. State law 

allows countywide branching but prohibits de novo entry into a city or village, 

like Hemlock or Saginaw, in which another bank office is located, and the 

remaining unbanked communities in Saginaw County have very limited population or deposit potential.

The resulting bank would rank fifth in local deposits among nine commercial banks, holding only 4.2 percent of their combined IPC deposits. While 

the proposed consolidation would reduce from 10 to nine the number of 

independent alternatives available to the 219,743 residents of Saginaw County, 

numerous banking alternatives would continue to be conveniently available 

both within the county and in adjacent counties.

For the reasons stated, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed consolidation would not, in any section of the country, substantially 

lessen competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both banks have 

financial and managerial resources which are adequate for their continued 

operation, either independently or on a consolidated basis. Future prospects 

for Hemlock Bank as an independent institution, however, are only fair and 

should be strengthened by the proposed consolidation.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

consolidation would bring to Hemlock a larger, more aggressive institution in

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
174 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

place of a bank that has been largely ineffective in meeting increasing competition. Significant benefits accruing to present customers of Hemlock Bank as a 

result of the consolidation include "free checking" accounts with no minimum 

balance required, decreased consumer loan rates, and higher interest rates on 

certain types of time deposits. In addition, expanded EDP services would be 

offered, and Hemlock Bank's lending lim it of $100,000 would be replaced by 

the resulting bank's lim it of $550,000.

Based on the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded 

that approval of the application is warranted.

Peoples Bank & Trust Company

Rocky Mount, North Carolina

to merge with

The Bank of Northampton

Jackson

Resources [;n B a n kin g O ffic e s

\in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

144,851 33 34

4,663 1

Summary report by Attorney General, November 16, 1972

The closest office of Peoples to Jackson is in Scotland Neck, some 24 road 

miles to the south in adjacent Halifax County. A branch office of the state's 

tenth largest bank is situated in the intervening area. It would not appear that 

existing competition would be eliminated by the proposed transaction.

As of mid-1970, Bank of Northampton had approximately 20 per cent of 

the deposits, the second largest share, in Northampton County, an area which 

probably somewhat overstates the relevant market.

North Carolina law permits statewide branching either de novo or by merger. Peoples could, therefore, enter Jackson de novo; however, the community's small size and the below average growth in Northampton County generally indicate that such entry would be relatively unattractive at this time. 

Furthermore, there are a number of other North Carolina banks larger than 

Peoples which appear capable of expanding into Jackson, and which must also 

be considered potential entrants.

Thus, it appears that the proposed merger would not have a significant 

impact on potential competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 22, 1972

Peoples Bank & Trust Company, Rocky Mount, North Carolina ("Peoples"), 

an insured State nonmember bank having total resources of $144,841,000 and 

total IPC deposits of $109,870,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and 

other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's 

prior consent to merge with The Bank of Northampton, Jackson, North 

Carolina, having total resources of $4,663,000 and IPC deposits of $3,748,000, 

under the charter and title of Peoples. As an incident to the merger, the sole 

office of The Bank of Northampton would become a branch of the resulting 

bank, increasing the number of its offices to 34.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 175

Competition. Peoples operates its main office and six branches in the city of 

Rocky Mount and 26 branches in 18 other communities in the northeastern 

section of North Carolina. Peoples is the 13th largest of the State's 87 commercial banks, holding 1.4 percent of their aggregate deposits.

The Bank of Northampton is a unit bank serving Jackson (population 762) 

and its environs. Jackson is a small rural community located in the center of 

Northampton County (population 24,009) and serves as its county seat. Area 

residents are almost exclusively dependent on agricultural activities, although 

some industrial development has taken place in recent years.

Seven commercial banks operate offices within a radius of 18 miles of 

Jackson, including North Carolina National Bank and Branch Banking and 

Trust Company, which hold the largest and second largest shares of the total 

commercial bank deposits in this local banking market. The Bank of 

Northampton is the third-ranking bank, in terms of area commercial bank 

deposits in this market, while three other large banks and one small independent bank share the balance of the market's commercial bank deposits. Peoples 

is not presently represented in this local banking market. Its nearest office is 24 

miles from The Bank of Northampton, and branch offices of two large banks 

intervene between them. Little, if any, existing competition between them 

would be eliminated by the proposed merger.

North Carolina law permits a commercial bank to branch de novo throughout the State, but the potential for increased competition between Peoples and 

The Bank of Northampton through de novo branching appears remote. The 

Bank of Northampton has made no move toward de novo branching since its 

organization in 1904 and lacks the resources as well as the experience to engage 

in any significant expansion by this means. Peoples has had significant de novo

branching experience, but it is unlikely that it will seek to establish a c/e novo

branch within The Bank of Northampton's market area because of the lack of 

any significant population growth or economic vigor there. Moreover, even if 

future growth in and around Jackson should make additional de novo branching attractive, numerous banks in North Carolina, which are larger than Peoples 

and also are unrepresented in the Jackson market, may be considered more 

likely potential entrants. Thus, any elimination of potential competition between Peoples and The Bank of Northampton resulting from their proposed 

merger may be considered competitively insignificant.

Within the State of North Carolina, Peoples, post-merger, would become the 

11th largest commercial bank, with 1.45 percent of aggregate deposits held by 

all the State's commercial banks as of June 30, 1972. The proposed merger 

would obviously have no adverse effect on the commercial bank structure of 

North Carolina.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the 

proposed merger would not, in any section of the country, substantially lessen 

competition, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint 

of trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. These factors are 

favorable for both banks, as they would be for the resulting bank. The capital 

position of the resulting bank would be reasonably satisfactory.

Convenience and Needs of the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposed merger would make available to Northampton's customers the 

broad range of banking services offered by a moderate-sized commercial bank, 

including an increased rate on passbook savings accounts and an expanded

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
176 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

lending capability. Peoples' trust department also offers highly specialized farm 

and timber management services, functions well-tailored to meet the needs of 

the region. To the extent these services are available at offices of larger competitors in the market, the proposed merger would provide all residents, farmers, 

and businessmen in this market an alternative source for such services, thereby 

stimulating the market's competitive climate.

The Board of Directors has concluded, accordingly, that approval of the 

application is warranted.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Penn Security Bank and Trust Company

Scranton, Pennsylvania

70,748 3 4

to merge with

Green Ridge Bank

Scranton

18,756 1

Summary report by Attorney General, September 20, 1972

The merging banks are both located in the City of Scranton. Their service 

areas encompass the city, and it is apparent that the proposed merger will 

eliminate substantial existing competition.

Fourteen commercial banks operate a total of 21 banking offices in 

Scranton and nearby communities in Lackawanna County, an area which may 

slightly overstate the relevant market primarily affected by the proposed merger. As of June 30, 1970, Penn Security Bank and Trust Company was the 

third largest bank in this area, holding about 10.9 per cent of deposits, while 

Green Ridge Bank held about 2.8 per cent. The three leading banks in this area 

held in the aggregate about 60 per cent of total deposits. If the proposed 

merger is approved, the share of Penn Security Bank and Trust Company 

would be increased to almost 14 per cent, while the share of the three largest 

would increase to about 62 per cent.

We conclude that this second acquisition of a direct competitor in Scranton 

by Penn Security Bank and Trust Company within a short time would have an 

adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 22, 1972

Penn Security Bank and Trust Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania ("Penn 

Security"), an insured State nonmember bank with total resources of 

$70,748,000 and total IPC deposits of $62,210,000, has applied, pursuant to 

Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Green Ridge Bank, Scranton, 

Pennsylvania, which has total resources of $18,756,000 and total IPC deposits 

of $16,682,000. The banks would merge under the charter and title of Penn 

Security and, as an incident to the merger, the only office of Green Ridge Bank

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 177

would become a branch of the resulting bank, increasing the number of its 

offices to four.

Competition. Both Penn Security and Green Ridge Bank have their main 

offices in the city of Scranton, located in Lackawanna County, in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania. Penn Security also operates a branch in the 

eastern part of the city (acquired by merger in 1971) and an office in Moscow, 

Pennsylvania, a small community 9 miles southeast of Scranton. The economy 

of Lackawanna County has been relatively static in recent years, with a small 

decrease in population. Subsequent to the decline of Scranton as an important 

mining and coal transportation center, the industrial aspects of the community 

changed to the extent that the textile industry now provides the major source 

of employment.

Penn Security derives most of its banking business from the city of Scranton 

(1970 population 103,564— down 7.1 percent since 1960) and the contiguous 

community of Dunmore (1970 population 17,300), to the east of Scranton. It 

draws business, however, from all parts of Lackawanna County, including the 

Green Ridge section of the city. Green Ridge Bank derives most of its banking 

business from the Green Ridge section of Scranton, a residential area in the 

eastern part of the city, and the valley areas to the north, including the boroughs of Dunmore, Dickson City, Throop, and Olyphant; however, some business is also obtained from other sections of the city. The main office of Penn 

Security is 3 miles southwest of Green Ridge Bank's main office, and a major 

portion of the primary service area of Green Ridge Bank is wholly within the 

area from which Penn Security derives the bulk of its banking business. The 

proposed merger would eliminate this existing competition between the two 

banks, but the amount of this existing competition is not considered substantial in view of the total deposit business originating in Lackawanna County 

and the small share of the county's commercial bank deposits held by Green 

Ridge Bank.

Seventeen commercial banks operate 34 offices in Lackawanna County. 

Penn Security ranks third largest among them, with 9.0 percent of the total 

IPC deposits held at all commercial bank offices in Lackawanna County as of 

June 30, 1972 (the first and second largest banks held 42.9 percent of such 

deposits between them). Green Ridge Bank, on the other hand, ranks 13th 

among these 17 banks, holding 2.4 percent of such IPC deposits.

Linder Pennsylvania law, banks headquartered in Scranton may branch or 

merge throughout Lackawanna County and the five adjacent counties. The 

declining population and limited economic prospects in Lackawanna County 

make it unlikely, however, that either bank would find de novo branching very 

attractive in the near future. Should future growth warrant additional de novo

branching, there are at least five banks, larger than Penn Security and not 

presently represented in Lackawanna County, that can be considered likely de

novo entrants. Any elimination of potential competition between Penn Security and Green Ridge Bank which might result from the proposed merger is 

thus viewed as competitively not significant.

Within the broader area open to branching or merging by both banks, the 

resulting bank would hold only 4.0 percent of total commercial bank IPC 

deposits in the six counties.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors concludes that the proposed 

merger would not in any section of the country, substantially lessen competiDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
178 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

tion, tend to create a monopoly, or in any other manner be in restraint of 

trade.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Financial and managerial resources are regarded as satisfactory with respect to both participating 

banks and are so projected for the resulting bank. Future prospects of the 

resulting bank may also be regarded as satisfactory.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. The proposed 

merger would replace a conservative, limited-service unit bank with a larger 

branch bank offering a wider range of banking services, including personal trust 

services, computer applications for customers, a wider variety of time deposit 

instruments and rates, more specialized loan services, and a larger lending limit. 

Customers of Green Ridge Bank should benefit from these changes. Although 

most of these services are available at other institutions within a short distance 

of Green Ridge Bank's office, area residents and businessmen would gain an 

additional and convenient alternative for their banking requirements. While the 

increment to community needs and convenience within Lackawanna County as 

a whole is viewed as modest, it tends to outweigh the limited anticompetitive 

effects of the proposed merger.

Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval 

of the application is warranted.

Resources 

(in 

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

Second State Bank of Willis

Willis, Texas

(in organization; change title to 

First State Bank of Willis)

50 1

to purchase the assets and assume

the deposit liabilities of

First State Bank of Willis

Willis

6,736 1

Summary report by Attorney General, November 10, 1972

The proposed merger is part o f a plan through which First State Bank of 

Willis would become a subsidiary of American Capital Corporation, a bank 

holding company. The instant merger, however, would merely combine an 

existing bank with a non-operating institution; as such, and without regard to 

the acquisition of the surviving bank by American Capital Corporation, it 

would have no effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation approval, December 22, 1972

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, application has been filed for Federal deposit insurance 

for Second State Bank of Willis, Willis, Texas ("Second Bank"), a proposed 

new bank in organization, and for consent to its purchase of the assets and 

assumption of liability to pay deposits made in First State Bank of Willis, 

Willis, Texas ("First Bank"), a State nonmember insured bank with total reDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION 179

sources of $6,736,000, under the charter of Second Bank and with the title of 

First Bank. The resulting bank will operate from the existing office of First 

Bank.

The new bank formation and acquisition are designed solely as a means by 

which American Capital Corporation, Houston, Texas, a proposed registered 

bank holding company, can acquire 100 percent (less directors' qualifying 

shares) of the voting shares of the bank resulting from the proposed transaction. Application for said acquisition is pending approval of the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Second Bank will not be in operation as a commercial bank prior to the transaction, but subsequent to consummation it will operate the same banking business at the existing location of 

First Bank with the same management. The proposal will not, per se, change 

the competitive structure of commercial banking in the trade area served by 

First Bank or affect the banking services which First Bank has provided in the 

past. All factors considered pertinent specifically to the two subject applications are favorably resolved.

On the basis of the foregoing information, the Board of Directors has concluded that approval of the applications is warranted.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION

180 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n k in g O ffic e s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

First-Citizens Bank and Trust

Company of South Carolina

Columbia, South Carolina

121,161 28

to merge with

Bank of Chesterfield

Chesterfield

5,973 1

Summary report by Attorney General, July 6, 1971

The nearest branch office of First-Citizens to Chesterfield Bank is located in 

Cheraw, Chesterfield County, 12 miles away. According to the application, the 

service areas of First-Citizens and Chesterfield Bank are distinctly separate and 

neither deposit nor loan business originate in each other's service area. Nevertheless, inasmuch as there are only six banking offices in the county, and only 

two each in the communities of Chesterfield and Cheraw, in northern Chesterfield County, and because the area is essentially rural, each of the two offices 

must be regarded as serving as an alternative source of banking services to the 

other. Thus, to this extent, consummation of the proposed merger will eliminate existing competition between First-Citizens and Chesterfield Bank.

First-Citizens holds approximately 16 per cent of total county deposits at 

its Cheraw branch office. It is the fourth largest of six banks in Chesterfield 

County. Chesterfield Bank holds approximately 17 per cent of total county 

deposits; it is the third largest bank in the county. The two largest banks in 

Chesterfield County presently hold between them 53 per cent of total county 

deposits; the four largest hold among them 86 per cent. If the proposed merger 

is consummated, First-Citizens will hold the largest share of county deposits of 

any bank operating in Chesterfield County, with 33 per cent.

Because a significant alternative source of banking services will be eliminated in a rural area where there are few commercial banks, and because 

concentration within Chesterfield County will be substantially increased, we 

conclude that the merger of First-Citizens and Chesterfield Bank will have an 

adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation denial, May 1, 1972

First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company of South Carolina, Columbia, South 

Carolina ("First-Citizens"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $121,161,000 and total IPC deposits of $89,976,000, has applied, 

pursuant to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Bank of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, South Carolina, with total resources of $5,973,000 and 

total IPC deposits of $4,851,000. The banks would merge under the charter 

and title of First-Citizens, and, as an incident to the merger, the sole office of 

Bank of Chesterfield would become a branch of the resulting bank. Assuming 

that the proposed merger of Peoples Bank & Trust Co., Pageland, South

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 181

Carolina, and First-Citizens is consummated, First-Citizens would then have a 

total of 31 offices, not counting three approved but unopened de novo offices.

Competition. First-Citizens, the fifth largest bank in South Carolina, operates 28 offices in 11 of the State's 46 counties. It has completed eight bank 

acquisitions since June 30, 1968, adding thereby $53 million in deposits and 

15 offices to its aggregate strength, and the Corporation is today approving the 

proposed acquisition by First-Citizens of Peoples Bank & Trust Co., a twooffice bank in Pageland, Chesterfield County, having $6.5 million in total 

deposits and $5.7 million in IPC deposits.

At year-end 1971, First-Citizens held 3.7 percent of all commercial bank 

deposits in South Carolina, ranking well behind the State's four largest banks: 

The South Carolina National Bank of Charleston (21.7 percent of all commercial bank deposits in the State), The Citizens and Southern National Bank 

of S.C. (13.3 percent of such deposits), First National Bank of South Carolina 

(10.1 percent of such deposits), and Bankers Trust of South Carolina (8.4 

percent of such deposits). First-Citizens is approximately the same deposit size 

as Southern Bank and Trust Company and The Peoples National Bank, each of 

which also holds approximately 3.7 percent of the State's commercial bank 

deposits.

Bank of Chesterfield has its sole office in Chesterfield (population 1,667), 

the seat of Chesterfield County (population 32,667). The community in which 

the bank is located is about 19 miles east of Pageland and 12 miles west of 

Cheraw. The only other bank in town is a branch office of First Peoples 

National Bank of South Carolina, opened de novo in 1969, but there appears 

to be a significant amount of commutation between Chesterfield and Cheraw 

by Chesterfield area residents who work or wish to shop in Cheraw, a much 

larger community. There is also some evidence of commutation to Marven, 

North Carolina, about 11 miles northeast of Chesterfield.

The residents and businessmen in the area surrounding Chesterfield who will 

be affected by the proposed merger are those for whom Bank of Chesterfield 

constitutes a convenient alternative to other commercial bank offices reasonably available to them. Given the semirural nature of the countryside around 

Chesterfield, the general reliance of the public on automobile travel for transportation, and the existence of well-paved roads connecting the county seat to 

other parts of Chesterfield County, the Corporation considers it not unreasonable to consider all commercial bank offices within approximately 15 road 

miles of Bank of Chesterfield as offering competition to that bank.* Despite 

the unsupported claims made by the applicant, however, the Corporation does 

not consider it reasonable to include the offices of commercial banks in Wadesboro, North Carolina, some 20 miles away, as within the relevant area of local 

competition. Such offices would be convenient only for a small number of 

North Carolina residents who reside in the sparsely populated northern section 

of Bank of Chesterfield's trade area. Morven, North Carolina, appears to be as 

far as most South Carolina residents of the trade area would be willing to travel 

for banking services, and this view is confirmed by officers of the North 

Carolina banks in question.

*T h e C orp ora tio n to o k the same position in its disposition upon reconsideration o f the 

ap plication o f First-Citizens Bank & T ru st C om pany, S m ith fie ld , N o rth Carolina, to 

merge The Lucam a-Kenly Bank, Lucama, N o rth C arolina (Statem ent upon Reconsideratio n , 7-12-71).

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
182 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Five commercial banks serve an estimated 25,600 people within this 15-mile 

area of local competition around Chesterfield: Bank of Chesterfield, FirstCitizens (whose nearest office is in Cheraw, some 12 miles east of Chesterfield), 

The South Carolina National Bank of Charleston (which has two branch offices 

in Cheraw), First Peoples National Bank of South Carolina (which has a branch 

office in Chesterfield), and First National Bank of Anson County (which has a 

branch office in Morven, North Carolina). South Carolina National Bank, the 

State's largest bank, had the largest share of local deposits held at these six 

offices as of June 30, 1970 (42.6 percent), but Bank of Chesterfield and 

First-Citizens, having 23.2 percent and 23.0 percent of such deposits, respectively, would have an even larger share of such deposits if their proposed 

merger is consummated. Thus, a merger between Bank of Chesterfield and 

First-Citizens would increase substantially the concentration of commercial 

bank resources in this local banking market (the two largest local banks then 

controlling about 88.8 percent of local commercial bank deposits and four of 

six local commercial bank offices). Moreover, while Chesterfield County as a 

whole may not be the approporiate area within which to assess the local impact 

of this proposed merger, the Corporation notes with concern that the successful consummation of this proposed merger as well as the proposed merger of 

First-Citizens with Peoples Bank & Trust Co., Pageland, would result in FirstCitizens controlling approximately 56 percent of all commercial bank IPC 

deposits in the county.

In addition, the proposed merger of First-Citizens and Bank of Chesterfield 

would consolidate the second- and third-ranking banks in the 15-mile area, 

thereby suggesting that substantial existing competition would be eliminated. 

The applicant disputes this, however, pointing out that First-Citizens' Cheraw 

office draws only $315,000 in deposits and $485,000 in loan business from the 

immediate environs of Chesterfield, while Bank of Chesterfield draws much less 

business from the vicinity of Cheraw. While this may accurately reflect the 

present situation, it appears to be the result of noncompetitive policies pursued 

by the independent Peoples Bank of Cheraw prior to its acquisition by FirstCitizens at year-end 1969. Substantiating the Corporation's view of the relevant market area for local competition is the fact that the Cheraw branches of 

South Carolina National Bank, draw a significant volume of banking business 

from residents of Chesterfield and its environs. Even without de novo branching by First-Citizens into Chesterfield, therefore, First-Citizens should be able 

to increase substantially the business its Cheraw office draws from the Chesterfield area. While the proposed merger would eliminate no significant volume of 

existing competition, it would eliminate this potential for increased competition in the future between the two banks and reduce from five to four the 

number of convenient options for banking services available to some 25,600 

South Carolina residents.

South Carolina law permits statewide branching, either de novo or by merger. Bank of Chesterfield, however, is unlikely to branch de novo because of its 

limited resources, its lack of branching experience and the stated desire of its 

control owners to sell the bank. First-Citizens, for its part, is likely to find de

novo branching into Chesterfield and its environs relatively unattractive for 

some time because of the low income levels that prevail, the limited economic 

potential of the area and the fact that two commercial bank offices are already 

operating in Chesterfield. The proposed merger, accordingly, appears unlikely

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 183

to eliminate any significant potential for de novo branching that might bring 

the two banks into increased competition in the future.

Given the significant increase in local concentration which would result 

from a merger of the second- and third-ranking banks in a local market having a 

limited number of alternatives for banking services, it becomes incumbent 

upon the Corporation to consider whether Bank of Chesterfield is likely to 

have available to it less anticompetitive alternatives than the proposed merger 

with First-Citizens. In this regard, it should be noted that Bank of Chesterfield 

is a highly profitable, well-capitalized small bank with more than two-thirds of 

its deposits in demand deposit accounts. Its stock is closely held by one family 

which has expressed a firm desire to sell the bank to a larger branch bank. 

Excluding from consideration both First-Citizens and The South Carolina 

National Bank (since they compete with Bank of Chesterfield in the local 

market), the following banks among the 20 largest in the State of South 

Carolina all have offices within 50 miles of Chesterfield: First National Bank of 

South Carolina (whose Bennettsville branch is 27 miles southeast of Chesterfield in adjacent Marlboro County), American Bank & Trust (whose branch 

office in McColl is 37 miles east of Chesterfield in adjacent Marlboro County), 

The Bank of Lancaster (whose Lancaster offices are 42 miles west of Chesterfield and whose recently opened Kershaw office is 34 miles southwest), and 

The National Bank of South Carolina of Sumter (whose Bishopville office is 45 

miles south of Chesterfield). In the absence of any contrary demonstration by 

Bank of Chesterfield, these branch banks— and possibly others with offices at 

greater distances— must be considered as alternative merger possibilities which 

would not have the anticompetitive effects locally of a proposed merger between Bank of Chesterfield and First-Citizens or between Bank of Chesterfield 

and The South Carolina National Bank.

Summing up the competitive considerations presented by the application, a 

merger of First-Citizens and Bank of Chesterfield would substantially increase 

the concentration of commercial bank resources in a local market in South 

Carolina, eliminate a relatively significant competitor in that market, and 

reduce by one the limited number of banking options presently available to 

some 25,600 South Carolina residents.* The proposed merger would not eliminate a significant amount of existing competition, but it would eliminate a 

potential for increased competition between the two banks in the future which 

could arise from more aggressive competitive efforts on the part of FirstCitizens for the banking business which originates in Chesterfield and its environs or from a less anticompetitive merger on the part of Bank of Chesterfield.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. While the proposed 

merger might broaden the range of services available to customers of Bank of 

Chesterfield, there appears to be no substantial demand for such services in and 

around Chesterfield, and all of them are conveniently available within the 

relevant local market at Cheraw offices of First-Citizens and The South 

Carolina National Bank. Moreover, whatever benefits might result to Bank of 

Chesterfield customers from the proposed merger can also be obtained by an

* A n area o f lesser population was recently held to con stitu te an econom ically significant 

"sectio n o f the c o u n try ” fo r purposes o f Section 7 o f the C layton A c t and fo r purposes

o f the Bank Merger A ct. See United States v. County National Bank o f Bennington,_____F

S upp._____(D. V erm ont) (filed January 27, 1972).

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
184 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

alternative merger between Bank of Chesterfield and a number of branch banks 

which, unlike First-Citizens, are not presently represented in the local market.

Financial and Managerial Resources and Future Prospects. The financial 

resources of both banks are considered satisfactory, as are the managerial resources of First-Citizens. Bank of Chesterfield has an eventual management 

succession problem, but there appear to be a number of alternative mergers 

available to Bank of Chesterfield, less anticompetitive than the one proposed, 

that would also resolve this particular problem. The future prospects of FirstCitizens are favorable, while those of Bank of Chesterfield require resolution of 

its management succession problem to be satisfactory.

Weighing the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction in the 

relevant local market against the very limited benefits to the public that might 

flow from the proposed merger, including the resolution of Bank of Chesterfield's management succession problem, the Board of Directors has concluded, 

in view of the merger alternatives available to Bank of Chesterfield that would 

produce these same benefits without anticompetitive results, that the application to merge Bank of Chesterfield into First-Citizens should be denied.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o p e ra te d

American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa.

Reading, Pennsylvania

725,632 38

to merge w ith

Lebanon County Trust Company

Lebanon

31,587 2

Summary report by Attorney General, April 17, 1972

American Bank operates two offices in Myerstown, Lebanon County, about 

seven miles east of Lebanon Trust's offices in Lebanon City. No banking offices intervene and Myerstown and Lebanon are connected by good highway. 

Deposit and customer surveys provided by the banks indicate that while the 

two banks are not convenient alternatives for many Lebanon County customers, substantial competition between them does exist, and they can be 

considered to be competing in the same banking market.

American Bank and Lebanon Trust hold about 11.4 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively, of all deposits held by Lebanon County banking offices. In a 

broader market, which includes nearby offices in Berks and Dauphin Counties, 

the banks' shares are about 9.4 percent and 7.8 percent. Thus, in either market 

the merger would cause a substantial increase in concentration.

To the extent the two banks are not now fully in competition with each 

other, some potential competition exists between them. Lebanon Trust holds 

the third largest share, about 19 percent, of the deposits held by the ten 

banking offices in Lebanon City and immediate environs. American Bank's 

size, its proximity to Lebanon and the fact that it already derives substantial 

business from the area, indicate that it is a potential entrant into the area, 

despite a relatively low population per bank ratio in Lebanon.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 185

Thus, in view of the elimination of significant existing competition between 

the two banks in Lebanon County, and the elimination of the potential for 

increased competition through efforts by American Bank to become even more 

of a competitive alternative for Lebanon City customers, we believe that the 

proposed merger would have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

Basis for Corporation denial, May 31, 1972

American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa., Reading, Pennsylvania, ("American"), 

a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $725,632,000 and 

total IPC deposits of $574,047,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and 

other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's 

prior consent to merge with Lebanon County Trust Company, Lebanon, Pennsylvania ("County Trust"), with total resources of $31,587,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $25,434,000, under the charter and title of American.* If the 

merger is consummated, the two offices of County Trust would become 

branches of American, increasing the number of its offices to 40.

Competition. American operates 38 offices located in all seven counties 

where it may legally branch or merge under Pennsylvania law, that is, Berks, 

Chester, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Montgomery and Schuykill. It has two 

offices in Lebanon County at Myerstown, which were acquired by merger in 

1967, and these offices as of June 30, 1970, held 12.2 percent of the total IPC 

deposits held by commercial bank offices in Lebanon County. American, the 

largest bank with offices in Lebanon County, is an aggressive, full-service bank 

with a large trust department.

Both offices of County Trust are located in the city of Lebanon, the centrally located seat and principal city of Lebanon County. The city of Lebanon 

is about equidistant from Reading (29 miles to the east), Lancaster (24 miles to 

the south), and Harrisburg (25 miles to the west). Its 1970 population was 

28,572, having decreased about 4.9 percent since 1960. During this same 

period of time, Lebanon County had an increase in population of almost 10 

percent, to 99,665 persons, indicating substantial growth in areas of the county 

outside the city of Lebanon. A t one time, area residents depended heavily 

upon the steel industry for employment, but the city of Lebanon now has 103 

plants manufacturing a variety of products and employing more than 10,000 

people.

County Trust is the fourth largest of five banks with offices in the city of 

Lebanon. It offers a full range of basic banking services, including trust services, but its capacity to offer more specialized and sophisticated services, 

especially to larger customers, is limited. County Trust derives about 75 percent of its deposit and loan business from the city of Lebanon and its immediate environs, with most of the balance coming from other parts of Lebanon 

County. County Trust is a growing, profitable and community-minded bank 

with alert management and newly constructed main-office facilities. It is considered a strong competitor for business within the city of Lebanon and its 

environs, a less aggressive competitor for business originating elsewhere in the 

county.

*Unless otherwise indicated, figures are as o f December 31, 1971, adjusted fo r the subsequent merger o f A m erican w ith Am erican Bank, Mahanoy C ity.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
186 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

American's branches at Myerstown are only 5 to 7 miles from the city of 

Lebanon. Because these branches derive a large percentage of their total deposit and loan business from the immediate Myerstown area and from Berks 

County immediately to the east, the applicants have argued that the two banks, 

despite their proximity, operate in distinctly separate banking markets and that 

there is little, if any, existing competition between them. The Corporation has 

concluded, however, after carefully considering the information at hand, including the supplemental material filed by the applicants, that the offices in 

question are all located in the same general banking market and that this 

market can be approximated by all of Lebanon County.

First, the city of Lebanon is the principal population center and main 

shopping area between Harrisburg and Reading. It is centrally located in 

Lebanon County, and most of the county, including all of the communities in 

which there are commercial bank offices, lies within 12 miles of the city's 

limits. Good roads connect each of these communities with the city of Lebanon, and its banks are reasonably convenient alternatives for customers of 

each of the five banks that operate outside the city. One important factor in 

defining the geographic reach of a local banking market is to identify the 

alternatives for banking services reasonably and conveniently available to bank 

customers in a given area. On this basis, commercial bank offices in Myerstown 

must be considered in the same local market as commercial bank offices in the 

city of Lebanon.

Secondly, the evidence confirms that Myerstown and the city of Lebanon 

are readily accessible to each other's residents. Between 5,000 and 10,000 cars 

travel daily between Myerstown and Lebanon, the county's two principal 

places of employment. Applicant's own survey shows that about 23 percent of 

the households and 24 percent of the small businesses in Myerstown do some 

banking business with Lebanon banks, while 2.8 percent of the households and

8.9 percent of the small businesses in the city of Lebanon do some banking 

business with American in Myerstown. Moreover, in the case of the Myerstown 

households that do some of their banking in the city of Lebanon, only about 

one-third have members of the household who commute to the city to work. 

Irrespective of whether area residents have only one, or more than one, bank 

with which they do business, these statistics indicate that area residents could 

change banks readily if they chose to do so and that American and County 

Trust are mutually convenient alternatives for each other's customers.

Thirdly, American's offices at Myerstown actually do draw a substantial 

dollar volume of business from the primary area presently served by County 

Trust. About 7.3 percent of American's deposit customers at Myerstown and 

some $3.8 million of its Lebanon County deposits come from the city of 

Lebanon, as do 16.6 percent of its loan customers and $6.0 million of its local 

loans. County Trust derives less from the Myerstown area (approximately 

$565,000 in deposits and $515,000 in loans), but both banks can be said to 

obtain a relatively substantial amount of business from those remaining portions of Lebanon County that lie outside their primary service areas.

Finally, the two banks advertise for business in the same newspaper and on 

the same radio and television stations, a fact which supports the conclusion 

that they compete in the same market and for the same potential customers.

Taking Lebanon County as the relevant local market, a total of 10 commercial banks operated 25 offices there as of June 30, 1970. American's MyersDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 187

town offices held 12.2 percent of the county's total IPC deposits on that date, 

ranking third in this regard among the 10 banks— a figure which may somewhat 

overstate its competitive position within the county because of the business 

which its Myerstown offices derive from Berks County. County Trust ranked 

fifth in Lebanon County IPC deposits held on the same date, with 9.5 percent 

of such deposits. Their proposed merger would give the resulting bank second 

place rank in the market, with approximately 21.7 percent of the county's IPC 

deposits, and would also increase the percentage of such deposits held by the 

county's three leading banks from 51.6 percent to 61.1 percent.

Virtually all of County Trust's deposits and loans originate in Lebanon 

County. American has 2,136 loan accounts from Lebanon County, aggregating 

$18.1 million in dollar volume, and 9,328 deposit accounts aggregating $22.5 

million. Both banks have similar portfolios, emphasizing commercial and industrial loans, conventional real estate loans, and consumer credit transactions. 

Their proposed merger would eliminate significant existing competition between them in Lebanon County and increase substantially the concentration of 

local banking resources in the county's three lead banks. In addition, some 

potential for increased competition between the two banks in the future would 

be eliminated by their proposed merger.

Under Pennsylvania law, American and County Trust can both branch de

novo throughout Lebanon County. Conceding that further de novo branching 

in the city of Lebanon is remote in the near future because of the average 

income levels that prevail and the already low population (about 3,600 persons) for each commercial bank office there, the suburban areas of the county 

outside the city are growing steadily, and both banks could well find locations 

in such areas attractive to them in the future. While County Trust may not 

have the incentive to branch into Lancaster, Berks, or Schuylkill County in 

competition with American and other large banks operating in such counties, 

more localized branching within Lebanon County cannot be so easily dismissed 

in view of its past pattern of growth and its economic prospects.

While the proposed merger would have little competitive impact statewide 

or within the overall seven-county area where American can legally branch or 

merge, it would eliminate substantial existing competition in Lebanon County, 

preclude greater competition between the two banks in that county in the 

future, add significantly to the concentration of commercial banking resources 

within Lebanon County, and establish an undesirable precedent for future 

mergers in other local banking markets where American already has a sizeable 

share of the market. The Corporation finds, accordingly, that the effect of the 

proposed merger "may be substantially to lessen competition" in commercial 

banking in Lebanon County. Cf. United States v. Phillipsburg National Bank, 

390 U.S. 171 (1970); also the Corporation's decision denying the proposed 

merger of Valley Fidelity Bank & Trust Company and Bank o f Knoxville,

decided September 4, 1970.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. If the proposed 

merger were to be consummated, the resulting bank would offer more specialized and more sophisticated banking services than County Trust can offer 

today, particularly for larger customers. In addition, a lending limit significantly higher than County Trust's present lending limit of $200,000 would be 

possible, and some loan rates might be lower than those charged by County 

Trust.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 8 8 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

All of these benefits, however, can be easily and conveniently obtained by 

dissatisfied customers of County Trust or by residents of the city of Lebanon 

today, merely by traveling the 5 to 7 miles beyond the city of Lebanon to 

American's existing offices in Myerstown. Moreover, to the limited extent 

these changes would benefit the average customer of County Trust or the 

average resident of the city of Lebanon, the same results could be achieved by 

independent action or by some other, less anticompetitive merger proposal on 

the part of County Trust.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both banks have 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources for the business they do today, 

and both banks have satisfactory prospects for the future. The same would be 

true of the resulting bank if the merger were to be approved, but consideration 

of these factors adds no significant weight either to approval or denial of the 

application.

Based on the foregoing, the Board or Directors cannot find that the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the 

public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the banking public in Lebanon County. The application 

must, accordingly, be denied.

Resources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Chittenden Trust Company

Burlington, Vermont

175,027 16

to merge w ith

Lamoille County Bank

Hyde Park

17,202 3

Summary report by Attorney General, January 12, 1972

Chittenden's closest office to any of Lamoille Bank's facilities is 22 miles 

away. Nonetheless, as the leading commercial bank in the state's largest city 

(only 35 miles away), and with banking offices in every county surrounding 

Lamoille County, except Caledonia, Chittenden derives a good deal of banking 

business from Lamoille County. It would appear, therefore, that Chittenden, 

with its network of offices in northwestern and north central Vermont, exercises an important influence on commercial banking competition in Lamoille 

County. Further, because of the location of several of Chittenden's offices in 

the counties surrounding Lamoille County, Lamoille Bank draws an important 

amount of business from areas within Chittenden's service areas. The merger of 

these two banks would eliminate a material amount of existing competition for 

banking business in Lamoille County and the surrounding area.

Commercial banking in Lamoille County is highly concentrated. Lamoille 

Bank has 35.4 per cent of total deposits attributable to Lamoille County 

banks. It is by a slight margin the largest bank in the county, and the two 

largest banks in the county have over 69 per cent of deposits held there. 

Because of the overwhelming size of Chittenden in relation to the remaining 

banks in Lamoille County, the resulting bank could not only be expected to

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 189

continue to be the largest banking organization in the county, but it would 

have a significant competitive advantage over the smaller, local competitors. 

This factor would tend to foster an even greater degree of concentration in 

banking in Lamoille County and would tend to diminish the opportunities for 

the eventual deconcentration of the existing banking structure there.

Under Vermont law, Chittenden could enter Lamoille County de novo; it 

certainly possesses the resources and skills to do so. In addition to de novo

entry, Chittenden could enter Lamoille County with a less anticompetitive 

effect on potential competition by acquiring a smaller bank in the market. If 

this merger is approved, Chittenden will attain a leading position in the county, 

and the dominance of the Burlington-based banks throughout northern 

Vermont will be extended to yet another market. Moreover, the proposed 

merger would represent a substantial step toward the transfer of the extremely 

concentrated banking structure of the Burlington area to Lamoille County, a 

prosperous and growing economic area.

Viewed from a broader perspective, this merger should be considered as yet 

another step in the trend toward dominance of commercial banking in 

Vermont, particularly in northern Vermont by Chittenden and its Burlington 

rival, Howard National Bank ("Howard"). Based on figures as of June 30, 

1970, Chittenden and Howard accounted for 14 per cent and 15 per cent, 

respectively, of total commercial bank deposits in Vermont. In the sevencounty area of northwestern Vermont which includes all of Chittenden's 

branches and service areas, Chittenden and Howard account for 27 per cent 

and 22 per cent of deposits, respectively, for a total of 49 per cent.

To summarize, with offices in virtually every surrounding county and with 

its history of aggressive expansion, Chittenden must be considered to be a 

highly significant potential entrant into this attractive banking market. Chittenden's entry via merger would, therefore, remove one of only two or three 

serious potential entrants. At the same time, in view of Lamoille Bank's expansive policies (it has three offices, the most recent of which was opened only 

this year) and leading position in the Lamoille County market, the removal of 

Lamoille Bank as an existing competitor will seriously affect potential competition in Lamoille County and the surrounding area.

In view of the existing two-bank dominance of commercial banking in 

northern Vermont, the leading position which the resulting bank would attain 

in Lamoille County, and the elimination of existing and potentially increasing 

competition between the merging banks, we conclude that the proposed merger would have a significantly adverse effect upon competition.

Basis for Corporation denial, June 13, 1972

Chittenden Trust Company, Burlington, Vermont ("Chittenden Trust"), a 

State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $175,027,000 and total 

IPC deposits of $122,106,000, has applied, pursuant to Section 18(c) and 

other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for the Corporation's 

prior consent to merge with Lamoille County Bank, Hyde Park, Vermont 

("County Bank"), with total resources of $17,202,000 and total IPC deposits 

of $14,784,000. The banks would merge under the charter and title of Chittenden Trust and, as an incident to the merger, the three offices of County Bank 

would become branches of the resulting bank, increasing the number of its 

authorized offices to 23.

Competition. Chittenden Trust operates 16 offices in northern Vermont,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
190 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

eight of which are in Chittenden County (population 99,131, up 33.2 percent 

since 1960), where the bank maintains its headquarters. Two branches are 

located in Addison County (population 24,266, up 20.9 percent since 1960), 

two in Washington County (population 47,659, up 11.2 percent since 1960), 

two in Orleans County (population 20,153, unchanged since 1960), and one 

each in Grand Isle County (population 3,574, up 22.1 percent since 1960) and 

Franklin County (population 31,282, up 6.1 percent since 1960). Chittenden 

Trust also has regulatory approvals for four additional branches: two in 

Chittenden County, one in Orleans County, and one in Washington County. 

Franklin and Grand Isle Counties adjoin Chittenden County to the north along 

the Canadian border, while Addison County adjoins Chittenden County to the 

south. Orleans County lies east of Franklin County and is also along the Canadian border. Lamoille and Washington Counties adjoin Chittenden County to 

the east and are immediately south of Franklin and Orleans Counties. Chittenden Trust has no office in Lamoille County, where all of County Bank's offices 

are located. Chittenden Trust is the largest commercial bank in Vermont, with 

16.0 percent of the total deposits held by such banks.

County Bank operates its main office in Hyde Park and two branches in 

Stowe and Morristown, all in Lamoille County (population 13,309, up 20.7 

percent since 1960). It is the largest commercial bank in that county, with 43.9 

percent of the commercial bank deposits held at all commercial bank offices in 

the county as of June 30, 1970. County Bank is an aggressive, profitable, and 

growing bank which derives almost one-third of its total deposits from outside 

Lamoille County. It is the 16th largest of 41 commercial banks in the State of 

Vermont, with approximately 1.6 percent of the State's total commercial bank 

deposits.

The State of Vermont is largely rural, but it is changing. Manufacturing 

activity is on the rise and tourism and recreation are significant in the State's 

economy. Lamoille County's economy is dominated by the growing ski and 

summer tourist industry, particularly around the Stowe area.

The closest offices of the two banks are about 22 miles apart, but good 

roads in the area contribute to the mobility of the population, and there 

appears to be some overlapping of service areas. Although Chittenden Trust 

derives only a relatively small amount of business from Lamoille County (most 

of it from large commercial borrowers whose needs exceed the lending limits of 

local banks), County Bank as of June 30, 1971, derived $1.8 million, or 12.8 

percent , of its total deposits and approximately $628,429, or 5.5 percent, of 

its loans from Chittenden, Franklin, Orleans, and Washington Counties, each of 

which has at least one office of Chittenden Trust. The proposed merger would 

eliminate this limited existing competition between the two banks.

Vermont law allows statewide branching and merging, but the potential for 

increased competition between Chittenden Trust and County Bank in the fu ­

ture through de novo branching appears limited. County Bank has never attempted to open de novo offices outside of Lamoille County, and it lacks the 

resources and incentive to branch de novo into other areas of the State where 

much larger banks already compete. Although Lamoille County is growing 

rapidly in percentage terms, only 2,282 new residents were added between 

1960 and 1970, and the county currently has a population per commercial 

bank office of only 1,663. The number of additional year-round residents and 

the population per commercial bank office, however, do not tell the full story. 

Digitized for FRASER 

Because of the growing importance of recreation, tourism, and second homes

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 191

in the area, total IPC deposits at Lamoille County commercial banks have been 

increasing rapidly in the past few years, being 18.1 percent greater in June 

1970 than they were in June 1968 and 28.7 percent greater in December 1971 

than they were 18 months earlier. To the extent this deposit potential, as 

distinct from any limited increase in year-round population, attracts additional 

commercial bank offices, Chittenden Trust must be considered the most likely 

entrant among a number of outside banks because it is the largest bank in the 

State and has made clear its desire to concentrate on northern Vermont business. Such entry, while not immediately likely, appears to be a distinct possibility in the years ahead.

The fact that Chittenden Trust already controls such a large percentage of 

the commercial bank resources of northern Vermont presents the most d ifficult aspect of the merger proposed, since the bank it seeks to acquire is a 

significant independent bank also located in this same area. Two-thirds of the 

State's population live in the 10-county area of Vermont north of Rutland and 

Windsor Counties, and most of the State's industrial activity takes place in the 

same area. Chittenden Trust, as previously noted, is the largest commercial 

bank in the State, with 16.0 percent of statewide deposits at year-end 1971— a 

percentage which has been growing steadily (without benefit of mergers) over 

the 18 months since June 1970, when its deposits represented 14.1 percent of 

all commercial bank deposits in Vermont. Since the bank has no offices in the 

southern half of Vermont and no offices in four of the 10 counties in northern 

Vermont, these statewide figures substantially understate Chittenden Trust's 

competitive position in the six counties of northern Vermont where it does 

have offices. In those six counties, Chittenden Trust held 28.6 percent of all 

commercial bank deposits as of June 30, 1970, the date of the Corporation's 

last Survey of Deposits. In the 10-county area which constitutes northern 

Vermont, an area which includes Lamoille County, Chittenden Trust had 23.3 

percent of all commercial bank deposits as of the same date, a figure which 

would be increased to 25.8 percent if the proposed merger is consummated.

The proposed merger, accordingly, would significantly increase Chittenden 

Trust's lead over its other competitors in northern Vermont, and add substantially to the concentration of commercial banking resources in a 10-county 

area of the State where the two largest commercial banks in Burlington already 

control approximately 42.4 percent of all commercial bank deposits and 36.1 

percent of all commercial bank offices. The merger would also have the effect 

of foreclosing County Bank's possible acquisition by a southern Vermont bank 

or by some significantly less dominant bank in northern Vermont, thereby 

providing the lead banks in Burlington with effective new competition in an 

area they presently dominate. Instead of encouraging a greater degree of public 

choice through such new competition, approval of the proposed merger might 

well tend to restrict the banking alternatives available to the public over the 

course of time by affirmatively encouraging other mergers on the part of the 

two largest Burlington banks in each of the northern Vermont counties where 

they have no offices today. In such event, northern Vermont residents and 

businessmen would be faced with the same alternatives for many commercial 

bank services in whichever direction they turned.

In view of the above, it appears to the Corporation that the proposed 

merger would (i) eliminate some existing competition and some potential for 

increased competition in the future between the two banks, (ii) add signifiDigitized for FRASER 

cantly to Chittenden Trust's lead over competing institutions in northern

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
192 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Vermont, (iii) increase substantially the concentration of commercial bank 

resources in northern Vermont and encourage the further concentration of 

such resources, and (iv) foreclose the possibility that significant new competition could arise in northern Vermont by the merger of County Bank with a 

southern Vermont bank or some less dominant bank already operating in 

northern Vermont.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Both banks have 

satisfactory financial and managerial resources for the business they do as 

independent institutions, and both have satisfactory prospects for the future. 

The same would be true of the resulting bank if the merger were to be approved. Although it is claimed that County Bank faces an impending management succession problem, this claim appears to have little merit in view of the 

age, competence, and the management experience of its present executive vice 

president. A different and less anticompetitive merger, moreover, could also 

resolve the problem if, as, and when it actually arises. The banking factors, 

accordingly, are considered to weigh neither in favor of nor against the merger 

proposed.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Chittenden Trust 

customers would be largely unaffected by the proposed merger, although a few 

large borrowers might derive a marginal benefit from the increase in the resulting bank's normal lending lim it from $1,750,270 to $1,922,290. In Lamoille 

County, businessmen and municipalities and local residents interested in a 

full-service trust department might normally expect greater convenience in 

doing business locally rather than in Burlington with the State's largest bank, 

but it is unclear from the application whether these services would in fact be 

offered locally since the demand in Lamoille County for such services appears 

to be limited. If specialized services, post-merger, were only available at 

Burlington offices of Chittenden Trust, no significant benefits at all would 

result from the merger. In fact, for some County Bank customers, the merger 

would have adverse effects since Chittenden Trust tends to have higher service 

charges than County Bank, while rates paid on deposits under $100,000 are the 

same at both banks. Furthermore, to the extent there is a local demand for a 

broader range of banking services, the same range of services could undoubtedly be achieved by some different, and less anticompetitive, merger. Considerations of convenience and needs, therefore, like the banking factors, weigh 

neither in favor of nor against the merger proposed.

Since the anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger are not, in the 

opinion of the Board of Directors, clearly outweighed by other factors, the 

Corporation has concluded that the proposed merger of Chittenden Trust and 

County Bank should be denied.

Resou rces 

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs )

B a n kin g O ffic e s

I n

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

The Pennsylvania Bank and Trust Company

Titusville, Pennsylvania

186,168 16

to merge with

Union Bank & Trust Co., Erie

Erie

98,650 9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 193

Summary report by Attorney General, July 20, 1971

The proposed merger would combine the fourth leading bank in Erie 

County (Union Bank) with the leading bank in adjacent Crawford County.

It would eliminate direct competition between Union Bank and Pennsylvania Bank's two offices in Erie County. Each operates an office in Union 

City (population 4,000) in the southeastern part of Erie County, about 20 

miles from the City of Erie. These offices are across the street from one 

another and it is clear that the proposed merger would eliminate substantial 

direct competition between the merging banks in this area. Pennsylvania Bank 

operates its other Erie County office in Wattsburg, about nine miles from 

Union City and 15 miles from the City of Erie, where the remainder of Union 

Bank's offices are located.

No other banking alternatives presently exist in Union City, although the 

application indicates that Marine National Bank, headquartered in Crawford 

County, and holding a strong position in Erie County, is seeking to establish a 

new branch in that town. However, Marine National Bank is already among the 

closest alternatives for residents of the Union City area although its offices in 

Corry and Edinboro are about 12 and 20 miles distant. Wattsburg, where 

Pennsylvania Bank operates the only banking office, is one of the closest 

communities to Union City.

Concentration is high in Erie County. As of June 30, 1970, its four leading 

banks held about 92.3 per cent of total commercial bank deposits in the 

county, and about 93.3 per cent of its total IPC demand deposits. Union Bank 

held the fourth leading share, with 15.4 per cent of total deposits and 12.6 per 

cent of IPC demand deposits. Pennsylvania Bank held about 1.6 per cent of 

total deposits and 1.4 per cent of IPC demand deposits. If the proposed merger 

is approved, the shares of the four county leaders will increase to about 93.9 

per cent of total deposits and 94.6 per cent of IPC demand deposits.

Pennsylvania law permits commercial banks to operate branches only in the 

county in which they are headquartered and counties contiguous thereto. Erie 

County is isolated in the far northwest corner of the state, and therefore, only 

banks headquartered in two counties (Crawford and Warren) can in fact enter 

the county. Pennsylvania Bank could be permitted to open additional offices in 

the City of Erie and elsewhere in Erie County, and is by far the largest bank 

eligible to do so that does not already compete vigorously in the City of Erie 

and throughout the county. Only one other bank, headquartered in Warren 

County, appears capable of entering this market in a significant manner. We 

recognize that the City of Erie has declined in population in recent years; 

however, the county population has increased by about 5.5 per cent in the past 

decade. Moreover, the absence of any other meaningful potential entrants 

renders significant the loss of Pennsylvania Bank as a potential new competitive 

force in this area either by de novo branching or by a smaller "foothold" 

acquisition.

While not one of the very largest banks in this region, Union Bank is of such 

a size as to be considered a significant potential competitor beyond the limits 

of its home Erie County. In fact, it is the third largest bank legally eligible to 

establish branches in Crawford County which does not already operate banking 

offices there. Concentration is also high in Crawford County (population 

78,000). Pennsylvania Bank holds the leading share of total county deposits 

(46.5 per cent) and the leading share of total county IPC demand deposits

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
194 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

(45.8 per cent). The four leading banks in the county hold about 94 per cent 

of each type of deposits.

The proposed merger would eliminate direct competition in Erie County, 

particularly in the Union City area, and would substantially lessen any possibility of an additional competitive force into the City of Erie or elsewhere in 

populous Erie County. It would also adversely affect the development of a 

competitive regional bank structure in northwestern Pennsylvania by combining one of the very few reasonably large and still locally oriented banks in 

the area into a very large regional bank. We conclude that the overall effect of 

the proposed merger on competition would be significantly adverse.

Basis for Corporation denial, July 14, 1972

The Pennsylvania Bank and Trust Company, Titusville, Pennsylvania 

("Titusville Bank"), an insured State nonmember bank with total resources of 

$186,168,000 and total IPC deposits of $147,415,000, has applied, pursuant 

to Section 18(c) and other provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, for 

the Corporation's prior consent to merge with Union Bank & Trust Co., Erie, 

Erie, Pennsylvania ("Union Bank"), which has total resources of $98,650,000 

and total IPC deposits of $84,739,000, under the charter and title of Titusville 

Bank. The nine offices of Union Bank would become branches of Titusville 

Bank, increasing the number of its offices to a total of 25, subject to the 

possible divestiture of Union Bank's office in Union City, which is discussed 

below.

Competition. Titusville Bank maintains a total of 16 offices: five in 

C ra w fo rd C o u n ty (1970 p o p u la tio n 81,342, up 4.3 p e rce n t since 1 960), tw o in 

Erie County (1970 population 263,654, up 5.2 percent since 1960), four in 

Venango County (1970 population 62,353, down 4.5 percent since 1960), and 

five in Warren County (1970 population 47,682, up 4.6 percent since 1960). 

These offices are scattered throughout this northwestern Pennsylvania area, but 

most are in or around Titusville (1970 population 7,331), Warren (1970 population 12,998), Oil City and Franklin (combined 1970 population 23,662), 

Meadville (1970 population 16,573), and Union City (1970 population 3,631). 

The economies of these areas range from steel manufacturing, oil production, 

and strip mining, to dairy farming, light industry, and pure residential. Under 

Pennsylvania law, Titusville Bank may also establish branches in Mercer County, but it has no office in that county at the present time.

Union Bank operates all of its nine offices within Erie County. Eight of 

these offices are located in the city of Erie (population 129,231, down 6.7 

percent since 1960), and one is located in Union City (population 3,631, down

4.9 percent since 1960), a community which is located about 23 miles southeast of the city of Erie. About 6.9 percent of Union Bank's deposits are held in 

its Union City office.

The proposed merger would have its most direct and immediate impact in 

the area approximated by Erie County. However, a broader area, that is, the 

five-county area within which the resulting bank could establish branches 

under Pennsylvania law, is also a relevant geographic area for purposes of 

assessing the impact of the proposed merger on future commercial bank competition in this section of northwestern Pennsylvania. This area includes the 

four counties in which Titusville Bank presently maintains offices, as well as 

Mercer County.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 195

Union Bank is a significant competitor in the Erie County market. It is the 

fifth largest of eight commercial banks, but it held the fourth largest share of 

commercial bank deposits held at Erie County offices on June 30, 1970, with 

16.3 percent of their total IPC deposits. * It, together with the three banks with 

larger deposit shares, controlled 92.1 percent of Erie County IPC deposits on 

the same date, a statistic which indicates the highly concentrated nature of 

commercial banking in this populous county. Titusville Bank also operates two 

offices in Erie County. One is a small facility in Wattsburg (1970 population 

453) about 16 miles southeast of the city of Erie and one is a full-service 

branch in Union City. Its Union City office is located directly across the street 

from Union Bank's office, and its Wattsburg office is only 8 miles to the north 

of Union City. These two offices are the closest commercial bank facilities to 

Union Bank's branch in Union City, but they account for only 1.7 percent of 

the total IPC deposits held at commercial bank offices in Erie County. The 

proposed merger would, accordingly, eliminate some existing competition between the merging banks and would increase the share of IPC deposits held by 

the four dominant banks in Erie County by 1.7 percent.

In an effort to meet part of the obvious competitive problems posed by the 

presence of Titusville Bank in the Erie County market and, in particular, by the 

proximity of the three offices which the two merging banks have in the Union 

City area, Titusville Bank has indicated a willingness to sell the physical facilities of Union Bank's office in Union City to another bank in order to retain 

some public choice of alternative banking sources in the area. Such a sale, 

however, particularly if it occurs without the simultaneous sale of the facility's 

deposit and loan business, would still eliminate some existing competition 

between the two banks and give to Titusville Bank— at least initially— all of 

Union Bank's deposit and loan business in the Union City area as well as in the 

county at large.**

Under Pennsylvania law, commercial banks may branch within their headquarters county and within any contiguous county. Union Bank, therefore, has 

legal capacity to establish de novo branches in, or merge with banks headquartered in, Crawford and Warren Counties as well as Erie County, even 

though it has confined its expansion activities to date to the latter county. 

Similarly, Titusville Bank has legal capacity to expand in Erie, Warren, Venango, and Mercer Counties, as well as Crawford County, and has done so in all 

except Mercer.

Of the areas open to Titusville Bank for de novo expansion, Erie County 

and specifically the city of Erie appear to be among the most attractive. The 

obvious effect of such expansion would be to increase Titusville Bank's representation in the market and increase competition with Union Bank. However, Titusville Bank claims that entry by de novo branching, particularly into 

the city of Erie and the immediate environs where Union Bank has eight of its 

offices and 93.1 percent of its IPC deposits, is not economically feasible and is

* A II deposit shares in this Basis are as of June 30, 1970, unless otherwise stated.

* * A subsequent o ffe r made by T itusville Bank to selected banks in Mercer C oun ty w o u ld 

have "sw eetened" this proposal by including the transfer o f up to $12 m illio n in deposits, one T itu sville Bank o ffice in C raw ford C ou n ty, and one or tw o U nion Bank 

offices in the c ity of Erie as well as the latter's U nion C ity office . The origin o f the 

deposits to be transferred, however, is no t clear fro m the record.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
196 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

too remote a possibility to be a significant factor weighing against the proposed 

merger. The Corporation disagrees with both the applicant's analysis and its 

conclusions.

The application itself points out, for example, that Erie County has almost 

500 industrial plants employing more than 43,556 workers. The value of goods 

produced exceeds $1 billion, and the county's industrial base is expanding at a 

faster rate than any of the areas now being served by Titusville Bank. Not only 

is Erie County three time more populous than Titusville Bank's headquarters 

county, its population grew at a faster rate during the 1960s than did any of 

the other four counties available to that bank for future expansion. Year-round 

recreational activities are growing and so is total employment in services related 

to the county's industrial base. Even more importantly, starting from a base of 

$350 million, total deposits in commercial bank offices in Erie County grew 

more than $130 million between June 30, 1966, and June 30, 1970. This 

figure far exceeds the deposit growth in any of the other four counties open to 

Titusville Bank. Income levels per household are significantly higher in Erie 

County than in every one of the other four counties except Warren.

Looking specifically at the city of Erie, it is the third largest city in Pennsylvania and the only community in Erie County with more than 7,500 persons. It has Pennsylvania's only natural harbor and is the center of the county's 

commercial and industrial activity. Four banks maintain offices in the city of 

Erie, of which Union Bank is the smallest. Its larger competitors are: The First 

National Bank of Pennsylvania, a $306 million institution; Security-Peoples 

Trust Company, a $171 million institution; and Marine National Bank, a $167 

million institution. A t the end of June 1972, the four banks together had 21 

offices in the city of Erie, resulting in a population for each commercial bank 

office higher (at 6,154 persons) than the population for each commercial bank 

office in the rest of the five-county area in which Titusville Bank can legally 

branch (the figure being 4,073 persons per office in the rest of Erie County, 

5,423 persons per office in Crawford County, 4,157 persons per office in 

Venango County, 3,974 persons per office in Warren County, and 3,854 persons per office in Mercer County).*

In addition, comparison of the average deposits per office indicates that 

there would be greater potential for a de novo office to attract deposits in the 

city of Erie than in the other four counties in which Titusville Bank could 

branch or in the rest of Erie County. The deposits per office for the city of 

Erie as of June 30, 1970, were $17.9 million, as compared with 4.5 million for 

the other portions of Erie County, $6.8 million for Mercer County, $9.8 

million for Crawford County, $7.7 million for Venango County, and $7.8 

million for Warren County. Not only does there appear to be an economic base 

to support additional de novo branching in the city of Erie, this judgment has 

been confirmed by the recent de novo branch activity of the two largest banks 

in the city, which between them have opened four de novo offices within the 

city limits in the last 2 years. Six de novo offices have also been opened

*W hile statewide figures of p o pulation per o ffice have lim ite d relevance w ith o u t additional 

econom ic in fo rm a tio n , it is noted th a t the p o pulation per com m ercial bank o ffice in the 

c ity o f Erie is substantially higher than fo r Pennsylvania as a w hole (5,373 persons) and 

exceeds the corresponding figure in 37 other States as w ell. The p o pulation per com ­

mercial bank o ffice fo r the 50 States ranges fro m a low o f 2,570 persons in S outh Dakota 

to a high o f 12,810 in Florida.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 197

elsewhere in Erie County in the same period, as contrasted with one each in 

Mercer and Warren County, none in Crawford County and two in Venango 

County.

There can be little doubt, moreover, that Titusville Bank has the financial 

and managerial resources needed for successful de novo branching. Titusville 

Bank is a $186 million institution with strong management and an impressive 

earnings performance. It is second only in size to The First National Bank of 

Pennsylvania in the five-county area in which it can branch. It is much larger 

than numerous smaller banks that have successfully opened de novo branches. 

Only two banks of significant size which are not presently represented in the 

city of Erie have existing legal capacity to enter that city on a de novo basis. Of 

the two, Titusville Bank is larger than the $121 million Warren National Bank. 

Three other banks of significant size that are currently headquartered in 

Venango or Mercer County could acquire this same capacity by moving their 

main offices to Crawford (or Warren) County: the $175 million Northwest 

Pennsylvania Bank & Trust Co., Oil City, the $100 million McDowell National 

Bank, Sharon, and the $76 million First National Bank of Mercer County, 

Greenville (the first-named bank would, however, be required to divest four 

existing branches in Clarion County). Again, Titusville Bank is larger than any 

of these potential de novo entrants, and its options for future expansion are 

extremely limited if it refuses to consider de novo branching in Erie County— a 

compelling incentive to undertake such de novo expansion if the merger 

currently proposed is denied.*

The Corporation has carefully reviewed Titusville Bank's efforts to demonstrate, through its offer to divest up to $12 million in deposits, a Union City 

branch, one or two branches in the city of Erie, and one of its own branches in 

Crawford County to a Mercer County institution, that de novo branching or a 

foothold entry into Erie County or the city of Erie is not attractive to banks 

not presently represented there, including itself. However, the Corporation 

considers the offer m ade by T itu s v ille B ank to these two m uch sm aller banks in 

Mercer County of limited attractiveness since Titusville Bank would have retained the bulk of Union Bank's offices and deposits in Erie County and since 

each of the banks to whom the offer was made would have faced one or more 

much larger banks in each location where a branch might have been spun off. 

Moreover, neither of the banks solicited ruled out the possibility that it might 

be interested in merging with Union Bank if the proposed merger were to be 

denied. While expansion within the market, and particularly in the city of Erie, 

by means of the proposed merger would no doubt be easier and possibly more 

economical for Titusville Bank, the Corporation is not convinced on the basis 

of the objective criteria that further de novo branching by Titusville Bank is as 

remote a possibility as the bank claims. The Corporation in fact has concluded 

that the proposed merger would eliminate a substantial probability of increased 

and significant competition between the two banks in Erie County in the

*T h e roster o f potential entrants, and the C orp ora tio n's view o f the significance of e lim inating the po tential fo r increased co m p e titio n between U nion Bank and T itusville Bank 

in Erie C oun ty through de novo branching, m ight change substantially if Pennsylvania 

law were amended to pe rm it statewide branching, merging, or holding com pany expansion, w hich the applicants suggest is a d is tin c t p o ssib ility in the near fu tu re . The C orporatio n , however, m ust deal w ith a State's branching laws as it finds them at the tim e o f 

decision.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
198 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

future.* Moreover, if the proposed merger is approved, the barriers to entry by 

smaller banks not presently represented in the market could well be raised. 

Significant opportunities to deconcentrate the highly concentrated Erie County banking market, through the entry of significant new competitors or 

through aggressive de novo expansion by Titusville Bank, would then be lost.

The Corporation considers such entry and expansion to be desirable for two 

reasons: first, because of the limited number of banking alternatives available 

today to the 129,231 residents of the city of Erie and the 92 percent control 

which the four banks operating in that city have of the total banking resources 

of a populous county, and secondly, because a contrary decision would encourage a significantly greater degree of concentration in the banking resources 

of the five-county area within which Titusville Bank and its major competitors 

can branch or merge.

Within that five-county area, Titusville Bank is presently the second largest 

commercial bank in terms of local IPC deposits, holding 12.5 percent of all IPC 

deposits held at commercial bank offices in the five-county area as of June 30, 

1970.** Its acquisition of Union Bank, which held 7.1 percent of such deposits 

on the same date, would represent a significant increase in its own holdings and 

would bring its percentage share of such deposits to 19.6 percent. This in turn 

would encourage similar mergers on the part of First National Bank of Pennsylvania, with 17.1 percent of such deposits, Security-Peoples Trust Company, 

with 10.4 percent of such deposits, Northwest Pennsylvania Bank & Trust Co., 

with 10.5 percent of such deposits, and Marine National Bank, with 10.2 

percent of such deposits, in the same section of Pennsylvania.

The Board of Directors has concluded, accordingly, that approval of the 

proposed merger would (i) eliminate some existing competition between the 

banks in the Erie County market, (ii) eliminate a substantial incentive for 

Titusville Bank to expand de novo in the city of Erie and other portions of that 

market, thereby preventing the development of significant competition between the two banks in the future, increasing barriers to entry by other banks, 

preventing deconcentration of the market, and eliminating a substantial probability that the public could have more than four significant banks from which 

to choose their commercial bank services, and (iii) provide significant encouragement to similar mergers among leading banks in Erie, Crawford, Warren, 

Mercer, and Venango Counties, thereby increasing substantially the concentration of commercial bank resources in this five-county area of western 

Pennsylvania.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served. Consummation of 

the proposed merger would have no discernible effect on present or potential 

customers of Titusville Bank. It would increase the legal lending lim it available 

to Union Bank's customers from $712,600 to $2,264,200 and make available a 

few specialized services being offered by Titusville Bank but not by Union 

Bank, such as more sophisticated trust services and a bank credit card service.

* Based on a sim ilar analysis, the C orp ora tio n considers relatively u n like ly the possib ility 

th a t U nion Bank w ould enter C raw ford or Warren C oun ty by means o f de novo branching should the proposed merger be denied. However, U nion Bank's en try by merger w ith 

an in s titu tio n having at least one o ffice in either cou nty could bring the resulting bank 

in to more significant co m p e titio n w ith T itu sville Bank.

* * Percentage shares as of June 30, 1970, have been adjusted fo r subsequent mergers, if any, 

o f all six banks.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTIONS DENIED BY THE CORPORATION 199

Only the largest customers require loans in excess of $712,600, however, and 

both trust services and credit card services are offered by the three larger banks 

in Erie. The $99 million Union Bank offers most large bank services, and there 

is no evidence that essential banking requirements are going unmet today in 

Erie County. To the extent the proposed merger would stimulate competition 

by offering a limited number of services available elsewhere but not at Union 

Bank, the same benefits could be obtained for Erie residents through de novo

branching on the part of Titusville Bank. Considerations of convenience and 

need, accordingly, lend little weight to the approval of the merger proposed.

Financial and Managerial Resources; Future Prospects. Each bank has satisfactory financial and managerial resources and, as individual institutions, each 

has satisfactory prospects for the future, as would the resulting bank. Although 

Union Bank's two highest executives wish to retire during 1972, the Corporation believes that both are assisted by competent officers and that Union 

Bank's earnings, its size, and location would all permit the recruitment of 

executive talent from outside the bank should the board of directors of Union 

Bank consider this desirable.

Because the anticompetitive effects of the proposed merger are not, in the 

opinion of the Board of Directors, outweighed by any other factors, the 

Corporation has concluded that the proposed merger of Titusville Bank and 

Union Bank should be denied.

BANK ABSORPTION DENIAL AFFIRMED 

BY THE CORPORATION

R esources

(in

th o u san d s 

o f d o lla rs)

B a n kin g O ffice s

In

o p e ra tio n

T o be 

o pe ra te d

Continental Bank

Norristown, Pennsylvania

755,295 50

to merge with

Bank of Pennsylvania

Reading

261,442 22

Statement upon reconsideration, August 18, 1972

Continental Bank, Norristown, Pennsylvania ("Continental"), a State nonmember insured bank with total resources of $755,295,000 and total IPC 

deposits of $579,076,000, was denied on December 22, 1971, the Corporation's prior approval to merge with Bank of Pennsylvania, Reading, Pennsylvania, with total resources of $261,442,000 and total IPC deposits of 

$217,366,000.* Continental and Bank of Pennsylvania thereafter petitioned 

the Corporation to reconsider its original denial, and a hearing on that petition 

was held on March 24, 1972. The Corporation's Board of Directors, having 

reconsidered its earlier decision, affirms its original denial with the following 

additional statement.

* M arket share percentages are as of June 30, 1970.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
200 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Board of Directors concluded in its original decision that approval of 

the proposed merger would eliminate a significant potential for greater competition between Bank of Pennsylvania and Continental in Berks, Lehigh, 

Chester, and Montgomery Counties and would adversely affect future commercial bank competition in Lancaster and Lebanon Counties. It further concluded that these anticompetitive effects were not outweighed by the banking 

factors presented or by considerations of public convenience and needs, and 

that the application should accordingly be denied.

The applicants requested reconsideration on essentially three grounds: (1) 

that Continental has no intention, and little practical opportunity, of entering 

Berks or Lehigh Counties, where Bank of Pennsylvania has all of its offices, 

either de novo or by some alternative merger, in the reasonably foreseeable 

future— a period which it defined as extending through 1974; (2) that Bank of 

Pennsylvania similarly has no intention, and little practical opportunity of 

entering Chester or Montgomery Counties, where Continental presently has a 

total of 21 offices, either de novo or by merger, or of entering Lancaster, 

Lebanon, or Schuylkill Counties, where it would lose the right to expand if the 

proposed merger is approved, either de novo or by merger; and (3) that even if 

the Corporation were to conclude otherwise, the likely benefits to public convenience and needs of a merger between Continental and Bank of Pennsylvania 

are such as to warrant approval of the application.

The Potential for Continental's Entry into Berks and Lehigh Counties.

Berks County, which constitutes the Reading SMSA, had a 1970 population 

of 296,382 persons, representing an increase of 7.6 percent over the 1960 

population figure. By contrast, Pennsylvania as a whole had a growth rate of 

only 4.2 percent between 1960 and 1970. Berks County is the ninth most 

populous county in Pennsylvania, and the fifth most populous of the seven 

counties open for expansion to banks headquartered in Montgomery County. 

Prospects are favorable for continued economic growth. Although income 

levels per household approximate the statewide average, Berks County had the 

largest dollar amount of deposits per banking office as of June 30, 1970, of 

any of the counties in this seven-county area exclusive of Philadelphia. Its 

population for each commercial bank office approximates 5,200, but the population for each commercial bank office in the city of Reading approximates 

5,843.* De novo branching into the Reading area appears presently feasible 

and attractive, and continued growth should make feasible a limited number of 

additional de novo offices elsewhere in the county during the years ahead.

Berks County is a highly concentrated banking market, with three banks— 

one of which is Bank of Pennsylvania— holding 82.4 percent of all deposits held 

at Berks County commercial bank offices. Bank of Pennsylvania holds the 

second largest share of these local deposits and has more offices in the county 

than any other bank. It is, however, the third largest of the three in terms of 

total deposits— being substantially smaller than the $631 million-deposit 

American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa. and the $577 million-deposit National 

Central Bank. Two other large commercial banks have been authorized de novo

branches since the Corporation's original decision on this application: First

*

P opulation per com m ercial bank o ffice is based on 1970 p o pulation figures and year-end 

1971 num ber o f offices. In counties w ith con tin uing p o p ulation grow th, this com putatio n w ould tend to understate the actual figures.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B A N K ABSORPTION D E N IALS A F F IR M E D BY TH E C O R P O R ATIO N 201

Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company, Philadelphia's largest commercial 

bank, a $3.2 billion institution, and Fidelity Bank, Philadelphia's fourth largest 

commercial bank, a $1.6 billion institution. Neither is likely to have any substantial percentage of Berks County deposits for some time, but the public's 

choice among large banks for a number of banking services has been increased 

by their entry. No other commercial banks have offices in the Reading area, 

but 10 others operate elsewhere in Berks County. Most of these are one- or 

two-office banks with less than $25 million in deposits, the only exception 

being National Bank of Boyertown, a $58 million institution with five offices 

in Berks County and two in Montgomery County.

Lehigh County, where the remaining Bank of Pennsylvania offices are located has somewhat similar characteristics. It is a populous county with above 

average growth (a 12.2 percent increase in population occurred during the 

1960s), with favorable prospects for continued growth, with income levels 

somewhat above the statewide averages, and with total deposits per commercial 

bank office only slightly lower (at $12.8 million per office) than those in Berks 

and Montgomery Counties ($13.9 and $13.8 million per office, respectively). 

Its population per commercial bank office approximates 5,210 in the county as 

a whole and 5,476 in Allentown. With continued growth, the Corporation 

would anticipate a limited number of additional de novo offices, both in Allentown and elsewhere in Lehigh County during the years ahead. The Lehigh 

County banking market, like the Berks County banking market, is highly concentrated. The three banks having the most offices in the county (The First 

National Bank of Allentown, a $350 million institution, The Merchants National Bank of Allentown, a $260 million institution, and Industrial Valley 

Bank and Trust Company, a $646 million institution) held 84.5 percent of all 

deposits at Lehigh County commercial bank offices as of June 30, 1970. However, four other regional banks of substantial size also have offices in Allentown (American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa., Bank of Pennsylvania, First Valley 

Bank, a $214 million institution, and Union Bank and Trust Company of 

Eastern Pennsylvania, a $128 million institution), and the entry of three 

Philadelphia banks has recently been approved for locations elsewhere in Lehigh County (First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company, Girard Trust 

Company, and Fidelity Bank). Two smaller out-of-county banks each have one 

branch office in Lehigh County, and there are three small unit banks and one 

bank with two offices, each with total resources of $15 million or less, which 

also operate in the county.

The Corporation's original decision noted that Continental was not the 

largest Philadelphia bank able to enter Berks and Lehigh Counties de novo, but 

that in the Corporation's view it was one of the most likely entrants in view of 

its aggressive efforts in the past to expand by both de novo branching and by 

merger into counties where it was not represented. Given the highly concentrated banking markets in both Berks and Lehigh Counties, the Corporation 

made clear its belief that if the deconcentration of banking resources and 

greater public choice among alternative sources of banking service were to be 

encouraged, de novo entry by significant banks not presently represented in 

either county, or their entry by merger with much smaller local banks than 

Bank of Pennsylvania, was clearly preferable to a transaction in which one of 

the most likely entrants sought to acquire a bank with a market share as large 

as Bank of Pennsylvania held in Berks County (26.1 percent of total commercial bank IPC deposits).

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
202 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Continental disclaims any intention of entering Berks or Lehigh County by 

de novo branching, at least prior to the end of 1974, because of existing 

commitments, presently anticipated expenses, and its conviction that other 

areas, such as Bucks, Chester, and Delaware Counties, offer it more attractive 

opportunities for the limited de novo branching it may undertake during the 

intervening period. It has further expressed the view that any entry, to be 

economically worthwhile, must encompass four or five offices, some of which 

at least are in Reading, in the case of Berks County, or Allentown, in the case 

of Lehigh County. Since Continental sees no way, short of the merger proposed, by which it can achieve that degree of penetration between now and 

year-end 1974, it considers the potential for increased competition between 

the two banks in either county within the foreseeable future to be nil and 

concludes that the proposed merger, at least in this respect, cannot be considered anticompetitive. Even if the Corporation continues to disagree on this 

point, Continental notes that there are other Philadelphia banks, larger in size 

than Continental, that are more likely potential entrants into these counties 

than it is, so that any elimination of potential competition between Continental and Bank of Pennsylvania would not be significant in any event.

A bank's management can, of course, establish its own priorities as to the 

location and means by which the bank will seek to expand, but those priorities 

can well change as important circumstances change. Unforeseen business 

developments may improve significantly the desirability of one area as against 

another for new branch locations. The activities of competitors may force a 

change in previous plans. A significant improvement in the bank's profit margins may permit a more aggressive expansion program than was originally 

thought possible. Not least, the regulatory agencies may approve some branch 

applications or some merger applications but not others. For these reasons, 

among others,* the Corporation cannot give conclusive weight to Continental's present expressions of intent concerning the bank's expansion plans 

between now and the end of 1974.

Nor does the Corporation consider itself limited, under the Bank Merger 

Act, to an analysis of competitive consequences which are reasonably likely to 

be felt only within two and one-half years of decision. If, as the Corporation 

believes, the public interest is served by a significantly less concentrated banking structure and a larger number of major competitors in Berks and Lehigh 

Counties, a considerably longer time period may be necessary to achieve those 

results. As to Continental's assertion that the only "economic" entry is by 

means of four of five branches in each county, the Corporation's experience— 

and indeed the actions of Continental's Philadelphia competitors in Berks and 

Lehigh Counties— point to a different conclusion. Single de novo branches in 

the right locations can be profitable, the competitive climate can be improved, 

and the public significantly benefited.

The Corporation has previously concluded that de novo branching is presently feasible and attractive in the Reading area, and that with continued 

growth a limited number of de novo branches will be feasible elsewhere in 

Berks and Lehigh Counties. Continental, in terms of net income to total capital

*

See, fo r exam ple, The C orp ora tio n's B rief as A m icus Curiae in United States v. First

National Bancorporation, Inc., Supreme C ourt o f the U nited States, D ocket No. 71-703 

O ctober Term 1971, Part II, pp. 9-10.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTION DENIALS AFFIRMED BY THE CORPORATION 203

and net income to total assets, is one of the most profitable of Philadelphia 

banks, even though there are larger Philadelphia banks that are also potential 

entrants into Berks and Lehigh Counties. It has had successful de novo branching experience and has in the past been aggressive in its efforts to expand. 

Some of its Philadelphia competitors have already entered Berks and Lehigh 

Counties, one de novo branch at a time. Continental is clearly capable of 

similar de novo branching, either alone or supplemented by merger with much 

smaller banks outside of Reading and Allentown than Bank of Pennsylvania. 

The Corporation continues to believe that Continental is a likely entrant into 

Berks County and a possible entrant into Lehigh County, if not over the next 

two years then subsequently, and that the public interest would best be served 

by preserving this potential for greater public choice among large bank alternatives and for greater competition between Continental and Bank of Pennsylvania.

The Potential for Bank o f Pennsylvania's Entry into Montgomery, Chester,

Lancaster, Lebanon, and Schuylkill Counties.

Perhaps the most significant competitive aspect of the proposed merger 

would be the elimination of Bank of Pennsylvania as an independent competitive force in the seven-county area presently open to it for branching and 

merging under State law— that is, Berks, Lehigh, Montgomery, Chester, 

Lancaster, Lebanon, and Schuylkill Counties. Bank of Pennsylvania cannot be 

dismissed as a "small country bank." It is a $261 million institution of significant competitive capabilities, with 19 offices in Berks County and three in 

Lehigh County, favorable earnings, competent management, and a strong deposit base in its headquarters county. Except for a few specialized banking 

services of interest to only limited numbers of potential customers, Bank of 

Pennsylvania offers a complete range of banking services, including trust services, and has an unsecured lending limit of more than $1.7 million. It has 

opened six de novo branches since 1968 and was the first Reading-based bank 

to enter the neighboring Lehigh County banking market, then as now dominated by three other banks. Its rate of growth in total assets and total deposits 

since year-end 1970 has surpassed Continental's. A t the end of 1971, Pennsylvania had 447 commercial banks, but only 22 were larger than Bank of 

Pennsylvania.

In its original decision, the Corporation expressed the view that in the 

absence of this proposed merger, greater competition between Bank of Pennsylvania and Continental in Montgomery and Chester Counties would become 

increasingly likely as Bank of Pennsylvania sought additional ways to expand 

outside its headquarters county. It also expressed the view, since Bank of 

Pennsylvania would lose the legal capacity under Pennsylvania law to expand 

de novo or by merger into Lancaster, Lebanon, and Schuylkill Counties, that 

future commercial bank competition in two of those counties at least would be 

adversely affected if the proposed merger were consummated. The Corporation 

has not been persuaded to the contrary by anything presented during the 

course of reconsideration.

With the de novo entry of three large Philadelphia banks into areas presently 

served by Bank of Pennsylvania and the possibility that others might follow, it 

would be quite natural for Bank of Pennsylvania to seek out ways to improve 

its competitive position for the future. This application is undoubtedly one 

result of that search. And other moves can be expected if the proposed merger

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
204 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

is not consummated. Expansion de novo or by merger into counties like 

Lancaster, Lebanon, and Schuylkill, where the Philadelphia banks cannot fo llow under present State law, should become increasingly attractive to Bank of 

Pennsylvania. American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa., like Bank of Pennsylvania, 

headquartered in Reading, has been expanding in all three of these counties, 

and National Central Bank, the third of the three dominant Berks County 

banks, is well represented in Lancaster, its headquarters county, where it has 

the largest share of the county's commercial bank deposits. In addition, Bank 

of Pennsylvania might have to reconsider its reluctance to enter the fast growing and relatively affluent counties of Montgomery and Chester, even though 

both counties are open to de novo branching and merging by Philadelphia 

banks.

The Corporation, in its original decision, did not lim it its consideration of 

Bank of Pennsylvania's expansion possibilities in these five counties to de novo

branching but explicitly included expansion by merger. The applicants have 

properly pointed out upon reconsideration that de novo branching by Bank of 

Pennsylvania into Schuylkill and Lebanon Counties appears so unlikely as not 

to warrant serious consideration. Schuylkill County in fact lost population 

during the 1960s, its income levels are well below the statewide average, its 

economic prospects are poor, and the present population per commercial bank 

office is the lowest (approximately 3,201 persons) of all five counties in question. Lebanon County had a growth rate of 9.7 percent during the 1960s, but 

it is the smallest of the seven counties in which Bank of Pennsylvania can 

expand, and the growth amounted to less than 900 persons annually. Income 

levels approximate the statewide average, but there is already one commercial 

bank office for every 3,833 people. The dollar amount of deposits for each 

commercial bank office in both counties is relatively low. Prospects for de

novo branching are somewhat brighter in Lancaster, Chester, and Montgomery 

Counties, particularly if the growth trends of the 1960s continue. During that 

decade, Lancaster's population grew by more than 41,000 persons, Chester's 

by more than 67,000 persons, and Montgomery's by more than 107,000 persons. Income levels in Lancaster County approximate the statewide average, 

while those in Chester and Montgomery Counties are substantially above the 

statewide average. Lancaster County's population per office approximates 

4,995 persons, Chester County's 5,566 persons, and Montgomery County's 

4,520. The average dollar amount of deposits held by each commercial bank 

office in Montgomery County ($13.8 million) is especially impressive. In all 

three counties, there should be room for additional de novo branches in the 

future if population growth and favorable economic trends continue. The 

Corporation would not consider Bank of Pennsylvania, however, to be one of 

the banks most likely to branch de novo into Chester or Montgomery Counties 

without some prior entry by merger in view of the number of larger banks 

already represented in both counties. In Lancaster County, with or without a 

prior merger, Bank of Pennsylvania is the largest potential entrant and de novo

branching, at least into the city of Lancaster, appears feasible and reasonably 

attractive even at the present time.

However limited the possibilities are of Bank of Pennsylvania's entry into 

these five counties by de novo branching, the claim that it has few, if any, 

merger possibilities by which to enter is untenable. Eliminating (i) present 

competitors of Bank of Pennsylvania, (ii) all Philadelphia banks and (iii)those

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BANK ABSORPTION DENIALS AFFIRMED BY THE CORPORATION 205

banks which would require a divestiture of one or more offices if Bank of 

Pennsylvania were to merge with them, there would remain: 12 banks headquartered in Schuylkill County, with from one to four offices and up to $20 

million in deposits, that are possible merger partners for Bank of Pennsylvania; 

eight banks headquartered in Lebanon County, with from one to eight offices 

and up to $68 million in deposits; 14 banks headquartered in Lancaster County, with from one to eight offices and up to $93 million in deposits; seven 

banks headquartered in Chester County, with from one to four offices and up 

to $36 million in deposits; and four banks in Montgomery County, with from 

one to seven offices and up to $40 million in deposits. The applicants have 

offered no convincing evidence that Bank of Pennsylvania, from among these 

merger possibilities, cannot maintain and improve its competitive position 

vis-a-vis the Philadelphia banks now entering or likely in the future to enter 

Berks and Lehigh Counties.

The Corporation considers Bank of Pennsylvania's entry into Schuylkill, 

Lebanon, Lancaster, and Chester Counties by merger, if not by de novo

branching, to be particularly desirable in view of the limited number of large 

banks presently operating in each county (there are only two banks with more 

than $100 million in deposits operating in Schuylkill and Lebanon Counties 

today, five in Lancaster County, and seven in Chester County).

The proposed merger would eliminate the likely emergence of Bank of 

Pennsylvania as a strong, independent regional bank capable of bringing new 

competition through a series of alternative mergers if not de novo branching to 

Schuylkill, Lebanon, Lancaster, Chester, and possibly Montgomery Counties. 

In the last two counties, as well as in Berks and Lehigh Counties, such an 

independent regional bank would be competing with the large Philadelphia 

banks that had offices there, including Continental in at least two of those 

counties.

For the reasons stated, the Corporation continues to believe that the proposed merger would eliminate a significant potential for greater competition 

between Bank of Pennsylvania and Continental in Berks, Lehigh, Chester, and 

Montgomery Counties and would adversely affect future commercial bank 

competition in Lancaster, Lebanon, and Schuylkill Counties. The Corporation 

concludes, accordingly, that the proposed merger may substantially lessen competition in these seven counties of Pennsylvania and concludes further that it 

should not be approved under the Bank Merger Act— regardless of its status 

under Section 7 of the Clayton Act— unless the Corporation finds further that 

these potential anticompetitive effects are outweighed in the public interest by 

considerations of convenience and needs or relevant banking factors.

Convenience and Needs o f the Community to be Served; Financial and

Managerial Resources; and Future Prospects.

The Corporation has again reviewed the convenience and needs factor and 

the banking factors, adheres to its original conclusions on these points, and 

finds nothing in the record to warrant a conclusion that the proposed merger 

would result in the realization of significant public benefits under these factors. 

Moreover, even if significant benefits for the average bank customer could be 

identified, there is no basis in the record for concluding that the public cannot 

obtain such benefits from other sources at the present time or that the same 

benefits could not be achieved through other, less anticompetitive means.

Based on all of the foregoing and on the record before it, the Corporation's

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
206 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Board of Directors again concludes that approval of the proposed merger of 

Bank of Pennsylvania into Continental Bank is not warranted, and should 

accordingly be denied.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS

PART THREE

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
209

FEDERAL LEGISLATION - 1972

Federal Election Campaign Act. The Federal Election Campaign 

Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-225; 86 Stat. 3), approved by the 

President on February 7, 1972, prescribes new rules governing the 

manner in which campaigns for Federal offices may be financed. 

Included in the Act's provisions is an amendment to section 610 of 

title 18, United States Code, authorizing both national and State 

banks to make loans to political candidates and their campaign 

committees in accordance with the applicable banking laws and 

regulations and in the ordinary course of business.

Before the amendment, section 610 of title 18 had prohibited 

national banks and corporations from making "contributions" or 

"expenditures" (both of which terms were defined in such a 

manner as to include loans) in connection with elections involving a 

national office. The term "corporation," as used in the section, had 

been interpreted to include State member and insured State nonmember banks.

RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STATEMENTS 

OF GENERAL POLICY

Revised Statement of Policy regarding nondiscrimination requirements in residential lending. Section 805 of the Civil Rights Act of 

1968 (42 U.S.C. 3605) stipulates certain nondiscrimination requirements for any bank, building and loan association, insurance 

company, or other corporation or enterprise whose business consists in whole or in part of making real estate loans. This section 

makes it unlawful for these institutions to deny a loan or other 

financial assistance for the purpose of purchasing, constructing, 

repairing or maintaining a dwelling, or to discriminate in fixing the 

amount, interest rate, duration, or other terms and conditions of 

the agreement, because of the loan applicant's race, color, religion, 

or national origin.

On December 17, 1971, the Board of Directors adopted certain 

minimum procedures, applicable after March 1, 1972, to be fo llowed by all financial institutions subject to the Corporation's 

supervisory authority. These procedures recognized the fact that 

increased public awareness of nondiscrimination requirements and 

the availability of complaint procedures are necessary for effective 

implementation of the Civil Rights Act's requirements imposed on 

financial institutions.

The statement of policy issued on December 17 directed every 

insured State nonmember bank which directly, or through third 

parties, engages in any form of advertising of real estate lending

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
210 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

services to indicate prominently, in a manner appropriate to the 

advertising media and format utilized, that the bank makes real 

estate loans without regard to race, color, religion, or national 

origin. It also required written advertisements relating to real estate 

lending services to include a facsimile of a prescribed logotype in 

order to increase public recognition of the nondiscrimination 

requirements and guarantees of section 805 of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1968.

Finally, the statement of policy directed every bank to which it 

applied to display conspicuously, in the public lobby of each of its 

offices, a notice that incorporates a facsimile of the prescribed logotype and that attests to the bank's policy of compliance with the 

nondiscrimination requirements. The notice must include the 

address of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as 

the agency to be notified concerning any complaint alleging a violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of section 805.

On April 25, 1972, the Board of Directors issued an amended 

statement of policy which deferred the effective date of the nondiscrimination requirements from March 1 to May 1, 1972, and which 

prescribed a redesigned logotype and lobby poster. The amended 

statement of policy applies to “ advertising of loans for the purpose 

of purchasing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling'' 

rather than, as did the original statement, to "advertising of real 

estate lending services." Moreover, the statement requires the 

redesigned lobby poster to be displayed in the public lobby of each 

floor where deposits are received and in the public area of each 

office where the loans are made, in a manner so as to be clearly 

visible to the general public entering the lobby or area.

Methods of computing and advertising interest on time and 

savings deposits. Effective May 20, 1972, the Board of Directors 

adopted amendments to sections 329.3 and 329.8 of the Corporation's rules and regulations (12 CFR 329.3, 329.8). The principal 

effect of the amendments is to authorize the use of a 360-day basis 

in computing and advertising interest on time and savings deposits 

of any maturity.

The amendments require insured State nonmember banks, in 

computing interest on time and savings deposits, to express the time 

factor as a fraction in which the actual number of days the funds 

earn interest is the numerator and the denominator is either 360, 

365, or, in a leap year, 366. However, when a deposit matures in 

one month, or multiples thereof, the bank may use 30 days, or 

corresponding multiples thereof, in the numerator.

The amendments also require insured State nonmember banks 

that advertise a percentage yield achieved by compounding interest 

during 1 year to state the annual rate of simple interest with equal 

prominence, together with a reference as to the basis of compoundDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CORPORATION 211

ing. They prohibit insured nonmember banks from advertising a 

percentage yield based on the effect of grace periods otherwise 

permitted by Part 329 of the Corporation's rules and regulations 

(12CFR Part 329).

Simultaneously, the Board of Directors issued an interpretation 

which indicates that an insured nonmember bank may use the 

360-day basis in compounding interest, irrespective of the basis of 

compounding.

Statement of Policy and guidelines for investments in "Leeway 

Securities" for insured State nonmember banks. On August 11, 

1972, the Corporation announced an adjustment in its examination 

policies regarding investments in "leeway securities" by banks 

under its supervision. The Corporation's action is designed to 

encourage the banks to invest in the securities of corporations 

which are engaged in providing capital to minority business enterprises, securities of foreign governments, or the securities of corporations which are not merely private and entrepreneurial but the 

objectives and purposes of which are primarily of a civic or community nature, or seem socially desirable to a bank's board of directors 

or trustees, and whose risk as a bank investment may seem greater 

than normal.

Under the terms of the statement of policy, an insured State 

nonmember bank which desires to invest in equity or capital debt 

securities (excluding direct loans or discounts) of the corporations 

or foreign governments may now do so without fear of criticism by 

the Corporation or its examiners if certain conditions are met. 

These conditions are: (1) applicable State laws permit the investments for State nonmember banks; (2) the investments are not in 

conflict with the Voluntary Foreign Credit Restraint guidelines 

promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System; (3) the aggregate total of all the investments does not 

exceed the amount authorized by applicable State law or 10 percent of the bank's total capital or surplus accounts, exclusive of 

capital notes and debentures, whichever is less; and (4) all the 

investments have been approved by the bank's board of directors or 

trustees as "leeway securities" and are so identified on the bank's 

general or subsidiary ledger records.

In issuing the statement of policy, the Board of Directors 

acknowledged the fact that the Corporation's previous examination 

policies, which had included examiners' criticism of bank investments in equity securities or other securities not of Group I or 

"investment grade," may have inhibited insured State nonmember 

banks from participating effectively in the broad social movements 

that have occurred in the country during the past decade. The 

Board made particular reference to the fact that its previous policies 

may have impeded those banks which feel a strong sense of responDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
212 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

sibility from providing limited financial assistance, under the 

circumstances described, through investments in (1) the capital 

stock of Minbank Capital Corporation, a closed-end investment 

company whose primary objective is to make capital funds available 

to qualifying minority-owned banks; (2) the debt securities associated with community rehabilitation or development corporations 

which, while lacking qualitative elements of "investment" grade 

securities, are regarded by knowledgeable bankers as "tolerable" 

risks to depository financial institutions on a restricted and controlled basis; and (3) the securities of a foreign government, particularly among the new emerging nations, which not only suffer from 

liquidity imperfections arising from limitations on transfer and 

exchange-rate fluctuations but also qualitatively because of the 

absence of a reliable past record of debt performance and financial 

stability and an uncertain political climate.

Statement of Policy with respect to legal fees and other expenses 

incident to applications for insurance and consent to establish 

branches. On August 25, 1972, the Board of Directors adopted a 

statement of policy announcing that the payment of unreasonable 

or excessive legal fees incident to the preparation, filing, and processing of applications for Federal deposit insurance or for consent 

to establish branches may result in the denial of applications acted 

upon by the Corporation.

Under the policy as stated, the Corporation will not normally 

question aggregate legal fees of $5,000 or less incident to applications by proposed new banks for State charters and for Federal 

deposit insurance, nor will it question aggregate legal fees of $500 

or less incident to branch applications. Fees in excess of these 

amounts should be thoroughly documented by supportive material 

such as itemized timesheets showing the time actually expended by 

counsel on the applications, the hourly rate charged, and the specific circumstances— including unusual complexities, the necessity 

for agency or court appearances, and the like— which necessitated 

the time expended.

The statement of policy further announced that expenses for 

legal or other services rendered by board members or major shareholders will receive special scrutiny for any evidence of self-dealing 

to the detriment of the bank and its other shareholders. It then 

continued with the admonition that in no case will an application 

addressed to the Corporation be approved where the payment of a 

fee is contingent upon any act or forebearance by the Corporation, 

stating that

. . . such contingent arrangements, while permissible 

in some States in adversary civil litigation, are totally inappropriate in matters relating to Federal 

deposit insurance or FDIC branch applications.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CORPORATION 213

This statement of policy was issued because of the Board of 

Directors' belief that

. . . since prudent management will not commit 

either a bank in the process of organization or an 

existing bank seeking a new branch to excessive 

expenses, the payment of unreasonable or excessive 

fees incident to such applications has long been [and 

will continue to be] considered by the Corporation 

to reflect adversely upon the management of the 

applicant bank [a factor which sections 6 and 18(d) 

of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.

1816 and 1828(d)) require the Corporation's Board 

of Directors to consider in acting upon such applications] , irrespective of whether the payments have 

been ratified or otherwise approved by formal 

action of the bank's incorporators or stockholders.

Public disclosure of Reports of Condition. Effective December 

28, 1972, Part 309 of the Corporation's rules and regulations (12 

CFR Part 309), entitled “ Published and Unpublished Records and 

Information,” was amended to provide for the public disclosure of 

Reports of Condition for insured mutual savings banks (FDIC Form 

64 (Savings)) and insured State nonmember commercial banks 

(FDIC Form 64), and of consolidated Reports of Income for insured mutual savings banks (FDIC Form 73 (Savings)) and insured 

State nonmember commercial banks (FDIC Form 73). Under the 

provisions of the amendment, these reports will be available upon 

request to the Secretary of the Corporation at the Corporation's 

Washington, D.C, office.

The amendment was adopted because of the Board's determination that the public availability of the reports will assist in maintaining public confidence in the Nation's banks. The preamble to the 

amendment further stated that

. . . such availability will also serve the salutary purpose of permitting equal access to basic financial 

information by all shareholders of insured State 

nonmember banks and all depositors in such banks, 

whereas presently access to such information may 

be limited to a select group of insiders. Public access 

to the information contained in the reports will also 

provide greater competition in geographic areas of 

better-than-average profitability or greater-than-average demand for banking services, greater incentives 

for banks with a consistently poor performance to 

correct their problems, an improved ability for 

insured nonmember banks to raise capital, the develDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
214 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

opment of more uniform rules of bank accounting 

and reporting, the availability of more reliable and 

complete data for bank research efforts and legislative policy determinations, and greater consistency 

with the spirit of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
STATISTICS OF BANKS

AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE

PART FOUR

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES

Table 101. Changes in number and classification of banks and branches in the United States (States and 

other areas) during 1972

Table 102. Changes in number of commercial banks and branches in the United States (States and other 

areas) during 1972, by State

Table 103. Number of banking offices in the United States (States and other areas), December 31, 1972 

Grouped according to insurance status and class o f bank, and by State or area and type o f

office

Table 104. Number and deposits of all commercial and mutual savings banks (States and other areas), 

December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by class and deposit size

Table 105. Number and deposits of all commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas), 

December 31, 1972

Banks grouped by deposit size and State

216 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE C O R P O R A T IO N

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Banks: Commercial banks include the fo llo w in g categories of banking 

in stitu tio n s:

N ational b a n ks;

In co rpo rate d State banks, tru st companies, and bank and tru st com ­

panies, regularly engaged in the business of receiving deposits, w hether dem and o r tim e, except m utual savings banks;

S to ck savings banks, including guaranty savings banks in New Ham pshire;

Ind ustrial and M orris Plan banks which operate under general banking 

codes, o r are spe cifically authorize d by law to accept deposits and in practice 

do so, o r the obligations o f w hich are regarded as deposits fo r deposit insurance;

Special types o f banks o f deposit; regulated certificated banks, and a 

savings and loan com pany operating under Superior C ourt charter in 

G eorgia; governm ent-operated banks in N orth Dakota and Puerto Rico; a 

cooperative bank, usually classified as a credit union, operating under a 

special charter in New Ham pshire; a savings in stitu tio n , known as a "tru s t 

c o m p a n y," operating under special charter in Texas; the Savings Banks T ru st 

Com pany in New Y o rk ; and branches of foreign banks engaged in a general 

deposit business in New Y o rk , Oregon, W ashington, Puerto Rico, and V irgin 

Islands;

Private banks under State supervision, and such other private banks as are 

re ported by reliable u n o ffic ia l sources to be engaged in deposit banking.

Nondeposit trust companies include institutions operating under tru st 

com pany charters w hich are no t regularly engaged in deposit banking bu t are 

engaged in fid u c ia ry business oth er than tha t incidental to real estate title or 

investm ent activities.

Mutual savings banks include all banks operating under State banking 

codes ap p lyin g to m utual savings banks.

Institutions excluded. In s titu tio n s in the fo llo w in g categories are excluded, though such in s titu tio n s may perform many of the same fu n ctio n s as 

com m ercial and savings banks:

Banks w hich have suspended operations or have ceased to accept new 

deposits and are proceeding to liq uidate th e ir assets and pay o ff existing 

deposits;

B uilding and loan associations, savings and loan associations, credit 

unions, personal loan com panies, and sim ilar in stitu tio n s, chartered under 

laws applying to such in stitu tio n s or under general incorpora tio n laws, regardless of w hether such in stitu tio n s are authorized to accept deposits fro m 

the public or fro m the ir members and regardless of w hether such in stitutions 

are called "b a n k s " (a few in stitu tio n s accepting deposits under powers 

granted in special charters are included);

M orris Plan companies, industrial banks, loan and investm ent companies, 

and sim ilar in stitu tio n s except those m entioned in the description o f in stitu ­

tions included;

Branches o f foreign banks and private banks w hich confine the ir business 

to foreign exchange dealings and do not receive "d e p o sits" as th a t term is 

com m only understood;

In stitu tio n s chartered under banking or tru st com pany laws, bu t operating as investm ent or title insurance companies and no t engaged in deposit 

banking or fid u cia ry activities;

Federal Reserve Banks and other banks, such as the Federal Home Loan 

Banks and the Savings and Loan Bank o f the State of New Y o rk, w hich 

operate as rediscount banks and do no t accept deposits except fro m financial 

institutions.

Branches: Branches include all offices o f a bank other than its head 

office, at w hich deposits are received, checks paid, or money lent. Banking 

facilities separate fro m a banking house, banking facilities at governm ent 

establishments, offices, agencies, paying or receiving stations, drive-in fa cilities, and other facilities operated fo r lim ite d purposes are defined as 

branches under the Federal D eposit Insurance A c t, Section 3(o), regardless 

o f the fact th a t in certain States, including several w hich p ro h ib it the operatio n of branches, such lim ite d facilities are not considered branches w ith in 

the meaning o f State law.

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 217

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 101. CHANGES IN NUMBER AND CLASSIFICATION OF BANKS AN D BRANCHES IN THE UNITED STATES 

(STATES AND OTHER AREAS) DURING 1972

All banks Commercial banks and nondeposit trust companies Mutual savings banks

Insured Noninsured

Type of change

Total Insured

Noninsured Total

Total

Members F.R. 

System

Not

members

F.R.

System

Banks

of

deposit

Nondeposit

trust

companies

Total Insured

Noninsured

National1 State

A LL BANKING OFFICES

Number o f offices, December 31, 19722 ..................................................................... 40,662 39,969 693 38,822 38,513 18,626 5,075 14,830 218 73 1,840 1,438 402

Number of offices, December 31,19712 ...................................................................... 38,860 38,229 631 37,174 36,918 17,922 4,949 14,047 203 53 1,686 1,311 375

Net change during year............................................................................................... +1,802 +1,740 +62 +1,648 +1,613 +704 +126 +783 +15 +20 +154 +127 +27

Offices ope ne d ...................................................................................................... 2,080 1,997 83 1,914 1,863 827 257 779 24 27 166 134 32

Banks.................................................................................................................. 274 236 38 273 235 55 13 167 13 25 1 1 0

Branches........................................................................................................... 1,806 1,761 45 1,641 1,628 772 244 612 11 2 165 133 32

Offices closed......................................................................................................... 278 263 15 266 256 118 40 98 6 4 12 7 5

Banks.................................................................................................................. 132 121 11 127 119 37 13 69 6 2 5 2 3

Branches........................................................................................................... 146 142 4 139 137 81 27 29 0 2 7 5 2

Changes in classification...................................................................................... 0 +6 - 6 0 +6 - 5 -9 1 +102 - 3 - 3 0 0 0

Among banks.................................................................................................... 0 +5 - 5 0 +5 - 4 -3 6 +45 - 2 -3 0 0 0

Among branches............................................................................................... 0 +1 -1 0 +1 -1 -5 5 +57 -1 0 0 0 0

BANKS

Number of banks, December 31,1972........................................................................... 14,436 14,059 377 13,950 13,733 4,614 1,092 8,027 152 65 486 326 160

Number of banks, December 3 1,1971.......................................................................... 14,294 13,939 355 13,804 13,612 4,600 1,128 7,884 147 45 490 327 163

Net change duriny year............................................................................................... +142 +120 +22 +146 +121 +14 -3 6 +143 +5 +20 - 4 -1 - 3

Banks beginning o p e ra tio n ................................................................................. 274 236 38 273 235 55 13 167 13 25 1 1 0

New b a n k s ....................................................................................................... 246 236 10 245 235 55 13 167 6 4 1 1 0

Banks added to count3 .................................................................................. 28 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 7 21 0 0 0

Banks ceasing o p e ra tio n ...................................................................................... 132 121 11 127 119 37 13 69 6 2 5 2 3

Absorptions, consolidations, and m ergers................................................. 126 120 6 121 118 37 13 68 3 0 5 2 3

Closed because of financial d iffic u lty .......................................................... 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Other liqu ida tio n s............................................................................. ......... 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Discontinued deposit operation................................................................... 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Banks deleted from c o u n t............................................................................. 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Noninsured banks becoming insured ............................................................... 0 +5 - 5 0 +5 0 0 +5 - 4 -1 0 0 0

218 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Other changes in classification ......................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 - 4 -3 6 +40 +2 - 2 0 0 0

National succeeding State b a n k .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 +19 -7 -1 2 0 0 0 0 0

State succeeding national b a n k .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 -2 3 +1 +22 0 0 0 0 0

Admission of insured bank to F.R. S ystem ............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 +6 - 6 0 0 0 0 0

Withdrawal from F.R. System with continued insurance....................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 6 +36 0 0 0 0 0

Bank of deposit succeeding nondeposit trust company (noninsured).. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 - 2 0 0 0

Changes not involving number in any class

Change in t it le ................................................................................................. 330 328 2 319 319 105 16 198 0 0 11 9 2

Change in loca tion .......................................................................................... 24 24 0 23 23 7 2 14 0 0 1 1 0

Change in title and loca tion ......................................................................... 11 10 1 11 10 5 0 5 0 1 0 0 0

Change in name of lo c a tio n ............................................................................ 15 15 0 15 15 5 2 8 0 0 0 0 0

Change in location within c ity ....................................................................... 315 313 2 304 302 99 12 191 1 1 11 11 0

Changes in corporate powers

Granted trust powers..................................................................................... 70 70 0 69 69 0 0 69 0 0 1 1 0

BRANCHES

Number of branches, December 3 1 ,19722.................................................................. 26,226 25,910 316 24,872 24,798 14,012 3,983 6,803 66 8 1,354 1,112 242

Number of branches, December 31,19712.................................................................. 24,566 24,290 276 23,370 23,306 13,322 3,821 6,163 56 8 1,196 984 212

Net change during year.............................................................................................. +1,660 +1,620 +40 +1,502 +1,492 +690 +162 +640 +10 0 +158 +128 +30

Branches opened fo r business............................................................................ 1,806 1,761 45 1,641 1,628 772 244 612 11 2 165 133 32

Facilities designated by Treasury................................................................ 4 4 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Absorbed bank converted to branch........................................................... 110 107 3 107 107 60 8 39 0 0 3 0 3

Branch replacing head office relocated....................................................... 27 27 0 27 27 14 2 11 0 0 0 0 0

New branches................................................................................................... 1,632 1,607 25 1,478 1,474 691 230 553 4 0 154 133 21

Branches and/or facilities added to c o u n t................................................ 33 16 17 25 16 3 4 9 7 2 8 0 8

Branches discontinued ....................................................................................... 146 142 4 139 137 81 27 29 0 2 7 5 2

Facilities designated by Treasury................................................................ 6 6 0 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Branches.......................................................................................................... 122 122 0 117 117 71 19 27 0 0 5 5 0

Branches and/or facilities deleted from c o u n t......................................... 18 14 4 16 14 5 7 2 0 2 2 0 2

Other changes in classification ......................................................................... 0 +1 -1 0 +1 -1 -5 5 +57 -1 0 0 0 0

Branches changing class as a result of conversion.................................... 0 0 0 0 0 -3 6 +55 -1 9 0 0 0 0 0

Branches transferred through absorption, consolidation, or merger. . . 0 +1 -1 0 +1 +35 -7 -2 7 -1 0 0 0 0

Branches of insured banks withdrawing from F.R.S................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 3 +103 0 0 0 0 0

Changes not involving number in any class

Changes in operating powers of branches ................................................ 7 7 0 7 7 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

Branches transferred through absorption, consolidation, or merger. . . 143 140 3 140 140 91 2 47 0 0 3 0 3

Changes in title, location, or name of location......................................... 561 555 6 527 526 292 61 173 0 1 34 29 5

11ncludes one national bank in Puerto Rico that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System.

includes facilities established at the request of the Treasury or commanding officers of government installations, and also a few seasonal branches that were not in operation as of December 31.

3Banks in operation prior to 1972 but not included in count as of December 31, 1971.

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 219

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 102. CHANGES IN NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL BANKS AND BRANCHES IN THE UNITED STATES 

(STATES AND OTHER AREAS) DURING 1972, BY STATE

State

In operation Net change 

during 1972

Beginning operation in 1972 Ceasing operation in 1972

Dec. 31, 1972 Dec. 31, 1971 Banks Branches Banks Branches

Banks Branches Banks Branches New Other New Banks Branches Other Absorptions Other Branches Other

Total United S ta tes......... 13,950 24,872 13,804 23,370 +146 +1,502 245 28 1,503 138 121 6 117 22

50 States and D.C............... 13,927 24,611 13,783 23,120 +144 +1,491 243 28 1,491 138 121 6 116 22

Other A reas....................... 23 261 21 250 +2 +11 2 0 12 0 0 0 1 0

States

Alabama ............................ 277 334 273 303 +4 +31 4 0 30 2 0 0 0 1

A la ska ................................. 10 70 11 65 -1 +5 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0

A riz o n a .............................. 22 374 13 347 +9 +27 2 7 28 1 0 0 2 0

A rkansas............................ 253 193 253 179 NA + 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0

California............................ 165 3,259 152 3,176 +13 +83 19 0 105 4 5 1 22 4

C olorado............................ 291 35 278 29 +13 +6 9 5 7 1 0 1 2 0

Connecticut....................... 64 498 63 469 +1 +29 2 0 28 2 1 0 1 0

Delaware............................ 19 110 18 99 +1 +11 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0

District of Columbia . . . . 14 112 14 108 NA +4 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0

Florida .............................. 581 60 540 43 +41 + 17 41 0 17 0 0 0 0 0

G eorgia.............................. 437 483 434 412 +3 +71 5 0 73 2 2 0 3 1

H a w a ii................................. 11 146 10 142 +1 +4 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 2

Idaho ................................... 24 170 24 165 NA +5 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0

Illin o is ................................. 1,155 148 1,134 123 +21 +25 19 3 24 1 1 0 0 0

Indiana................................. 408 719 408 671 NC +48 1 0 49 1 1 0 2 0

Iowa..................................... 670 345 666 329 +4 +16 3 1 18 2 0 0 4 0

Kansas................................ 607 76 603 73 +4 +3 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0

Kentucky............................ 341 394 343 361 -2 +33 2 0 27 6 4 0 0 0

Louisiana............................ 238 443 235 414 +3 +29 5 0 28 2 2 0 1 0

Maine................................... 47 248 44 237 +3 +11 4 0 13 1 1 0 3 0

M aryland............................ 112 595 112 567 NC +28 1 0 30 1 1 0 2 1

Massachusetts ................... 155 814 158 781 -3 +33 1 1 39 6 4 1 11 1

M ichigan............................ 332 1,330 331 1,254 +1 +76 2 0 82 1 1 0 6 1

M innesota.......................... 737 20 731 17 +6 +3 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

Mississippi.......................... 181 406 183 369 -2 +37 3 0 32 7 5 0 2 0

Missouri.............................. 677 132 672 100 +5 +32 4 1 31 1 0 0 0 0

Montana.............................. 147 12 144 10 +3 +2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska............................ 446 48 443 45 +3 +3 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 0

Nevada................................. 8 93 8 89 NA +4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire................ 78 79 74 69 +4 +10 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

220 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
New Jersey ....................... 211 1,173 211 1,097 NC +76

New M exico....................... 72 150 68 140 +4 +10

New Y o r k ......................... 305 2,699 311 2,556 -6 +143

North Carolina................... 87 1,331 95 1,224 -8 +107

North Dakota..................... 170 73 169 72 +1 +1

Ohio ................................... 505 1,449 514 1,370 -9 +79

O klahom a.......................... 441 84 437 71 +4 +13

Oregon................................. 45 381 46 359 -1 +22

Pennsylvania..................... 437 1,919 454 1,826 -1 7 +93

Rhode Island..................... 16 185 13 179 +3 +6

South Carolina................... 94 499 99 459 -5 +40

South Dakota ................... 159 102 159 100 NA +2

Tennessee............................ 313 595 310 528 +3 +67

Texas ................................... 1,238 95 1,215 86 +23 +9

Utah..................................... 53 160 50 148 +3 +12

V e rm o n t............................ 41 98 42 89 -1 +9

V irg in ia .............................. 256 955 245 887 +11 +68

W ashington....................... 90 611 92 589 -2 +22

West V irg in ia ..................... 203 8 199 6 +4 +2

Wisconsin............................ 613 296 611 286 +2 +10

W yom ing............................ 71 2 71 2 NA NA

Other Areas

Pacific Islan ds................... 1 26 0 23 +1 +3

Panama Canal Z o n e ......... 0 2 0 2 NA NA

Puerto R ic o ....................... 14 204 13 197 +1 +7

Virgin Islands..................... 8 29 8 28 NA +1

NA— No activity 

N C -N o change

12 0 72 12 11 1 8 0

3 1 10 0 0 0 0 0

7 1 146 14 13 1 13 4

3 0 107 11 11 0 11 0

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 78 11 11 0 8 2

1 3 13 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 16 6 4 0 0 0

0 0 80 17 17 0 4 0

3 0 9 0 0 0 3 0

0 0 35 5 5 0 0 0

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 67 2 0 0 1 1

30 0 8 1 6 1 0 0

4 1 11 2 2 0 1 0

0 0 9 1 1 0 1 0

13 0 65 5 2 0 1 1

3 1 17 6 6 0 1 0

4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 11 2 2 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 8 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 103. N U M B E R OF B A N K IN G O FFIC E S IN T H E U N IT E D S TAT ES (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ), D E C E M B E R 31, 1972

GROUPED ACCORDING TO INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASSOF BANK, AND BY STATE OR AREA A NDTYPE OF OFFICE

State and type of bank 

or office

All banks Commercial banks and nondeposit trust companies Mutual savings banks Percentage insured1

Total Insured

NonInsured Total

Insured Noninsured

Total Insured

Noninsured

All

banks

of

deposit

Commercial

banks

of

deposit

Mutual

savings

banks

Total

Members F.R. 

System

Not

members

F.R.

System

Banks 

of deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

companiesNational3 State

United States-all o ffice s................... 40,662 39,969 693 38,822 38,531 18,626 5,075 14,830 218 73 1,840 1,438 402 98.5 99.4 78.2

B anks.............................................. 14,436 14,059 377 13,950 13,733 4,614 1,092 8,027 152 65 486 326 160 97.8 98.9 67.1

Unit banks................................... 9,647 9,385 262 9,491 9J97 2,816 622 5,859 133 61 156 88 68 97.9 98.6 56.4

Banks operating branches . .. 4,789 4,674 115 4,459 4,436 1,798 470 2,168 19 4 330 238 92 97.7 99.6 72.1

Branches.......................................... 26,226 25,910 316 24,872 24,798 14,012 3,983 6,803 66 8 1,354 1,112 242 98.8 99.7 82.1

50 States & D.C .-all offices.............. 40,377 39,724 653 38,538 38,287 18,571 5,073 14,643 178 73 1,839 1,437 402 98.6 99.5 78.1

Banks .............................................. 14,412 14,046 366 13,927 13,721 4,612 1,092 8,017 141 .. 65 485 325 160 97.9 99.0 67.0

Unit banks................................... 9,637 9,382 255 9,482 9,295 2,815 622 5,858 126 61 155 87 68 98.0 98.7 56.1

Banks operating branches . .. 4,775 4,664 111 4,445 4,426 1,797 470 2,159 15 4 330 238 92 97.8 99.7 72.1

Branches.......................................... 25,965 25,678 287 24,611 24,566 13,959 3,981 6,626 37 8 1,354 1,112 242 98.9 99.8 82.1

Other Areas-all o ffic e s ..................... 285 245 40 284 244 55 2 187 40 0 1 1 0 86.0 85.9 100.0

Banks.............................................. 24 13 11 23 12 2 0 10 11 0 1 1 0 54.2 52.2 100.0

Unit banks ................................. 10 3 7 9 2 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 30.0 22.2 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 14 10 4 14 10 1 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 71.4 71.4 0.0

Branches.......................................... 261 232 29 261 232 53 2 177 29 0 0 0 0 88.9 88.9 0.0

State

Alabam a-all offices............................ 611 611 0 611 611 318 35 258 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks .............................................. 111 277 0 277 211 89 20 168 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................... 174 174 0 174 174 40 75 119 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 103 103 0 103 103 49 5 49 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 334 334 0 334 334 229 15 90 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Alaska-all o ffic e s .............................. 82 82 0 80 80 67 0 13 0 0 2 2 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

B anks.............................................. 12 12 0 10 10 5 0 5 0 0 2 2 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unit banks................................... 4 4 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 8 8 0 8 8 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 70 70 0 70 70 62 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

A rizona-all o ffic e s ............................ 396 389 7 396 389 245 24 120 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks .............................................. 22 15 7 22 15 3 1 11 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................... 12 5 7 12 5 7 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 10 10 0 10 10 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 374 374 0 374 374 242 23 109 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

222 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Arkansas-all o ffic e s .......................... 446 444 2 446 444 171 24

Banks.............................................. 253 251 2 253 251 70 11

Unit banks................................. 155 153 2 155 153 29 4

Banks operating branches . . . 98 98 0 98 98 41 7

Branches.......................................... 193 193 0 193 193 101 13

C alifornia-all offices.......................... 3,424 3,410 14 3,424 3,410 2,613 312

Banks.............................................. 165 156 9 165 156 55 8

Unit banks................................. 47 40 7 47 40 6 0

Banks operating branches . . . 118 116 2 118 116 49 8

Branches.......................................... 3,259 3,254 5 3,259 3,254 2,558 304

Colorado-all offices............................ 326 278 48 326 278 144 18

Banks.............................................. 291 243 48 291 243 124 16

Unit banks................................. 260 212 48 260 212 106 14

Banks operating branches . . . 31 31 0 31 31 18 2

Branches.......................................... 35 35 0 35 35 20 2

Connecticut-all o ffice s ..................... 809 808 1 562 561 273 72

Banks............................................... 132 131 1 64 63 26 1

Unit banks................................ 36 35 7 17 16 5 0

Banks operating branches . . . 96 96 0 47 47 21 1

Branches.......................................... 677 677 0 498 498 247 71

Delaware-all o ffic e s .......................... 146 145 1 129 128 9 24

Banks............................................... 21 20 1 19 18 5 1

Unit banks................................. 10 9 1 10 9 3 0

Banks operating branches . . . 11 11 0 9 9 2 1

Branches.......................................... 125 125 0 110 110 4 23

D.C .-all o ffice s................................... 126 126 0 126 126 86 30

Banks............................................... 14 14 0 14 14 11 1

Unit banks................................. 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

Banks operating branches . . . 13 13 0 13 13 10 1

Branches.......................................... 112 112 0 112 112 75 29

Florida-all offices.............................. 641 636 5 641 636 256 13

B anks............................................... 581 576 5 581 576 244 12

Unit banks................................. 526 521 5 526 521 233 11

Banks operating branches . . . 55 55 0 55 55 11 1

Branches.......................................... 60 60 0 60 60 12 1

Georgia-all offices ............................ 920 914 6 920 914 315 70

B anks............................................... 437 431 6 437 431 61 10

Unit banks................................. 277 271 6 277 271 20 2

Banks operating branches . . . 160 160 0 160 160 41 8

Branches.......................................... 483 483 0 483 483 254 60

Hawaii-all o ffic e s .............................. 157 150 7 157 150 11 0

Banks............................................... 11 7 4 11 7 1 0

Unit banks................................. 2 0 2 2 0 0 0

Banks operating branches . . . 9 7 2 9 7 1 0

Branches.......................................... 146 143 3 146 143 10 0

249 1 1 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

170 1 1 0 0 0 99.6 99.6 0.0

120 1 7 0 0 0 99.4 99.4 0.0

50 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

79 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

485 0 14 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

93 0 9 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

34 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

59 0 2 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

392 0 5 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

116 48 0 0 0 0 85.3 85.3 0.0

103 48 0 0 0 0 83.5 83.5 0.0

92 48 0 0 0 0 81.5 81.5 0.0

11 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

13 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

216 1 0 247 247 0 99.9 99.8 100.0

36 1 0 68 68 0 99.2 98.4 100.0

11 1 0 19 19 0 97.2 94.1 100.0

25 0 0 49 49 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

180 0 0 179 179 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

95 0 1 17 17 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

12 0 1 2 2 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

6 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

6 0 0 2 2 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

83 0 0 15 15 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

10 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

2 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

2 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

8 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

367 2 3 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

320 2 3 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

277 2 3 0 0 0 99.6 99.6 0.0

43 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

47 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

529 6 0 0 0 0 99.3 99.3 0.0

360 6 0 0 0 0 98.6 98.6 0.0

249 6 0 0 0 0 97.8 97.8 0.0

111 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

169 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

139 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

6 0 4 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

0 0 2 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 0 2 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

133 0 3 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 223

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 103. N U M B E R OF B A N K IN G O FFIC E S IN TH E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

D ECEM BER 31, 19 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D

GROUPED ACCORDING TO INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK, AND BY STATE OR AREA AND TYPE OF OFFICE

State and type of bank 

or office

All banks Commercial banks and nondeposit trust companies Mutual savings banks Percentage insured1

Total Insured

Noninsured Total

Insured Noninsured

Total Insured

Noninsured

All

banks

of

deposit

Commercial

banks

of

deposit

Mutual

savings

banks

Total

Members F.R. 

System

Not

members

F.R.

System

Banks 

of deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

companiesNational3 State

Id a h o -a ll o ffic e s ................................... 194 194 0 194 194 123 38 33 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks .............................................. 24 24 0 24 24 7 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................ 10 10 0 10 10 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 14 14 0 14 14 5 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 170 170 0 170 170 116 32 22 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Illin o is-all o ffic e s ................................. 1,303 1,297 6 1,303 1,297 500 86 711 1 5 0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0.0

B anks.............................................. 1,155 1,149 6 1,155 1,149 415 76 658 1 5 0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0.0

Unit banks................................ 1,012 1r006 6 1,012 1,006 334 66 606 1 5 0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0.0

Banks operating branches .. . 143 143 0 143 143 81 10 52 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 148 148 0 148 148 85 10 53 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Indiana—all offices................................. 1,132 1,129 3 1,127 1,124 504 118 502 2 1 5 5 0 99.8 99.8 100.0

Banks ............................................... 412 409 3 408 405 122 58 225 2 1 4 4 0 99.5 99.5 100.0

Unit banks................................ 201 198 3 198 195 42 36 117 2 7 3 3 0 99.0 99.0 100.0

Banks operating branches .. . 211 211 0 210 210 80 22 108 0 0 1 1 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Branches.......................................... 720 720 0 719 719 382 60 111 0 0 1 1 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Io w a -a ll offices...................................... 1,015 1,006 9 1,015 1,006 163 88 755 7 2 0 0 0 99.3 99.3 0.0

Banks .............................................. 670 661 9 670 661 100 50 511 7 2 0 0 0 99.0 99.0 0.0

Unit banks................................ 443 434 9 443 434 57 29 348 7 2 0 0 0 98.4 98.4 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 227 227 O 227 227 43 21 163 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 345 345 0 345 345 63 38 244 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Kansas-all o ffic e s ................................. 683 682 1 683 682 205 32 445 1 0 0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0.0

B anks.............................................. 607 606 1 607 606 171 26 409 1 0 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

Unit banks................................ 533 532 1 533 532 139 20 373 1 0 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 74 74 0 74 74 32 6 36 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 76 76 0 76 76 34 6 36 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

K en tu cky-all offices............................ 735 731 4 735 731 245 77 409 4 0 0 0 0 99.5 99.5 0.0

Banks .............................................. 341 337 4 341 337 80 12 245 4 0 0 0 0 98.8 98.8 0.0

Unit banks................................ 191 187 4 191 187 32 4 151 4 0 0 0 0 97.9 97.9 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 150 150 0 150 150 48 8 94 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 394 394 0 394 394 165 65 164 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

224 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Louisiana-all o ffic e s ............................ 681 680 1 681 680 252 45

Banks.............................................. 238 237 1 238 237 50 10

Unit banks................................ 98 97 7 98 97 11 7

Banks operating branches . . . 140 140 0 140 140 39 9

Branches.......................................... 443 443 0 443 443 202 35

M ain e-all offices................................... 359 354 5 295 291 133 74

Banks.............................................. 79 74 5 47 43 19 6

Unit banks................................ 27 22 5 14 10 3 7

Banks operating branches . . . 52 52 0 33 33 16 5

Branches.......................................... 280 280 0 248 248 114 68

M aryland-all o ffic e s ............................ 756 756 0 707 707 328 81

Banks .............................................. 116 116 0 112 112 39 7

Unit banks................................ 38 38 0 38 38 10 1

Banks operating branches . . . 78 78 0 74 74 29 6

Branches.......................................... 640 640 0 595 595 289 74

Massachusetts-all offices.................... 1,420 1,011 409 969 961 540 168

B anks............................................... 322 159 163 155 151 82 13

Unit banks................................ 97 28 69 30 28 77 0

Banks operating branches . . . 225 131 94 125 123 65 13

Branches4 ........................................ 1,098 852 246 814 810 458 155

M ichigan-all offices ............................ 1,662 1,658 4 1,662 1,658 733 560

Banks ............................................... 332 330 2 332 330 106 98

Unit banks................................. 111 110 1 111 110 25 32

Banks operating branches . . . 221 220 1 221 220 81 66

Branches.......................................... 1,330 1,328 2 1,330 1,328 627 462

M innesota-all offices ......................... 758 755 3 757 754 206 28

Banks .............................................. 738 735 3 737 734 199 26

Unit banks................................. 722 719 3 721 718 196 24

Banks operating branches . . . 16 16 0 16 16 3 2

Branches.......................................... 20 20 0 20 20 1 2

Mississippi-all o ffic e s ......................... 587 587 0 587 587 198 23

Banks............................................... 181 181 0 181 181 38 7

Unit banks................................. 59 59 0 59 59 4 1

Banks operating branches . . . 122 122 0 122 122 34 6

Branches.......................................... 406 406 0 406 406 160 16

M issouri-all o ffices.............................. 809 803 6 809 803 139 87

Banks .............................................. 677 671 6 677 671 102 68

Unit banks................................. 551 545 6 551 545 67 51

Banks operating branches . . . 126 126 0 126 126 35 17

Branches................................ 132 132 0 132 132 37 19

M o n tan a-all offices ............................ 159 158 1 159 158 58 47

Banks .............................................. 147 146 1 147 146 54 42

Unit banks................................ 135 134 7 135 134 50 37

Banks operating branches . . . 12 12 0 12 12 4 5

Branches.......................................... 12 12 0 12 12 4 5

383 1 0 0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0.0

177 1 0 0 0 0 99.6 99.6 0.0

85 7 0 0 0 0 99.0 99.0 0.0

92 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

206 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

84 4 0 64 63 1 98.6 98.6 98.4

18 4 0 32 31 1 93.7 91.5 96.9

6 4 0 13 12 7 81.5 71.4 92.3

12 0 0 19 19 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

66 0 0 32 32 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

298 0 0 49 49 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

66 0 0 4 4 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

27 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

39 0 0 4 4 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

232 0 0 45 45 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

253 8 0 451 50 401 71.2 99.2 11.1

56 4 0 167 8 159 49.4 97.4 4.8

11 2 0 67 0 67 28.9 93.3 0.0

45 2 0 100 8 92 58.2 98.4 8.0

197 4 0 284 42 242 77.6 99.5 14.8

365 3 1 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

126 1 1 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

53 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

73 1 0 0 0 0 99.5 99.5 0.0

239 2 0 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

520 3 0 1 1 0 99.6 99.6 100.0

509 3 0 1 1 0 99.6 99.6 100.0

498 3 0 7 7 0 99.6 99.6 100.0

11 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

11 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

366 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

136 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

54 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

82 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

230 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

577 2 4 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

501 2 4 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

427 2 4 0 0 0 99.6 99.6 0.0

74 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

76 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

53 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

50 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

47 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

3 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

3 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 225

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 103. N U M B E R OF B A N K IN G O FFIC E S IN TH E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

DECE M B E R 31, 1 9 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D

GROUPED ACCORDING TO INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK, AND BY STATE OR AREA AND TYPE OF OFFICE

State and type of bank 

or office

A ll banks Commercial banks and nondeposit trust companies Mutual savings banks Percentage insured1

Total Insured

Noninsured Total

Insured Noninsured

Total Insured

Noninsured

All

banks

of

deposit

Commercial

banks

of

deposit

Mutual

savings

banks

Total

Members F.R. 

System

Not

members

F.R.

System

Banks 

of deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

comNa­ panies

tional3 State

Nebraska-all o ffic e s ............................ 494 488 6 494 488 150 11 327 1 5 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

Banks .............................................. 446 440 6 446 440 123 10 307 1 5 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

Unit banks................................. 400 394 6 400 394 97 9 288 1 5 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 46 46 0 46 46 26 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 48 48 0 48 48 27 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

N evada-all offices................................. 101 101 0 101 101 70 16 15 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks .............................................. 8 8 0 8 8 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................. 2 2 0 2 2 1 O 1 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 6 6 0 6 6 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 93 93 0 93 93 66 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

New Ham pshire-all o ffic e s ............... 204 202 2 157 155 111 3 41 2 0 47 47 0 99.0 98.7 100.0

Banks .............................................. 108 106 2 78 76 48 1 27 2 0 30 30 0 98.1 97.4 100.0

Unit banks................................. 63 61 2 42 40 22 0 18 2 0 21 21 0 96.8 95.2 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 45 45 0 36 36 26 1 9 0 0 9 9 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Branches.......................................... 96 96 0 79 79 63 2 14 0 0 17 17 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

New Jersey—all offices......................... 1,465 1,464 1 1,384 1,383 926 251 206 0 1 81 81 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Banks .............................................. 231 230 1 211 210 121 31 58 0 1 20 20 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unit banks................................ 48 47 1 42 41 19 3 19 0 7 6 6 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 183 183 0 169 169 102 28 39 0 0 14 14 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Branches.......................................... 1,234 1,234 0 1,173 1,173 805 220 148 0 0 61 61 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

New M e xico -all offices...................... 222 221 1 222 221 119 16 86 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

B anks.............................................. 72 71 1 72 71 33 7 31 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................ 18 17 1 18 17 5 2 10 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 54 54 0 54 54 28 5 21 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 150 150 0 150 150 86 9 55 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

New Y o rk -a ll o ffic e s ......................... 3,572 3,536 36 3,004 2,968 1,564 1,204 200 31 5 568 568 0 99.1 99.0 100.0

Banks.............................................. 426 399 27 305 278 163 70 45 22 5 121 121 0 94.8 92.7 100.0

Unit banks................................ 129 108 21 115 94 61 15 18 16 5 14 14 0 87.1 85.5 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 297 291 6 190 184 102 55 27 6 0 107 107 0 98.0 96.8 100.0

Branches4 ....................................... 3,146 3,137 9 2,699 2,690 1,401 1,134 155 9 0 447 447 0 99.7 99.7 100.0

226 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
North C arolina-all offices.................. 1,418 1,408 10 1,418 1,408 700 1

B anks.................................................. 87 86 1 87 86 23 1

Unit banks................................ 26 26 0 26 26 3 1

Banks operating branches . . . 61 60 1 61 60 20 0

Branches............................................. 1,331 1,322 9 1,331 1,322 677 0

North D akota-all offices.................... 243 238 5 243 238 57 6

B anks.................................................. 170 167 3 170 167 43 4

Unit banks................................ 117 115 2 117 115 30 3

Banks operating branches . . . 53 52 1 53 52 13 1

Branches............................................. 73 71 2 73 71 14 2

O h io -a ll offices...................................... 1,954 1,952 2 1,954 1,952 1,037 517

B anks.................................................. 505 503 2 505 503 218 117

Unit banks................................. 208 206 2 208 206 63 57

Banks operating branches . . . 297 297 0 297 297 155 60

Branches............................................. 1,449 1,449 0 1,449 1,449 819 400

O klahom a-all offices ......................... 525 520 5 525 520 246 18

B anks.................................................. 441 436 5 441 436 192 15

Unit banks................................. 360 355 5 360 355 141 12

Banks operating branches . . . 81 81 0 81 81 51 3

Branches............................................. 84 84 0 84 84 54 3

O regon-all offices................................. 430 428 2 426 424 279 0

B anks.................................................. 46 44 2 45 43 8 0

Unit banks................................. 15 13 2 15 13 1 0

Banks operating branches . . . 31 31 0 30 30 7 0

Branches4 ........................................... 384 384 0 381 381 271 0

Pennsylvania-all o ffic e s .................... 2,481 2,472 9 2,356 2,347 1,407 283

B anks.................................................. 445 438 7 437 430 276 20

Unit banks................................. 187 181 6 186 180 120 6

Banks operating branches . . . 258 257 1 251 250 156 14

Branches4 ........................................... 2,036 2,034 2 1,919 1,917 1,131 263

Rhode Island-all o ffic e s .................... 288 278 10 201 191 103 0

B anks.................................................. 23 21 2 16 14 5 0

Unit banks................................. 3 3 0 3 3 0 0

Banks operating branches . . . 20 18 2 13 11 5 0

Branches............................................. 265 257 8 185 177 98 0

South C arolina-all offices.................. 593 593 0 593 593 283 14

B anks.................................................. 94 94 0 94 94 19 5

Unit banks................................ 33 33 0 33 33 4 2

Banks operating branches . . . 61 61 0 61 61 15 3

Branches............................................. 499 499 0 499 499 264 9

South D a ko ta-all offices.................... 261 261 0 261 261 94 37

B anks.................................................. 159 159 0 159 159 32 27

Unit banks................................. 118 118 0 118 118 22 20

Banks operating branches . . . 41 41 0 41 41 10 7

Branches............................................. 102 102 0 102 102 62 10

707 10 0 0 0 0 99.3 99.3 0.0

62 1 0 0 0 0 98.9 98.9 0.0

22 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

40 1 0 0 0 0 98.4 98.4 0.0

645 9 0 0 0 0 99.3 99.3 0.0

175 5 0 0 0 0 97.9 97.9 0.0

120 3 0 0 0 0 98.2 98.2 0.0

82 2 0 0 0 0 98.3 98.3 0.0

38 1 0 0 0 0 98.1 98.1 0.0

55 2 0 0 0 0 97.3 97.3 0.0

398 2 0 0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0.0

168 2 0 0 0 0 99.6 99.6 0.0

86 2 0 0 0 0 99.0 99.0 0.0

82 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

230 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

256 1 4 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

229 1 4 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

202 1 4 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

27 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

27 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

145 2 0 4 4 0 99.5 99.5 100.0

35 2 0 1 1 0 95.7 95.6 100.0

12 2 0 0 0 0 86.7 86.7 0.0

23 0 0 1 1 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

110 0 0 3 3 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

657 7 2 125 125 0 99.7 99.7 100.0

134 5 2 8 8 0 98.9 98.9 100.0

54 4 2 1 1 0 97.8 97.8 100.0

80 1 0 7 7 0 99.6 99.6 100.0

523 2 0 117 117 0 99.9 99.9 100.0

88 10 0 87 87 0 96.5 95.0 100.0

9 2 0 7 7 0 91.3 87.5 100.0

3 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

6 2 0 7 7 0 90.0 84.6 100.0

79 8 0 80 80 0 97.0 95.7 100.0

296 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

70 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

27 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

43 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

226 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

130 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

100 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

76 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

24 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

30 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 227

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 103. N U M B E R O F B A N K IN G O FFIC E S IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

D E C EM BER 31, 1 9 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D

GROUPED ACCORDING TO INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASSOF BANK, AND BY STATE OR AREA AND TYPE OF OFFICE

State and type of bank 

or office

All banks Commercial banks and nondeposit trust companies Mutual savings banks Percentage insured1

Total Insured

Noninsured Total

Insured Noninsured

Total Insured

Noninsured

All

banks

of

deposit

Commercial

banks

of

deposit

Mutual

savings

banks

Total

Members F.R. 

System

Not

members

F.R.

System

Banks 

of deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

comNa­ panies

tional3 State

Tennessee-all offices............................ 908 904 4 908 904 389 55 460 3 1 0 0 0 99.7 99.7 0.0

Banks .............................................. 313 310 3 313 310 73 12 225 2 1 0 0 0 99.4 99.4 0.0

Unit banks................................. 144 142 2 144 142 14 5 123 1 1 0 0 0 99.3 99.3 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 169 168 1 169 168 59 7 102 1 0 0 0 0 99.4 99.4 0.0

Branches.......................................... 595 594 1 595 594 316 43 235 1 0 0 0 0 99.8 99.8 0.0

Texas-all o ffices................................... 1,333 1,326 7 1,333 1,326 559 51 716 7 0 0 0 0 99.5 99.5 0.0

Banks.............................................. 1,238 1,231 7 1,238 1,231 538 43 650 7 0 0 0 0 99.4 99.4 0.0

Unit banks................................. 1,150 1,143 7 1,150 1,143 519 36 588 7 0 0 0 0 99.4 99.4 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 88 88 O 88 88 19 7 62 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 95 95 0 95 95 21 8 66 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

U ta h -a ll offices...................................... 213 212 1 213 212 94 36 82 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks .............................................. 53 52 1 53 52 10 6 36 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................ 32 31 1 32 31 6 3 22 0 7 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 21 21 0 21 21 4 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 160 160 0 160 160 84 30 46 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

V e rm o n t-a ll offices ............................ 150 149 1 139 138 63 0 75 0 1 11 11 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Banks.............................................. 47 46 1 41 40 24 0 16 0 1 6 6 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Unit banks................................. 18 17 1 15 14 11 0 3 0 1 3 3 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 29 29 0 26 26 13 0 13 0 0 3 3 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Branches.......................................... 103 103 0 98 98 39 0 59 0 0 5 5 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Virginia-all o ffic e s .............................. 1,211 1,211 0 1,211 1,211 651 235 325 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks.............................................. 256 256 0 256 256 101 49 106 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Unit banks................................. 89 89 0 89 89 21 23 45 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Banks operating branches . . . 167 167 0 167 167 80 26 61 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Branches.......................................... 955 955 0 955 955 550 186 219 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

W ashington-all o ffic e s ....................... 778 775 3 701 698 499 44 155 2 1 77 77 0 99.7 99.7 100.0

Banks.............................................. 99 96 3 90 87 23 6 58 2 1 9 9 0 98.0 97.8 100.0

Unit'banks................................. 44 41 3 42 39 6 2 31 2 1 2 2 0 95.3 95.1 100.0

Banks operating branches . . . 55 55 0 48 48 17 4 27 0 0 7 7 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Branches4 ........................................ 679 679 0 611 611 476 38 97 0 0 68 68 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

228 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
West V irginia-all o ffic e s ................... 211 211 0 211 211 90 32

B anks............................................... 203 203 0 203 203 88 31

Unit banks................................. 195 195 0 195 195 86 30

Banks operating branches . . . 8 8 0 8 8 2 1

Branches.......................................... 8 8 0 8 8 2 1

Wisconsin-all o ffice s.......................... 912 907 5 909 904 202 56

Banks ............................................... 616 611 5 613 608 127 37

Unit banks................................. 437 432 5 434 429 89 28

Banks operating branches . . . 179 179 0 179 179 38 9

Branches.......................................... 296 296 0 296 296 75 19

Wyoming— all o ffic e s .......................... 73 73 0 73 73 43 13

Banks............................................... 71 71 0 71 71 42 13

Unit banks................................. 69 69 0 69 69 41 13

Banks operating branches . . . 2 2 0 2 2 1 0

Branches.......................................... 2 2 0 2 2 1 0

Other Areas

Trust Terr, -a ll offices5 ..................... 27 15 12 27 15 8 0

Banks............................................... 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

Unit banks................................. 1 1 0 7 7 0 0

Banks operating branches . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Branches6 ........................................ 26 14 12 26 14 8 0

Canal Zone-all offices....................... 2 0 2 2 0 0 0

Banks............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unit banks................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Banks operating branches . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Branches7 ........................................ 2 0 2 2 0 0 0

Puerto R ico -a ll o ffic e s ..................... 219 199 20 218 198 20 0

Banks............................................... 15 10 5 14 9 1 0

Unit banks................................. 3 2 7 2 7 7 0

Banks operating branches . . . 12 8 4 12 8 0 0

Branches8 ........................................ 204 189 15 204 189 19 0

Virgin Islands— all o ffice s................... 37 31 6 37 31 27 2

Banks............................................... 8 2 6 8 2 1 0

Unit banks................................. 6 0 6 6 0 0 0

Banks operating branches . . . 2 2 0 2 2 1 0

Branches9 ........................................ 29 29 0 29 29 26 2

89 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

84 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

79 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

5 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

5 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

646 1 4 3 3 0 99.9 99.9 100.0

444 1 4 3 3 0 99.8 99.8 100.0

312 7 4 3 3 0 99.8 99.8 100.0

132 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

202 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

17 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

16 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

15 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

7 12 0 0 0 0 55.6 55.6 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

7 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 12 0 0 0 0 53.8 53.8 0.0

0 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

178 20 0 1 1 0 90.9 90.8 100.0

8 5 0 1 1 0 66.7 64.3 100.0

0 7 0 7 7 0 66.7 50.0 100.0

8 4 0 0 0 0 66.7 66.7 0.0

170 15 0 0 0 0 92.6 92.6 0.0

2 6 0 0 0 0 83.8 83.8 0.0

1 6 0 0 0 0 25.0 25.0 0.0

0 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

1 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0.0

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 229

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 103. NUMBER OF BANKING OFFICES IN THE UN ITED STATES (STATES AN D OTHER AREAS), 

DECEMBER 31, 197 2-C 0N T IN U E D 

G R O U PED A C C O R D IN G TO IN SURANCE STATUS A ND CLASS OF BA N K , A N D BY STA TE OR A R E A A N D TY P E OF O FFIC E

1 Nondeposit trust companies are excluded in computing these percentages.

in c lu d e s 14 noninsured branches of insured banks: 12 branches in the Pacific Islands and 2 in the Canal Zone, 

in c lu d e s one national bank in Puerto Rico that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System. 

Massachusetts: 1 branch operated by a noninsured bank in New York.

New York: 16 branches operated by 3 insured banks in Puerto Rico (not members of F.R. System).

Oregon: 1 branch operated by a national bank in California.

Pennsylvania: 2 branches-1 operated by a noninsured bank in New York and 1 operated by a national bank 

in New Jersey.

Washington: 2 branches operated by a national bank in California.

5 U.S. possessions: (American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, and Wake Island); Trust Territories (Kwajalein, 

Majuro, Palau Islands, Ponape Island, Saipan, and Truk).

6 Pacific Islands: 26 branches.

American Samoa (Pago Pago): 1 insured branch-operated by an insured bank in Hawaii (not member of F.R. 

System).

Guam: 13 insured branches-operated by 2 insured banks in Hawaii (not members of F.R. System), a

national bank in California, and a national bank in New York.

Caroline Islands: 4 noninsured branches-1 branch operated by a national bank in California, and 3 branches 

operated by 2 insured banks in Hawaii (not members of F.R. System).

Saipan Island: 3 noninsured branches-2 branches operated by a national bank in California, and 1 branch 

operated by an insured bank in Hawaii (not member of F.R. System).

Marshall Islands: 3 noninsured branches-1 branch operated by a national bank in California, and 2 branches 

operated by an insured bank in Hawaii (not member of F.R. System).

Midway Islands, on Sand Island: 1 noninsured branch operated by an insured bank in Hawaii (not member 

of F.R. System).

Wake Island: 1 noninsured branch operated by an insured bank in Hawaii (not member of F.R. System).

7Canal Zone: 2 noninsured branches operated by 2 national banks in New York.

8Puerto Rico: 19 insured branches operated by 2 national banks in New York.

9Virgin Islands: 20 insured branches operated by 2 national banks in New York, 1 national bank in 

California, and 1 State member bank in Pennsylvania.

230 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 104. NUMBER AND DEPOSITS OF A L L COMMERCIAL AN D M U TU A L SAVINGS BANKS, 

(STATES AND OTHER AREAS), DECEMBER 31, 1972 

BANKS GROUPED BY CLASS AND DEPOSIT SIZE

Deposit size

(in dollars)

All

banks

Insured commercial banks Noninsured 

banks 

and trust 

companies

Mutual savings banks

Total

Members F.R. System Nonmembers 

F.R. System

Insured

Noninsured

National State

Num ber of banks

Less than 1 m illio n ............................... 209 94 12 4 78 115 0 0

1 to 2 m illio n ......................................... 569 545 65 17 463 24 0 0

2 to 5 m illio n ......................................... 2,673 2,644 420 134 2,090 27 0 2

5 to 10 m illio n ...................................... 3,332 3,301 904 238 2,159 11 14 6

10 to 25 m illio n .................................... 4,176 4,096 1,603 324 2,169 11 36 33

25 to 50 m illio n .................................... 1,732 1,610 781 158 671 4 72 46

50 to 100 m illio n ................................. 855 741 404 88 249 8 60 46

100 to 500 m illio n ............................... 672 534 315 90 129 17 96 25

500 m illion to 1 b illio n ....................... 126 96 59 19 18 0 28 2

1 billion or m o re .................................... 92 72 51 20 1 0 20 0

T o t a l ........................................... 14,436 13,733 4,614 1,092 8,027 217 326 160

(In thousands of dollars)

Am ount of deposits

Less than 1 m illio n ............................... 93,689 67,464 9,591 2,308 55,565 26,225 0 0

1 to 2 m illio n ......................................... 899,110 860,814 106,296 27,330 727,188 38,296 0 0

2 to 5 m illio n ......................................... 9,352,345 9,252,228 1,558,125 492,531 7,201,572 93,889 0 6,228

5 to 10 m illio n ...................................... 24,344,751 24,112,623 6,757,711 1,764,737 15,590,175 85,504 101,079 45,545

10 to 25 m illio n .................................... 66,077,443 64,653,388 26,023,773 5,114,379 33,515,236 178,542 684,319 561,194

25 to 50 m illio n .................................... 60,996,109 56,486,859 27,896,825 5,444,583 23,145,451 170,077 2,603,955 1,735,218

50 to 100 m illio n ................................. 59,643,350 51,535,674 28,569,308 5,902,688 17,063,678 523,624 4,247,052 3,337,000

100 to 500 m illio n ............................... 138,675,980 109,022,253 67,364,977 19,527,907 22,129,369 3,522,953 21,560,995 4,569,779

500 million to 1 b illio n ....................... 87,553,682 67,208,562 41,133,330 13,662,686 12,412,546 0 18,946,718 1,398,402

1 billion or m o re .................................... 266,135,577 233,707,702 161,359,244 71,246,941 1,101,517 0 32,427,875 0

Total ........................................... 713,772,036 616,907,567 360,779,180 123,186,090 132,942,297 4,639,110 80,571,993 11,653,366

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 231

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 105. NUMBER AND DEPOSITS OF A L L COMMERCIAL BANKS1 IN THE UNITED STATES (STATES AN D OTHER AREAS),

DECEM BER 31, 1972 

BANKS GROUPED BY DEPOSIT SIZE AND STATE 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Banks with deposits o fState

All

banks

Less 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Total United States

Banks..................................... 13,950 209 569 2,671 3,312 4,107 1,614 749 551 96 72

Total deposits....................... 619,732,665 91,317 887,562 9,306,896 24,174,516 64,604,861 56,299,325 51,691,232 111,760,692 67,208,562 233,707,702

State

Alabama

Banks..................................... 277 1 7 37 89 109 15 9 9 1 0

Deposits................................. 6,791,991 838 10,390 136,541 673,790 1,724,255 533,933 661,390 2,244,731 806,123 0

Alaska

Banks..................................... 10 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 2 0 0

Deposits................................. 741,538 0 0 0 5,064 54,642 29,864 187,143 464,825 0 0

Arizona

B anks..................................... 22 7 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 2

Deposits................................. 5,248,277 0 1,128 10,644 6,147 10,528 33,635 85,415 867,203 654,542 3,579,035

Arkansas

Banks..................................... 253 4 11 50 70 79 25 9 5 0 0

Deposits................................. 4,230,750 2,161 15,765 188,812 510,720 1,257,046 826,495 599,847 829,904 0 •0

California

Banks..................................... 165 10 1 6 17 49 33 18 19 4 8

Deposits................................. 64,068,070 263 1,522 20,186 135,641 842,166 1,117,873 1,321,735 3,531,181 2,850,749 54,246,754

Colorado

Banks..................................... 291 31 23 47 80 65 25 13 5 2 0

Deposits................................. 6,029,819 13,844 30,507 165,190 577,334 1,031,643 915,705 828,971 1,146,272 1,320,353 0

Connecticut

Banks..................................... 64 0 1 7 9 20 10 6 8 1 2

Deposits................................. 6,449,095 0 1,780 21,429 68,492 308,931 320,809 377,587 2,171,036 584,667 2,594,364

Delaware

B anks..................................... 19 1 0 5 3 4 2 0 3 1 0

Deposits................................. 1,674,400 0 0 18,681 23,763 47,431 70,671 0 962,273 551,581 0

232 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Washington D.C.

Banks..................................... 14 0 0 0 0

Deposits................................. 3,204,862 0 0 0 0

Florida

Banks..................................... 581 4 10 42 103

Deposits................................. 19,755,641 1,556 13,449 147,741 785,932

Georgia

Banks..................................... 437 9 23 91 127

Deposits................................. 9,929,051 5,192 36,047 318,327 928,147

Hawaii

B anks..................................... 11 1 0 1 1

Deposits................................. 2,131,349 0 0 2,618 6,552

Idaho

Banks...................................... 24 0 0 3 7

Deposits................................. 1,867,344 0 0 12,385 47,525

Illinois

Banks...................................... 1,155 10 34 225 286

Deposits................................. 45,644,201 3,078 56,910 775,992 2,090,258

Indiana

Banks ...................................... 408 2 4 50 80

Deposits................................. 13,488,063 14 6,838 179,684 590,207

Iowa

Banks...................................... 670 4 18 216 198

Deposits................................. 8,387,488 1,048 29,922 778,982 1,422,213

Kansas

Banks...................................... 607 14 60 208 153

Deposits................................. 6,435,717 10,298 90,984 694,410 1,087,107

Kentucky

Banks...................................... 341 4 14 67 92

Deposits................................. 7,052,411 2,133 23,634 233,317 696,404

Louisiana

Banks..................................... 238 1 7 23 51

Deposits................................. 8,815,554 439 11,224 80,305 381,155

Maine

Banks...................................... 47 2 5 3 6

Deposits................................. 1,580,117 1,220 6,622 10,740 52,980

Maryland

Banks...................................... 112 0 2 13 24

Deposits................................. 6,847,964 0 2,839 50,587 173,851

Massachusetts

Banks..................................... 155 0 2 6 21

Deposits................................. 12,920,138 0 2,880 21,392 153,935

1 5 2 4 2 0

19,187 174,508 158,635 1,090,593 1,761,939 0

193 128 70 30 1 0

3,171,589 4,567,982 4,749,649 5,322,088 995,655 0

128 35 14 6 2 2

1,947,262 1,134,010 896,564 918,152 1,183,658 2,561,692

1 0 1 4 2 0

14,532 0 97,857 540,406 1,469,384 0

8 2 0 2 2 0

133,278 90,524 0 377,117 1,206,515 0

300 161 91 42 2 4

4,831,067 5,639,965 6,127,450 7,452,174 1,417,502 17,249,805

158 65 25 21 1 2

2,505,681 2,339,256 1,694,580 3,349,263 563,498 2,259,042

179 34 15 6 0 0

2,736,016 1,221,034 995,648 1,202,625 0 0

128 32 5 7 0 0

2,035,822 1,047,328 323,818 1,145,950 0 0

118 24 14 6 2 0

1,820,087 824,026 860,500 1,349,299 1,243,011 0

94 33 10 17 2 0

1,460,313 1,107,853 793,227 3,542,475 1,438,563 0

16 8 2 5 0 0

236,668 280,618 163,980 827,289 0 0

40 17 7 4 4 1

639,400 615,394 414,061 847,326 2,879,088 1,225,418

56 26 25 15 1 3

874,212 942,504 1,803,443 2,954,055 966,112 5,201,605

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 233

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 105. N U M B E R A N D DEPOSITS OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S 1 IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

D ECEM BER 31, 1 9 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY DEPOSIT SIZE AND STATE 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Banks with deposits o fState

All

banks

Less 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Michigan

Banks..................................... 332 2 1 19 74 112 56 36 23 5 4

Deposits................................. 25,438,746 917 1,439 75,639 550,008 1,842,752 2,015,748 2,632,711 4,563,487 3,528,332 10,227,703

Minnesota

Banks..................................... 737 3 33 261 201 170 48 11 7 1 2

Deposits................................. 11,457,147 2,089 53,489 892,192 1,432,636 2,577,755 1,725,598 646,454 999,744 891,065 2,236,125

Mississippi

Banks 27 0 ..................................... 181 0 6 21 40 77 4 5 1

Deposits................................. 4,252,125 0 8,327 75,604 302,342 1,149,314 951,351 245,182 955,515 564,490 0

Missouri

Banks..................................... 677 9 46 153 169 199 59 26 13 2 1

Deposits................................. 13,975,959 4,019 73,353 521,942 1,199,297 3,069,506 2,016,927 1,801,544 2,738,141 1,509,083 1,042,147

Montana

Banks 0 0 ..................................... 147 1 5 38 42 43 10 7 1

Deposits................................. 2,157,335 0 8,068 132,388 314,357 663,059 405,715 508,433 125,315 0 0

Nebraska

Banks 0 ..................................... 446 21 61 156 110 68 22 3 5 0

Deposits................................. 4,658,067 12,518 91,731 497,118 794,231 993,102 752,744 186,430 1,330,193 0 0

Nevada

Banks 0 ..................................... 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 1

Deposits................................. 1,545,068 0 0 0 0 12,467 32,399 71,852 701,728 726,622 0

New Hampshire

Banks 0 ..................................... 78 5 1 11 23 26 7 3 2 0

Deposits................................. 1,308,081 2,572 1,238 38,877 166,808 411,113 237,850 206,193 243,430 0 0

New Jersey

Banks................... .............. 211 1 4 5 14 51 63 30 35 7 1

Deposits................................. 19,299,144 0 6,488 18,182 98,776 1,068,178 1,847,160 2,077,231 8,288,468 4,860,080 1,034,581

New Mexico

Banks..................................... 72 1 1 1 13 35 15 3 3 0 0

Deposits................................. 2,200,622 0 1,741 2,172 91,754 515,307 526,862 178,298 884,488 0 0

234 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
New York

Banks..................................... 305 4 4 24 45

Deposits................................. 108,840,547 1,482 6,504 85,694 343,479

North Carolina

Banks ..................................... 87 0 2 8 22

Deposits................................. 10,126,012 0 2,929 25,497 162,662

North Dakota

Banks ..................................... 170 2 6 52 63

Deposits................................. 1,966,755 1,928 10,638 186,651 449,765

Ohio

Banks ..................................... 505 2 8 59 116

Deposits................................. 26,691,070 1,430 12,966 218,720 840,518

Oklahoma

Banks..................................... 441 9 31 125 108

Deposits................................. 7,409,136 4,460 49,326 414,450 779,246

Oregon

Banks..................................... 45 1 2 5 9

Deposits................................. 5,200,223 706 2,432 19,809 72,465

Pennsylvania

Banks..................................... 437 5 1 33 80

Deposits................................. 35,806,695 269 1,979 121,976 . 615,344

Rhode Island

Banks..................................... 16 1 1 0 4

Deposits................................. 2,227,433 239 1,252 0 29,762

South Carolina

Banks..................................... 94 0 3 18 29

Deposits................................. 3,208,453 0 5,380 65,037 207,574

South Dakota

Banks..................................... 159 0 12 64 42

Deposits................................. 2,016,819 0 20,331 227,054 291,037

Tennessee

Banks..................................... 313 3 14 59 70

Deposits................................. 10,346,223 832 22,109 212,581 506,877

Texas

B anks..................................... 1,238 17 69 230 290

Deposits................................. 34,697,487 11,862 106,858 814,410 2,097,704

Utah

Banks..................................... 53 1 5 4 15

Deposits................................. 2,460,313 0 7,432 14,033 102,427

Vermont

Banks...................................... 41 1 1 5 7

Deposits................................. 1,128,509 0 1,678 20,323 49,749

66 47 41 52 8 14

1,075,860 1,745,658 2,895,115 2,280,533 5,860,325 84,545,897

23 11 7 9 2 3

382,423 385,963 468,210 1,837,626 1,583,749 5,276,953

30 10 6 1 0 0

464,095 334,343 351,179 168,156 0 0

154 89 37 27 10 3

2,503,612 3,127,543 2,609,897 5,125,227 6,898,911 5,352,246

112 42 6 5 3 0

1,684,160 1,425,659 419,667 976,126 1,656,042 0

14 6 3 3 0 2

233,929 206,764 174,009 436,563 0 4,053,546

153 80 39 32 6 8

2,492,064 2,794,843 2,772,608 6,805,340 4,202,181 16,000,091

3 1 4 0 1 1

40,819 33,069 292,918 0 627,197 1,202,177

24 11 1 7 1 0

366,882 348,952 73,755 1,476,272 664,601 0

24 11 2 4 0 0

340,070 347,436 107,348 683,543 0 0

101 41 14 6 4 1

1,573,772 1,376,249 962,751 1,649,371 3,039,979 1,001,702

395 132 59 38 4 4

6,160,613 4,479,687 4,110,221 7,509,175 2,660,688 6,746,269

17 4 1 5 1 0

268,187 133,086 90,230 1,155,780 689,138 0

16 6 2 3 0 0

252,341 201,381 150,085 452,952 0 0

NUMBER OF BANKS AND BRANCHES 235

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 0 5 . N U M B E R A N D D E P OSITS OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S 1 IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

DECEM BER 31, 1 9 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY DEPOSIT SIZE AND STATE 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Banks w ith deposits o fState

All

banks

Less 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Virginia

Banks..................................... 256 4 8 26 52 89 41 18 14 3 1

Deposits................................. 10,753,060 1,935 12,920 95,126 392,152 1,424,636 1,372,881 1,307,701 2,930,956 2,047,042 1,167,711

Washington

Banks..................................... 90 4 2 25 17 23 6 5 4 2 2

Deposits................................. 7,050,674 1,955 3,756 83,833 127,509 361,024 219,843 352,335 935,124 1,263,454 3,701,841

West Virginia

Banks..................................... 203 0 2 24 61 74 30 9 3 0 0

Deposits................................. 3,868,734 0 2,757 80,853 439,351 1,103,665 1,101,937 637,730 502,441 0 0

Wisconsin

Banks..................................... 613 4 15 124 160 215 58 27 8 1 1

Deposits................................. 12,103,146 20 24,396 439,207 1,170,884 3,381,882 1,974,547 1,933,777 1,438,769 538,666 1,200,998

Wyoming

Banks ..................................... 71 0 2 14 17 8 28 1 1 0 0

Deposits................................ 1,108,675 0 3,604 44,984 128,585 448,935 275,463 97,183 109,921 0 0

Other Areas

Guam

Banks..................................... 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deposits................................. 2,318 0 0 2,318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Puerto Rico

Banks ..................................... 14 0 0 2 0 1 2 3 4 2 0

Deposits................................. 2,624,192 0 0 7,847 0 21,204 67,680 188,685 834,799 1,503,977 0

Virgin Islands

Banks..................................... 8 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0

Deposits................................. 510,067 0 0 4,416 0 20,379 0 0 485,272 0 0

1 Excludes data for branches in U.S. possessions and trust territories of banks headquartered in the United States and for 16 insured branches, in New York, of 3 insured nonmember banks in Puerto R ico. I ncludes nondeposit 

trust companies.

236 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF BANKS 

Table 106. Assets and liabilities of all commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas), June 

30, 1972

Banks grouped by insurance status and class o f bank

Table 107. Assets and liabilities of all commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas),

December 31, 1972 

Banks grouped by insurance status and class o f bank

Table 108. Assets and liabilities of all mutual savings banks in the United States (States and other areas),

June 30, 1972, and December 31, 1972 

Banks grouped by insurance status

Table 109. Assets and liabilities of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas),

December call dates, 1962, 1968-1972 

Table 110. Assets and liabilities of insured mutual savings banks in the United States (States and other 

areas), December call dates, 1962, 1968-1972 

Table 111. Percentages of assets and liabilities of insured commercial banks operating throughout 1972 in 

the United States (States and other areas), December 31, 1972 

Banks grouped by amount of deposits

Table 112. Percentages of assets and liabilities of insured mutual savings banks operating throughout 1972 

in the United States (States and other areas), December 31, 1972 

Banks grouped by amount of deposits

Table 113. Distribution of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas),

December 31, 1972

Banks grouped according to amount o f deposits and by ratios o f selected items to assets or

deposits

Commercial banks

Before 1969, statem ents o f assets and liabilities were subm itted by in- m ent loans carried in surplus accounts. A ll banks are required to report 

sured com m ercial banks on either a cash or an accrual basis, depending upon income taxes on an accrual basis.

the b a n k s m ethod o f bookkeeping. In 1969, insured com m ercial banks Since 1969, all m a jo rity-o w n e d premises subsidiaries are fu lly consolihaving resources o f $50 m illio n or more, and beginning in 1970, $25 m illio n dated; o th e r m a jo rity-ow ne d dom estic subsidiaries (b u t not com m ercial bank 

or m ore, were required to re port th e ir assets and liabilities on the basis o f subsidiaries) are consolidated if they meet either of the fo llo w in g criteria: (a) 

accrual accounting. Where the results are no t significantly d iffe re n t, partic- any subsidiary in which the parent bank's investm ent represents 5 percent or 

ular accounts may be re ported on a cash basis. Banks not subject to fu ll more o f its e q u ity capital accounts; (b) any subsidiary whose gross operating 

accrual accounting are required to re p o rt the in s ta lm e n t loan fu n ctio n on an revenues a m ount to 5 percent, or more o f the parent bank's gross operating 

accrual basis, or else to su b m it a statem ent of unearned income on instal- revenues; or (beginning in December 1972) (c) any subsidiary whose "In -

ASSETS AND LIA B ILIT IE S OF BANKS 237

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
com e (loss) before incom e taxes and securities gains or losses” am ounts to 5 

percent or more o f the "In c o m e (loss) before incom e taxes and securities 

gains o r losses" o f the parent bank. B eginning in 1972, investments in subsidiaries n o t consolidated in w h ich the bank d ire c tly or in d ire ctly exercises 

effective co n tro l are reported on an e q u ity (rathe r than cost) basis w ith the 

investm ent and undivide d p ro fits adjusted to include the parent's share o f 

the subsidiaries' net w o rth .

In the case o f insured banks w ith branches outside the 50 States, net 

am ounts due fro m such branches are included in "O th e r assets," and net 

a m ount due to such branches are included in "O th e r lia b ilitie s ." Branches of 

insured banks outside the 50 States are treated as separate entities b u t are 

no t included in the co u n t o f banks. Data fo r such branches are not included 

in the figures fo r the States in w h ich the parent banks are located.

P rior to 1969, securities held by com m ercial banks were reported net of 

valuation reserves; to ta l loans were reported b o th gross (before deductions 

fo r reserves) and net, the la tte r included in "T o ta l assets." Beginning in 

1969, loans and securities are shown on a gross basis in "T o ta l assets" o f 

com m ercial banks. A ll reserves on loans and securities, including the reserves 

fo r bad debts set up pursuant to Internal Revenue Service rulings, are included in "Reserves on loans and securities" on the lia b ility side o f the 

balance sheet.

Ind ividu al loan items are reported gross. Instalm ent loans, however, are 

o rd in a rily reported net if the instalm ent paym ents are applied d ire ctly to 

the re duction of the loan. Such loans are re ported gross if, under contract, 

the paym ents do n o t im m e dia tely reduce the unpaid balances of the loan but 

are assigned or pledged to assure repaym ent at m a tu rity .

The category "T ra d in g account securities" was added to the co n d itio n 

re port o f com m ercial banks in 1969 to ob tain this segregation fo r banks tha t 

regularly deal in securities w ith o th e r banks or w ith the public. Banks 

occasionally ho ld ing securities purchased fo r possible resale re port these 

under "In v e s tm e n t securities."

Assets and lia b ilitie s held in or ad m inistered by a savings, bond, insurance, 

real estate, foreign, or any o th e r departm ent o f a bank, except a tru st departm ent, are consolidated w ith the respective assets and liabilities of the com ­

mercial departm ent. "D ep osits o f individuals, partnerships, and corporatio n s " includes tru s t funds deposited by a tru s t departm ent in a com m ercial 

or savings departm ent. O th er assets held in tru s t are not included in statemegts o f assets and lia bilities.

Demand balances w ith , and demand deposits due to , banks in the U nited 

States, except private banks and A m erican branches o f foreign banks, exclude 

reciprocal interban k deposits. (R eciprocal interban k deposits arise when tw o 

banks m aintain deposit accounts w ith each other.)

Asset and lia b ility data fo r noninsured banks are tabulated fro m reports 

pertaining to the individual banks. In a few cases, these reports are no t as 

detailed as those sub m itted by insured banks.

A d d itio n a l data on assets and lia b ilitie s o f all banks as o f June 30, 1972 

and December 31, 1972, are shown in the C o rp o ra tio n 's sem iannual publicatio n Assets and Liabilities—Commercial and M utual Savings Banks.

Mutual Savings Banks

E ffective December 31, 1971, the Reports o f C o n d itio n and Incom e fo r 

m utual savings banks were revised. A m ong the changes was a re quirem ent fo r 

consolidating the accounts o f branches and subsidiaries w ith the parent 

bank, on a com parable basis w ith com m ercial bank reports (see above). A 

1972 revision broadened the criteria fo r consolidated reportin g; it also provided fo r the reporting o f investm ents in unconsolidated subsidiaries on an 

e q u ity basis, com parable w ith com m ercial bank reporting.

One objective of the revisions in 1971 was to provide a sim p lifie d re porting fo rm . T o this end, the schedules fo r deposits and securities were condensed and sim plifie d.

Several changes were made in the reporting of specific items. Loans are 

reported in som ewhat m ore detail than fo rm e rly. In real estate loans, constru ctio n loans are shown separately, and loans secured by residential properties are detailed as to those secured by 1- to 4 -fa m ily properties and by 

m u ltifa m ily (5 or more) properties.

A n o th e r im p o rta n t change shifted various reserve accounts w hich had 

been carried as deductions against assets (about $200 m illio n in 1971) into 

the surplus accounts. Figures fo r earlier years in table 110 have been revised 

in order to provide co m p a ra b ility w ith the 1971-1972 data.

Beginning June 30, 1972, m utual savings banks w ith to ta l resources of 

$25 m illio n or m ore are required to prepare Reports of C o n d itio n on the 

basis o f accrual accounting. A ll banks, irrespective o f size, are required to 

re port incom e taxes on an accrual basis.

Sources of data

Insured banks: see p. 261; noninsured banks: State banking authorities; 

and reports fro m individual banks.

238 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE C O R P O R A T IO N

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 106. ASSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

JU N E 30, 1972

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Insured banks Noninsured banks

Asset, liability, or capital account item Total

Total

Members of 

Federal Reserve System

Not 

members 

of F.R. 

System

Total

Banks

of

deposit2

Nondeposit

Total National1 State companies3

Total assets.................................................................................................... 673,015,828 665,829,990 531,784,226 393,763,253 138,020,973 134,045,764 7,185,838 6,774,624 411,214

Cash, reserves, balances with banks, and collection ite m s -to ta l..

Currency and c o in ..........................................................................

Reserve with Federal Reserve banks (member banks)..............

Demand balances with banks in U.S. (except American

branches of foreign b a n k s ).....................................................

Other balances with banks in United S tates..............................

Balances with banks in foreign co u n trie s ...................................

Cash items in process of collection..............................................

100,094,937

6,844,769

27,123,791

23,827,300

2,198,219

895,090

39,205,768

98,627,096

6,813,417

27,123,791

22,820,610

2,052,205

675,829

39,141,244

86,521,061

5,103,552

27,123,791

14,389,638

1,446,891

559,828

37,897,361

60,272,758

3,879,659

19,975,855

10,682,727

1,116,649

306,207

24,311,661

26,248,303

1,223,893

7,147,936

3,706,911

330,242

253,621

13,585,700

12,106,035

1,709,865

0

8,430,972

605,314

116,001

1,243,883

1,467,841

31,352

0

1,006,690

146,014

219,261

64,524

1,385,993

28,568

0

939,659

134,013

219,261

64,492

81,848

2,784

0

67,031

12,001

0

32

Securities-total ....................................................................................

U.S. Treasury securities.................................................................

Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corps . . . .

Obligations of States and subdivisions.......................................

Other securities ...............................................................................

172,517,847

60,626,678

19,678,551

86,902,145

5,310,473

171,227,971

€0,259,281

19,460,905

86,397,723

5,110,062

127,664,162

43,718,597

12,366,712

67,802,098

3,776,755

96,815,920

33,268,595

9,621,728

51,037,993

2,887,604

30,848,242

10,450,002

2,744,984

16,764,105

889,151

43,563,809

16,540,684

7,094,193

18,595,625

1,333,307

1,289,876

367,397

217,646

504,422

200,411

1,090,128

319,148

211,404

416,567

143,009

199,748

48,249

6,242

87,855

57,402

Investment se c u ritie s -to ta l..........................................................

U.S. Treasury securities............................................................

Securities o f other U.S. Government agencies and corps..

Obligations o f States and subdivisions...................................

Other securities..........................................................................

169,167,150

59,050,223

19,301,865

85,605,016

5,210,046

167,903,400

58,708,952

19,084,219

85,100,594

5,009,635

124,386,565

42,176,557

11,995,555

66,536,234

3,678,219

94,553,960

32,209,440

9,335,343

50,218,812

2,790,365

29,832,605

9,967,117

2,660,212

16,317,422

887,854

43,516,835

16,532,395

7,088,664

18,564,360

1,331,416

1,263,750

341,271

217,646

504,422

200,411

1,086,272

315,292

211,404

416,567

143,009

177,478

25,979

6,242

87,855

57,402

Trading account s e c u ritie s -to ta l.................................................

U.S. Treasury securities............................................................

Securities o f other U.S. Government agencies and corps..

Obligations of States and subdivisions...................................

Other securities...........................................................................

3,350,697

1,576,455

376,686

1,297,129

100,427

3,324,571

1,550,329

376,686

1,297,129

100,427

3,277,597

1,542,040

371,157

1,265,864

98,536

2,261,960

1,059,155

286,385

819,181

97J39

1,015,637

482,885

84,772

446,683

1,297

46,974

8,289

5,529

31^65

1,891

26,126

26,126

0

0

0

3.856

3.856

0

0

0

22.270

22.270

0

0

0

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements 

to re s e ll-to ta l.............................................................................

With domestic commercial banks.................................................

With brokers and dealers in securities..........................................

With others ......................................................................................

20,639,789

19,237,911

978,462

423,416

19,610,293

18,208,494 

978,383 

423,416

15,563,135

14,199,418

968,550

395,167

12,756,732

11,465,059

917,816

373,857

2,806,403

2,734,359

50,734

21,310

4,047,158

4,009,076

9,833

28,249

1,029,496

1,029,417

79

0

1,025,246

1,025,167

79

0

4.250

4.250 

0 

0

ASSETS AND LIABI LITIES OF BANKS 239

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 0 6 . ASS E TS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S T A T E S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

JU N E 30, 197 2 — C O N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Insured banks Noninsured banks

Asset, liability, or capital account item Total

Total

Members of 

Federal Reserve System

Not 

members 

of F.R. 

System

Total

Banks

of

deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

Total National1 State companies3

Other loans and d isco u n ts-to ta l............................................................... 353,941,798 351,317,112 280,737,050 208,496,617 72,240,433 70,580,062 2,624,686 2,588,424 36,262

Real estate lo a n s -to ta l......................................................................... 90,121,410 89,893,801 66,894,148 51,026,217 15,867,931 22,999,653 227,609 213,440 14,169

Secured by farmland ...................................................................... 4,548,398 4,516,484 2,129,866 1,684,365 445,501 2,386,618 31 £ 1 4 31,354 560

Secured by residential properties:

Secured by 1- to 4-family residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration ................ 7,454,597 7,419,654 6,412,048 5,300,692 1,111,356 1,007,606 34,943 34,135 808

Guaranteed by Veterans Administration........................ 3,140,607 3,121,691 2,703,737 2,203,291 500,446 417,954 18,916 18,675 241

Not insured or guaranteed by FHA or V A ..................... 41,193,463 41,096,896 30,035,418 23,502,230 6,533,188 11,061,478 96,567 89,615 6,952

Secured by multifamily (5 or more) residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration ................ 1,022,343 1,022,025 922,207 572,678 349,529 99,818 318 318 0

Not insured by FHA ........................................................... 3,970,340 3,953,487 3,190,966 2,036,252 1,154,714 762,521 16,853 16,853 0

Secured by other properties........................................................... 28,791,662 28,763,564 21,499,906 15,726,709 5,773,197 7^63,658 28,098 22,490 5,608

Loans to domestic commercial and foreign b an ks .......................... 5,056,129 4,762,076 4,520,815 2,922,535 1,598,280 241,261 294,053 294,053 0

Loans to other financial in s titu tio n s ................................................. 18,489,745 18,392,755 17,146,568 11,741,642 5,404,926 1,246,187 96,990 96,890 100

Loans to brokers and dealers in securities........................................ 8,613,195 8,496,484 8,259,772 4,108,370 4,151,402 236,712 116,711 116,236 475

Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities............................ 4,014,969 4,001,098 3,477,191 2,472,297 1,004,894 523,907 13,871 9,325 4,546

Loans to farmers (excluding loans on real estate)............................ 13,625,908 13,606,655 7,932,533 6,725,846 1,206,687 5,674,122 19,253 18,919 334

Commercial and industrial loans (incl. open market p ap er)......... 124,323,880 122,958,570 104,887,774 77,230,328 27,657,446 18,070,796 1,365,310 1,360,354 4,956

Other loans to in d iv id u a ls -to ta l........................................................ 80,916,934 80,543,649 59,764,976 46,653,358 13,111,618 20,778,673 373,285 370,555 2,730

Passenger automobile instalment loans........................................ 27,217,470 27,025,378 18,892,990 15,331,024 3,561,966 8,132,388 192,092 190,821 1,271

Credit cards and related plans:

Retail (charge account) credit card plans ............................ 4,598,068 4,598,031 4,149,620 3,312,969 836,651 448,411 37 37 0

Check credit and revolving credit plans................................. 1,580,580 1,580,580 1,385,616 858,988 526,628 194,964 0 0 0

Other retail consumer instalment loans:

Mobile homes, not including travel trailers.......................... 5,468,119 5,465,029 3,974,850 3,323,060 651,790 1,490,179 3,090 3,090 0

Other retail consumer goods.................................................... 4,927,060 4,909,785 3,311,855 2,740,333 571,522 1,597,930 17,275 17,044 231

Residential repair and modernization instalment loans............ 4,149,463 4,141,840 3,139,995 2,406,730 733,265 1,001,845 7,623 7,484 139

Other instalment loans for personal expenditures..................... 12,243,221 12,142,599 8,708,470 6,756,071 1,952,399 3,434,129 100,622 100,314 308

Single-payment loans for personal expenditures ..................... 20,732,953 20,680,407 16,201,580 11,924,183 4,277,397 4,478,827 52,546 51,765 781

All other loans (including overdrafts) ............................................... 8,779,628 8,662,024 7,853,273 5,616,024 2,237,249 808,751 117,604 108,652 8,952

Total loans and securities............................................................... 547,099,434 542,155,376 423,964,347 318,069,269 105,895,078 118,191,029 4,944,058 4,703,798 240,260

Bank premises, furniture and fixtures, and other assets

representing bank premises ........................................................... 10,972,600 10,920,414 8,704,860 6,821,168 1,883,692 2,215,554 52,186 38,080 14,106

Real estate owned other than bank premises................................... 397,071 384,716 256,982 165,845 91,137 127,734 12,355 3,677 8,678

Investments in subsidiaries not consolidated................................... 885,005 879,518 867,685 641,739 225,946 11,833 5,487 5,437 50

Customers' liability on acceptances outstan d in g ............................ 3,798,145 3,693,873 3,512,447 2,081,421 1,431,026 181,426 104,272 104,272 0

Other assets.............................................................................................. 9,768,636 9,168,997 7,956,844 5,711,053 2,245,791 1,212,153 599,639 533,367 66,272

240 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Total liabilities, reserves, and capital a cco u n ts .....................................

Business and personal d ep osits-to tal.................................................

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-dem and..............

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-tim e.....................

Savings deposits........................................................................

Deposits accumulated for payment o f personal loans . . . . 

Other deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corps . . .

Certified and officers' checks, letters of credit, travelers' 

checks, etc....................................................................................

Government d ep osits-to tal.................................................................

United States Government— demand............................................

United States G overnm ent-tim e.................................................

States and subdivisions-dem and.................................................

States and subdivisions— tim e ........................................................

Domestic interbank d e p o s its -to ta l...................................................

Commercial banks in the United States— demand.....................

Commercial banks in the United States-tim e ..........................

Mutual savings banks in the United States-dem and................

Mutual savings banks in the United States-tim e .....................

Foreign government and bank d e p o s its -to ta l.................................

Foreign governments, central banks, etc.-dem and...................

Foreign governments, central banks, e tc .-tim e .......................

Banks in foreign countries-dem and............................................

Banks in foreign countries-tim e .................................................

Total deposits......................................................................

Demand..........................................................................

Time.................................................................................

Miscellaneous lia b ilitie s -to ta l............................................................

Federal funds purchased (borrowed) and securities sold

under agreements to repurchase............................................

Other liabilities for borrowed m oney..........................................

Mortgage indebtedness...................................................................

Acceptances outstanding...............................................................

Other liabilities.................................................................................

Total liabilities......................................................................

M inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries ................................

Reserves on loans and securities-total ............................................

Reserve for bad debt losses on loans............................................

Other reserves on loans .................................................................

Reserves on securities ...................................................................

673,015,828 665,829,990 531,784,226 393,763,253 138,020,973 134,045,764 7,185,838 6,774,624 411,214

457,448,868 454,759,519 351,958,392 265,720,404 86,237,988 102,801,127 2,689,349 2,657,009 32,340

190,520,390 189,738,272 149,793,099 111,806,783 37,986,316 39,945,173 782,118 750,634 31,484

256,201,862 254,782,565 193,285,831 147,646,295 45,639,536 61,496,734 1,419,297 1,418,533 764

119,923,634 119,548,839 91,224,175 70,626,007 20,598,168 28,324,664 374,795 374,519 276

609,525 592,040 418,836 339,853 78,983 173,204 17,485 17,485 O

135,668,703 134,641,686 101,642,820 76,680,435 24,962,385 32,998,866 1,027,017 1,026,529 488

10,726,616 10,238,682 8,879,462 6,267,326 2,612,136 1,359,220 487,934 487,842 92

60,847,821 60,586,686 47,063,579 36,622,851 10,440,728 13,523,107 261,135 259,856 1,279

9,108,072 9,078,736 7,635,833 5,700,476 1,935,357 1,442,903 29,336 28,057 1,279

493,295 492,258 387,322 329,821 57,501 104,936 1,037 1,037 0

17,904,540 17,770,181 13,242,762 10,351,605 2,891,157 4,527,419 134,359 134,359 0

33,341,914 33,245,511 25,797,662 20,240,949 5,556,713 7,447,849 96,403 96,403 0

28,673,541 28,350,944 27,000,367 16,052,381 10,947,986 1,350,577 322.597 322,009 588

24,350,930 24,273,390 23,370,125 13,736,914 9,633,211 903,265 77,540 77,540 0

2,656,373 2,543,260 2,179,624 1,499,319 680,305 363,636 113,113 113,113 0

1,230,264 1,115,843 1,035,602 505,253 530,349 80,241 114,421 113,833 588

435,974 418,451 415,016 310,895 104,121 3,435 17,523 17,523 0

10,234,654 9,584,880 9,314,278 5,236,227 4,078,051 270,602 649,774 647,996 1,778

1,086,075 961,098 931,213 456,271 474,942 29,885 124,977 124,685 292

5,670,948 5,357,395 5,279,255 3,202,040 2,077,215 78,140 313,553 312,067 1,486

3,262,667 3,066,115 2,947,594 1,516,092 1,431,502 118,521 196,552 196,552 0

214,964 200,272 156,216 61,824 94,392 44,056 14,692 14,692 0

557,204,884 553,282,029 435,336,616 323,631,863 111,704,753 117,945,413 3,922,855 3,886,870 35,985

258,189,554 256,242,317 207,835,690 150,340,720 57,494,970 48,406,627 1,947,237 1,913,502 33,735

299,015,330 297,039,712 227,500,926 173,291,143 54,209,783 69,538,786 1J975,618 1,973,368 2,250

58,856,587 56,186,809 51,629,985 37,446,291 14,183,694 4,556,824 2,669,778 2,486,769 183,009

30,762,850 30,626,507 29,721,192 21,540,109 8,181,083 905,315 136,343 136,343 0

2,566,375 2,243,517 2,043,256 1,288,158 755,098 200,261 322,858 315,806 7,052

748,324 746,210 577,792 443,585 134,207 168,418 2,114 2,029 85

3,982,290 3,825,197 3,641,597 2,149,536 1,492,061 183,600 157,093 157,093 0

20,796,748 18,745,378 15,646,148 12,024,903 3,621,245 3,099,230 2,051,370 1,875,498 175,872

616,061,471 609,468,838 486,966,601 361,078,154 125,888,447 122,502,237 6,592,633 6,373,639 218,994

5,962 5,295 2,515 2,496 19 2,780 667 0 667

6,566,048 6,545,767 5,449,522 3,961,826 1,487,696 1,096,245 20,281 20,153 128

6,262,470 6,252,955 5,260,147 3,831,539 1,428,608 992,808 9,515 9,417 98

122,328 114,011 65,364 47,959 17,405 48,647 8,317 8,317 0

181,250 178,801 124,011 82,328 41,683 54,790 2,449 2,419 30

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF BANKS 241

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 106. A SSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B AN KS IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

JU N E 30, 1972— C O N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Insured banks Noninsured banks

Asset, liability, or capital account item Total

Total

Members of 

Federal Reserve System

Not 

members 

of F.R. 

System

Total

Banks

of

deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

Total National1 State companies3

Capital accounts-total ........................................................................ 50,382,347 49,810,090 39,365,588 28,720,777 10,644,811 10,444,502 572,257 380,832 191,425

Capital notes and debentures........................................................ 3,702,334 3,590,492 3,104,583 1,902,092 1,202,491 485,909 111,842 111,122 720

Equity ca p ita l-to ta l........................................................................ 46,680,013 46,219,598 36,261,005 26,818,685 9,442,320 9,958,593 460,415 269,710 190,705

Preferred stock.......................................................................... 73,946 69,198 53,071 42,691 10,380 16,127 4,748 4,598 150

Common stock.......................................................................... 12,507,174 12,397,960 9,618,736 7,152,742 2,465,994 2,779,224 109,214 65,246 43,968

Surplus........................................................................................ 20,800,949 20,674,871 16,514,494 12,171,665 4,342,829 4,160,377 126,078 95,324 30,754

Undivided p ro fits ...................................................................... 12,407,868 12,244,647 9,439,397 6,989,137 2,450,260 2,805,250 163,221 71,226 91,995

Reserve for contingencies and other capital reserves......... 890,076 832,922 635,307 462,450 172,857 197,615 57,154 33,316 23,838

PERCENTAGES

Of total assets:

Cash and balances with other banks................................................... 14.9% 14.8% 16.3% 15.3% 19.0% 9.0% 20.4% 20.5% 19.9%

U.S. Treasury securities and securities of other U.S. Government

agencies and corporations............................................................... 11.6 11.7 10.2 10.6 9.1 17.6 7.8 7.8 7.8

Other securities...................................................................................... 14.0 14.0 13.8 14.0 13.2 14.9 10.2 8.3 40.7

Loans and discounts (including Federal funds sold and

securities purchased under agreements to resell)....................... 55.7 55.7 55.7 56.2 54.4 55.7 50.9 53.3 9.9

Other assets............................................................................................. 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.3 2.8 10.8 10.1 21.7

Total capital accounts4 ........................................................................ 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.7 7.8 15.95 11.7s 46.6

Of total assets other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities:

Total capital accounts4 ........................................................................ 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.5 10.5 9.9 20.55 15.15 63.1

Number of b a n k s ........................................................................................ 13,896 13,679 5,715 4,607 1,108 7,964 217 154 63

1 Excludes 2 national banks, located in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

inclu d e s asset and liability figures for 15 branches of foreign banks (tabulated as banks) licensed to do a deposit business in the State of New York. Capital is not allocated to these branches by the parent banks.

3Amounts shown as deposits are special accounts and uninvested trust funds, with the latter classified as demand deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations.

40 nly asset and liability data are included for branches located in "other areas” of banks headquartered in one of the 50 States; because no capital is allocated to these branches, they are excluded from the computation of 

ratios of capital accounts to assets.

5Data for branches of foreign banks referred to in footnote 2 have been excluded in computing this ratio for noninsured banks of deposit and in total columns.

Note: Further information on the reports of assets and liabilities of banks may be found on pp. 237-238.

242 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 0 7 . ASS E TS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

DE C E M B E R 31, 1972 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Insured banks Noninsured banks

Asset, liability, or capital account item Total

Total

Members of 

Federal Reserve System

Not 

members 

of F.R. 

System

Total

Banks

of

deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

Total National1 State companies3

Total assets...................................................................................................................... 746,130,988 737,699,385 587,644,243 436,947,540 150,696,703 h 50,055,142 8,431,603 8,003,565 428,038

Cash, reserves, balances w ith banks, and collection item s-total ..................

Currency a n d rco in ............................................................................................

Reserve with Federal Reserve banks (member banks)................................

Demand balances with banks in U.S. (except American branches of

foreign banks)..............................................................................................

Other balances with banks in United S tates................................................

Balances with banks in foreign c o u n trie s.....................................................

Cash items in process of co lle ctio n................................................................

113,822,289

8,737,745

26,074,890

29,315,260

3,151,906

1,046,272

45,496,216

111,844,113

8,703,008

26,074,890

28,156,064

2,783,379

739,928

45,386,844

96,652,401

6,598,463

26,074,890

17,375,433

2,040,639

602,844

43,960,132

67,476,035

5,040,783

19,022,279

12,371,283

1,590,022

364,776

29,086,892

29,176,366

1,557,680

7,052,611

5,004,150

450,617

238,068

14,873,240

15,191,712

2,104,545

0

10,780,631

742,740

137,084

1,426,712

1,978,176

34,737

0

1,159,196

368,527

306,344

109,372

1,892,187

30,587

0

1,096,419

349,565

306,261

109,355

85,989

4,150

0

62,777

18,962

83

17

S ecurities-total........................................................................................................

U.S. Treasury securities...................................................................................

Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corps..........................

Obligations of States and subdivisions.........................................................

Other securities.................................................................................................

185,198,163

67,741,747

21,848,351

89,801,221

5,806,844

183,760,796

67,299,314

21,613,301

89,294,121

5,554,060

136,279,979

48,730,072

13,734,500

69,664,950

4,150,457

103,742,075

37,200,256

10,665,833

52,721,402

3,154,584

32,537,904

11,529,816

3,068,667

16,943,548

995,873

47,480,817

18,569,242

7,878,801

19,629,171

1,403,603

1,437,367

442,433

235,050

507,100

252,784

1,238,960

394,131

230,938

418,830

195,061.

198,407

48,302

4,112

88,270

57,723

Investment se c u ritie s -to ta l............................................................................

U. S. Treasury securities-total..................................................................

Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corps.....................

Obligations of States and subdivisions....................................................

Other securities............................................................................................

180,044,563

65,126,644

21,391,728

87,925,638

5,600,553

178,632,700

64,709,715

21,156,678

87,418,538

5,347,769

131,207,745

46,155,300

13,285,231

67,822,988

3,944,226

100,219,980

35,298,073

10,296,794

51,675,677

2,949,436'

30,987,765

10,857,227

2,988,437

16,147,311

994,790

47,424,955

18,554,415

7,871,447

19,595,550

1,403,543

1,411,863

416,929

235,050

507,100

252,784

1,235,726

390,897

230,938

418,830

195,061

176,137

26,032

4,112

88,270

57,723

Trading account securities-total ..................................................................

U. S. Treasury securities..............................................................................

Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corps....................

Obligations of States and subdivisions.....................................................

Other securities............................................................................................

5,153,600

2,615,103

456,623

1,875,583

206,291

5,128,096

2,589,599

456,623

1,875,583

206,291

5,072,234

2,574,772

449,269

1,841,962

206,231

3,522,095

1,902,183

369,039

1,045,725

205,148

1,550,139

672,589

80,230

796,237

1,083

55,862

14,827

7,354

33,621

60

25.504

25.504

0

0

0

3.234

3.234

0

0

0

22.270

22.270

0

0

0

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to

re s e ll-to ta l...................................................................................................

With domestic commercial banks................ ..................................................

With brokers and dealers in securities............................................................

With others..........................................................................................................

26,713,182

24,455,049

1,774,483

483,650

25,634,862

23,376,729

1,774,483

483,650

19,961,197

17,755,202

1,749,475

456,520

16,671,590

14,608,413

1,643,306

419,871

3,289,607

3,146,789

106,169

36,649

5,673,665

5,621,527

25,008

27,130

1.078.320

1.078.320 

0 

0

1.077.020

1.077.020 

0 

0

1.300

1.300 

0 

0

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF BANKS 243

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 0 7 . ASS E TS A N D L IA B I L IT IE S OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

DECEM BER 31, 1 9 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Insured banks Noninsured banks

Asset, liability, or capital account item Total

Total

Members of 

Federal Reserve System

Not 

members 

of F.R. 

System

Total

Banks

of

deposit2

Nondeposit

Total National1 State companies3

Other loans and discounts-total ................................................................................. 392,107,842 388,902,133 311,262,106 231,663,173 79,598,933 77,640,027 3,205,709 3,164,867 40,842

Real estate Io a n s -to ta l.......................................................................................... 99,313,615 99,086,276 73,530,147 56,455,009 17,075,138 25,556,129 227,339 210,570 16,769

Secured by farm land........................................................................................ 4,780,743 4,752,270 2,208,002 1,760,897 447,105 2,544,268 28,473 27,785 688

Secured by residential properties:

Secured by 1- to 4-family residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration..................................... 7,269,175 7,236,346 6,264,575 5,186,950 1,077,625 971,771 32,829 31,975 854

Guaranteed by Veterans Administration......................................... 3,203,044 3,181,876 2,746,444 2,242,281 504,163 435,432 21,168 20,906 262

Not insured or guaranteed by FHA or V A ....................................... 46,531,661 46,425,199 33,842,196 26,546,256 7,295,940 12,583,003 106,462 97,285 9,177

Secured by multi family (5 or more) residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration..................................... 1,226,082 1,225,769 1,087,589 671,491 416,098 138,180 313 313 0

Not insured by FHA ............................................................................ 4,552,073 4,550,113 3,725,409 2,517,930 1,207,479 824,704 1,960 1J60 0

Secured by other properties............................................................................ 31,750,837 31,714,703 23,655,932 17,529,204 6,126,728 8,058,771 36,134 30,346 5,788

Loans to domestic commercial and foreign banks............................................ 6,716,200 6,119,843 5,782,755 3,731,379 2,051,376 337,088 596,357 596,345 12

Loans to other financial in s titu tio n s ................................................................... 23,538,096 23,407,695 22,067,996 15,352,284 6,715,712 1,339,699 130,401 130,301 100

Loans to brokers and dealers in securities.......................................................... 11,316,610 11,165,572 10,862,696 5,603,808 5,258,888 302,876 151,038 150,463 575

Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities.............................................. 4,506,447 4,467,145 3,869,573 2,822,561 1,047,012 597,572 39,302 35,073 4,229

Loans to farmers (excluding loans on real estate).............................................. 14,330,309 14,302,106 8,504,415 7,273,932 1,230,483 5,797,691 28,203 27,847 356

Commercial and industrial loans (incl. open market paper)............................ 134,060,287 132,497,555 112,663,821 83,000,644 29,663,177 19,833,734 1,562,732 1,556,303 6,429

Other loans to in d iv id u a ls -to ta l.......................................................................... 88,009,657 87,629,904 64,686,962 50,655,285 14,031,677 22,942,942 379,753 376,894 2,859

Passenger automobile instalment loans.......................................................... 29,267,361 29,084,924 20,220,973 16,496,821 3,724,152 8,863,951 182,437 181,106 1,331

Credit cards and related plans:

Retail (charge account) credit card plans .............................................. 5,444,011 5,443,349 4,902,887 3,936,719 966,168 540,462 662 662 0

Check credit and revolving credit plans................................................... 1,780,153 1,780,153 1,550,073 958,077 591,996 230,080 0 0 0

Other retail consumer instalment loans:

Mobile homes, not including travel trailers............................................ 6,438,542 6,436,145 4,656,615 3,919,000 737,615 1,779,530 2,397 2,397 0

Other retail consumer goods..................................................................... 5,186,628 5,170,118 3,447,984 2,871,817 576,167 1,722,134 16,510 16,266 244

Residential repair and modernization instalment loans.............................. 4,334,848 4,326,916 3,257,349 2,500,551 756,798 1,069,567 7,932 7,784 148

Other instalment loans for personal expenditures....................................... 13,007,398 12,903,659 9,167,167 7,127,303 2,039,864 3,736,492 103,739 103,404 335

Single-payment loans for personal expenditures.......................................... 22,550,716 22,484,640 17,483,914 12,844,997 4,638,917 5,000,726 66,076 65,275 801

All other loans (including overdrafts) ................................................................. 10,316,621 10,226,037 9,293,741 6,768,271 2,525,470 932,296 90,584 81,071 9,513

Total loans and securities.......................................................................... 604,019,187 598,297,791 467,503,282 352,076,838 115,426,444 130,794,509 5,721,396 5,480,847 240,549

244 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bank premises, furniture and fixtures, and other assets representing

bank premises..............................................................................................

Real estate owned other than bank premises.....................................................

Investments in subsidiaries not consolidated....................................................

Customers' liability on acceptances o utstanding..............................................

Other assets...............................................................................................................

11,588,324

381,794

1,083,554

3,574,918

11,660,922

11,524,646

369,193

1,077,700

3,471,203

11,114,739

9,110,791

242,237

1,067,449

3,315,724

9,752,359

7,184,972

161,238

816,002

2,009,009

7,223,446

1,925,819

80,999

251,447

1,306,715

2,528,913

2,413,855

126,956

10,251

155,479

1,362,380

63,678

12,601

5,854

103,715

546,183

40,119

3,668

5,804

103,715

477,225

23,559

8,933

50

0

68,958

Total liabilities, reserves, and capital accounts ........................................................... 746,130,988 737,699,385 587,644,243 436,947,540 150,696,703 150,055,142 8,431,603 8,003,565 428,038

Business and personal deposits-total........................................................................

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-dem and................................

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-tim e.......................................

Savings deposits..........................................................................................

Deposits accumulated for payment of personal loans.........................

Other deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corps.......................

Certified and officers' checks, letters of credit, travelers' checks, etc. ..

507,362,673

222,090,703

273,504,477

124,549,854

559,443

148,395,180

11,767,493

504,283,757

221,204,645

271,826,567

124,188,716

554,001

147,083,850

11,252,545

389,365,583

174,313,188

205,532,694

93,706,975

381,828

111,443,891

9,519,701

294,470,207

130,257,288

158,204,468

73,060,520

311,029

84,832,919

6,008,451

94,895,376

44,055,900

47,328,226

20,646,455

70,799

26,610,972

3,511,250

114,918,174

46,891,457

66,293,873

30,481,741

172,173

35,639,959

1,732,844

3,078,916

886,058

1,677,910

361,138

5,442

1,311,330

514,948

3,047,277

854,927

1,677,579

361,138

5,429

1,311,012

514,771

31,639

31,131

331

0

13

318

177

Government d ep o s its -to ta l.........................................................................................

United States Government-demand ...........................................................

United States G overnm ent-tim e..................................................................

States and subdivisions— dem and..................................................................

States and subdivisions-tim e.........................................................................

67,858,690

11,003,498

615,035

18,822,564

37,417,593

67,554,342

10,939,672

614,035

18,672,774

37,327,861

51,753,480

9,029,949

473,748

13,583,899

28,665,884

40,639,411

6,651,988

420,988

10,615,396

22,951,039

11,114,069

2,377,961

52,760

2,968,503

5,714,845

15,800,862

1,909,723

140,287

5,088,875

8,661,977

304,348

63,826

1,000

149,790

89,732

303,670

63,149

1,000

149,790

89,731

678

677

0

0

1

Domestic interbank d e p o s its -to ta l..........................................................................

Commercial banks in the United States-demand......................................

Commercial banks in the United States-tim e ...........................................

Mutual savings banks in the United States-dem and..................................

Mutual savings banks in the United States-tim e .......................................

34,027,063

28,652,767

3,639,830

1,367,443

367,023

33,677,534

28,569,727

3,548,503

1,205,688

353,616

31,862,266

27,421,082

2,976,724

1,125,140

339,320

19,395,594

16,828,924

1,841,427

527,874

197,369

12,466,672

10,592,158

1,135,297

597,266

141,951

1,815,268

1,148,645

571,779

80,548

14,296

349,529

83,040

91,327

161,755

13,407

349,529

83,040

91,327

161,755

13,407

0

0

0

0

0

Foreign government and bank d e p o s its -to ta l......................................................

Foreign governments, central banks, etc.-dem and....................................

Foreign governments, central banks, e tc .-tim e .........................................

Banks in foreign countries-dem and..............................................................

Banks in foreign countries-tim e ..................................................................

12,298,251

1,018,730

7,060,213

3,885,083

334,225

11,391,934

908,731

6,517,493

3,637,309

328,401

10,983,941

883,438

6,414,053

3,437,454

248,996

6,273,968

402,358

3,987,081

1,764,430

120,099

4,709,973

481,080

2,426,972

1,673,024

128,897

407,993

25,293

103,440

199,855

79,405

906,317

109,999

542,720

247,774

5,824

904,005

109,684

540,723

247,774

5,824

2,312

315

1,997

0

0

Total d ep o sits..............................................................................................

Dem and............................................................................................

Time...................................................................................................

621,546,677

298,608,281

322,938,396

616,907,567

296,391,091

320,516,476

483,965,270

239,313,851

244,651,419

360,779,180

173,056,709

187,722,471

123,186,090

66,257,142

56,928,948

132,942,297

57,077,240

75,865,057

4,639,110

2,217,190

2,421,920

4,604,481

2,184,890

2,419,591

34,629

32,300

2,329

Miscellaneous lia b ilitie s -to ta l....................................................................................

Federal funds purchased (borrowed) and securities sold under

agreements to repurchase.........................................................................

Other liabilities for borrowed m oney...........................................................

Mortgage indebtedness.....................................................................................

Acceptances outstanding................................................................................

Other liabilities ................................................................................................

64,710,773

33,897,364

4,388,888

1,164,179

3,689,705

21,570,637

61,509,222

33,731,069

3,919,796

1,160,675

3,570,900

19,126,782

56,719,445

32,687,574

3,682,386

987,062

3,414,822

15,947,601

41,634,312

24,348,701

2,370,204

448,725

2,064,644

12,402,038

15,085,133

8,338,873

1,312,182

538,337

1,350,178

3,545,563

4,789,777

1,043,495

237,410

173,613

156,078

3,179,181

3,201,551

166,295

469,092

3,504

118,805

2,443,855

3,003,003

166,295 

461,449 

1,898 

118,805 

2,254,556 ,

198,548

0

7,643

1,606

0

189,299

Total liabilities ............................................................................................ 686,257,450 678,416,789 540,684,715 402,413,492 138,271,223 137,732,074 7,840,661 7,607,484 233,177

M inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries ...................................................... 6,261 5,594 2,738 2,711 27 2,856 667 0 667

ASSETS AND LI ABI LITI ES OF BANKS 245

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 107. ASSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

DECEM BER 3 1,1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS AND CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Insured banks Noninsured banks

Asset, liability, or capital account item Total

Members of 

Federal Reserve System

Not 

members 

of F.R. 

System

Total

Banks

of

deposit2

Nondeposit

trust

Total National1 State companies3

Reserves on loans and securities-total ............................................................... 6,929,227 6,909,306 5,718,425 4,179,359 1,539,066 1,190,881 19,921 19,711 210

Reserve for bad debt losses on loans ............................................................ 6,639,433 6,623,801 5,535,380 4,053,516 1,481,864 1,088,421 15,632 15,472 160

Other reserves on loans .................................................................................... 114,068 112,167 61,606 47,405 14,201 50,561 1,901 1,881 20

Reserves on securities........................................................................................ 175,726 173,338 121,439 78,438 43,001 51,899 2,388 2,358 30

Capital accounts-total .......................................................................................... 52,938,050 52,367,696 41,238,365 30,351,978 10,886,387 11,129,331 570,354 376,370 193,984

Capital notes and debentures.......................................................................... 4,211,511 4,092,820 3,510,938 2,243,330 1,267,608 581,882 118,691 117,947 744

Equity capital-total ........................................................................................ 48,726,539 48,274,876 37,727,427 28,108,648 9,618,779 10,547,449 451,663 258,423 193,240

Preferred stock............................................................................................. 73,672 68,924 52,287 41,907 10,380 16,637 4,748 4,598 150

Common stock............................................................................................. 12,944,452 12,853,653 9,926,726 7,458,175 2,468,551 2,926,927 90,799 46,400 44,399

Surplus........................................................................................................... 21,657,135 21,528,422 17,016,437 12,603,104 4,413,333 4,511,985 128,713 98,592 30,121

Undivided p ro fits ........................................................................................ 13,180,435 13,012,232 10,118,609 7,523,966 2,594,643 2,893,623 168,203 73,513 94,690

Reserve for contingencies and other capita! reserves............................ 870,845 811,645 613,368 481,496 131,872 198,277 59,200 35,320 23,880

PERCENTAGES

Of total assets:

Cash and balances with other banks..................................................................... 15.3% 15.2% 16.4% 15.4% 19.4% 10.1% 23.5% 23.6% 20.1%

U.S. Treasury securities and securities of other U.S. Government

agencies and corporations ............................................................................... 11.6 11.6 10.1 10.4 9.2 17.6 7.7 7.8 7.0

Other securities........................................................................................................ 13.2 13.3 13.1 13.3 12.4 14.0 9.3 7.7 39.3

Loans and discounts (including Federal funds sold and securities

purchased under agreements to re s e ll).......................................................... 56.1 56.2 56.4 56.8 55.0 55.5 50.8 53.0 9.8

Other assets............................................................................................................... 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 8.7 7.9 23.7

Total capital accounts4 .......................................................................................... 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.2 7.4 17.75 13.15 45.3

Of total assets other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities:

Total capital accounts4 ........................................................................................... 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.1 9.8 9.6 24.45 18.25 61.4

Number of b a n k s ........................................................................................................... 13,950 13,733 5,706 4,614 1,092 8,027 217 152 65

1 '3«4' 5See notes to table 106.

2Includes asset and liability figures for 16 branches of foreign banks (tabulated as banks) licensed to do a deposit business in the State of New York. Capital is not allocated to these branches by the parent banks. 

Note: Further information on the reports of assets and liabilities of banks may be found on pp. 237-238.

246 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 0 8 . ASS E TS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

JU N E 30, 1972, A N D D E C E M B E R 31, 1972 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Asset, liability, or surplus account item

June 30,1972 December 31, 1972

Total Insured Noninsured Total Insured Noninsured

Total assets ................................................................................................................................................... 96,066,667 83,444,840 12,621,827 100,599,295 87,650,051 12,949,244

Cash, balances with banks, and collection item s-tota l .................................................................. 1,333,802 1,195,783 138,019 1,644,876 1,520,399 124,477

Currency and c o in ............................................................................................................................ 212,801 172,739 40,062 251,536 215,345 36,191

Demand balances w ith banks in the United S ta tes.................................................................... 502,569 430,828 71,741 628,103 568,211 59,892

Other balances with banks in the United S ta tes......................................................................... 488,507 480,485 8,022 637,409 627,530 9,879

Cash items in process of co lle ctio n ................................................................................................ 129,925 111,731 18,194 127,828 109,313 18,515

S ecu rities-to tal........................................................................................................................................ 24,879,584 21,192,340 3,687,244 26,253,558 22,636,737 3,616,821

United States Government and agency s e cu ritie s-to ta l........................................................... 6,873,700 5,677,968 1,195,732 7,587,505 6,386,003 1,201,502

Securities maturing in 1 year or less....................................................................................... 1,009,529 771,404 238,125 1,227,579 968,157 259,422

Securities maturing in 1 to 5 years ......................................................................................... 2,438,921 1,855,898 583,023 2,460,598 1,915,014 545,584

Securities maturing in 5 to 10 years................................................ ...................................... 1,197,789 1,008,565 189,224 1,290,772 1,095,116 195,656

Securities maturing after 10 years........................................................................................... 2,227,461 2,042,101 185,360 2,608,556 2,407,716 200,840

State, county, and municipal o bligations.................................................................................... 625,175 604,584 20,591 881,121 857,353 23,768

Corporate bonds .............................................................................................................................. 12,042,559 10,742,269 1,300,290 12,412,116 11,086,004 1,326,112

Other bonds, notes, and debentures............................................................................................. 1,988,553 1,410,920 577,633 1,801,652 1,370,862 430,790

Corporate s to c k - to ta l..................................................................................................................... 3,349,597 2,756,599 592,998 3,571,164 2,936,515 634,649

B ank............................................................................................................................................... 523,154 325,488 197,666 531,284 329,426 201,858

Other............................................................................................................................................... 2,826,443 2,431,111 395,332 3,039,880 2,607,089 432,791

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell...................................... 1,139,160 927,610 211,550 791,820 596,255 195,565

Other loans and d is c o u n ts -to ta l......................................................................................................... 66,760,763 58,325,582 8,435,181 69,801,454 60,950,481 8,850,973

Real estate loans-total ................................................................................................................... 64,404,265 56,344,398 8,059,867 67,555,752 59,094,330 8,461,422

Construction loan s..................................................................................................................... 1,056,515 810,274 246,241 1,222,740 1,002,712 220,028

Secured by farmland................................................................................................................... 59,631 51,980 7,651 62,166 51,459 10,707

Secured by residential properties:

Secured by 1- to 4-family residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration............................................................. 14,716,679 13,547,617 1,169,062 14,550,377 13,388,433 1,161,944

Guaranteed by Veterans Administration.................................................................... 12,324,865 11,149,059 1,175,806 12,621,692 11,413,769 1,207,923

Not insured or guaranteed by FHA or V A ............................................................... 17,366,692 13,686,684 3,680,008 18,787,285 14,804,568 3,982,717

Secured by multi family (5 or more) residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration............................................................. 1,539,431 1,474,535 64,896 1,463,307 1,399,794 63,513

Not insured by F H A ....................................................................................................... 8,049,291 7,530,377 518,914 8,828,144 8,265,926 562,218

Secured by other properties..................................................................................................... 9,291,161 8,093,872 1,197,289 10,020,041, 8,767,669 1,252,372

Loans to domestic commercial and foreign banks .................................................................... 86,174 85,128 1,046 30,817 29,751 1,066

Loans to other financial institutions.............................................................................................. 60,230 59,675 555 30,494 29,927 567

Loans to brokers and dealers in securities.................................................................................... 21,094 21,094 0 29,134 28,922 212

Other loans fo r purchasing or carrying securities....................................................................... 6,304 4,386 1,918 4,014 3,446 568

Loans to farmers (excluding loans on real estate)...................................................................... 1,563 1,563 0 1,305 1,305 0

Commercial and industrial loans ............................................................................ 496,127 474,926 21,201 273,512 252,438 21,074

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES^ BANKS 247

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 108. A SSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF A L L M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

JU N E 30, 1972, A N D DECEM BER 31, 1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY INSURANCE STATUS 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Asset, liability, or surplus account item

June 30,1972 December 31,1972

Total Insured Noninsured Total Insured Noninsured

Loans to individuals for personal expenditures ......................................................................... 1,615,363 1,308,448 306,915 1,774,420 1,451,401 323,019

All other loans (including overdrafts) ......................................................................................... 69,643 25,964 43,679 102,006 58,961 43,045

Total loans and securities ........................................................................................................... 92,779,507 80,445,532 12,333,975 96,846,832 84,183,473 12,663,359

Bank premises, furniture and fixtures, and other assets representing bank premises........... 696,961 619,550 77,411 742,436 661,118 81,318

Real estate owned other than bank prem ises.............................................................................. 119,713 110,890 8,823 157,594 147,340 10,254

Investments in subsidiaries not consolidated .............................................................................. 42,471 41,500 971 60,802 59,309 1,493

Other assets........................................................................................................................................ 1,094,213 1,031,585 62,628 1,146,755 1,078,412 68,343

Total liabilities and surplus accounts.............................................................................. ................................ 96,066,667 83,444,840 12,621,827 100,599,295 87,650,051 12,949,244

Deposits-total ................................................................................................................................................... 87,817,048 76,605,687 11,211,361 92,225,359 80,571,993 11,653,366

Savings deposits................................................................................................................................. 67,803,551 59,228,928 8,574,623 69,307,860 60,573,427 8,734,433

Deposits accumulated for payment of personal loans .............................................................. 8,095 167 7,928 3,363 25 3,338

Fixed maturity and other time deposits....................................................................................... 19,207,121 16,588,055 2,619,066 22,118,826 19,207,929 2,910,897

Savings and time deposits-total.............................................................................................. 87,018,767 75,817,150 11,201,617 91,430,049 79,781,381 11,648,668

Demand deposits-total.............................................................................................................. 798,281 788,537 9,744 795,310 790,612 4,698

Miscellaneous lia b ilitie s -to ta l....................................................................................................................... 1,576,728 1,132,736 443,992 1,413,050 1,114,469 298,581

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase......................................................................... 162 162 0 22,757 22,757 0

Other borrowings............................................................................................................................... 91,429 90,723 706 99,914 98,980 934

Other liabilities................................................................................................................................... 1,485,137 1,041,851 443,286 1,290,379 992,732 297,647

Total liabilities................................................................................................................................. 89,393,776 77,738,423 11,655,353 93,638,409 81,686,462 11,951,947

M inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries ......................................................................................... 1 1 0 0 0 0

Surplus a c c o u n ts -to ta l.................................................................................................................................... 6,672,890 5,706,416 966,474 6,960,886 5,963,589 997,297

Capital notes and debentures.......................................................................................................... 31,362 17,247 14,115 68,979 59,372 9,607

Other surplus accounts..................................................................................................................... 6,641,528 5,689,169 952,359 6,891,907 5,904,217 987,690

PERCENTAGES

Of total assets:

Cash and balances with other banks ................................................................................................... 1.4% 1.4% 1.1% 1.6% 1.7% 1.0%

U.S. Government and agency securities.............................................................................................. 7.2 6.8 9.5 7.5 7.3 9.3

Other securities........................................................................................................................................ 18.7 18.6 19.7 18.6 18.5 18.7

Loans and discounts (including Federal funds sold and securities purchased under

agreements to resell)................................................................................................................... 70.7 71.0 68.5 70.2 70.2 69.9

Other assets............................................................................................................................................... 2.0 2.2 1.2 2.1 2.2 1.2

Total surplus accounts............................................................................................................................ 6.9 6.8 7.7 6.9 6.8 7.7

Of total assets other than cash and U.S. Government obligations:

Total surplus accounts .......................................................................................................................... 7.6 7.5 8.6 7.6 7.5 8.6

Number of b a n k s .......................................................................................................................................... 489 326 163 486 326 160

248 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 109. ASSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S )

DECEMBER C A L L D A T E S , 1962, 1 9 6 8 - 1972 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Asset, liability, or capital account item Dec. 28, 1962 Dec. 31,1968 Dec. 31, 19691 Dec. 31, 1970 Dec. 31, 1971 Dec. 31,1972

Total assets....................................................................................................................................................... 2 98,676,9782 505,453,7322 530,714,711 576,350,801 639,903,322 737,699,385

Cash, reserves, balances with banks, and collection item s-total ....................................................

Currency and c o in ..............................................................................................................................

Reserve with Federal Reserve banks (member banks).................................................................

Demand balances with banks in the U.S. (except American branches of foreign banks) . . . .

Other balances with banks in the U.S..............................................................................................

Balances with banks in foreign c o un tries......................................................................................

Cash items in process of collection..................................................................................................

53,798,705

4,259,137

17,679,794

12,563,869

256,823

237,431

18,801,651

83,269,951

7,216,003

21,230,246

18,089,886

334,917

264,433

36,134,466

89,335,129

7,346,973

21,452,826

19,389,950

230,150

320,921

40,594,309

93,048,095

7,084,430

23,325,123

21,088,737

1,401,661

395,356

39,752,788

98,690,700

7,591,590

27,482,817

21,962,456

2,427,914

567,033

38,658,890

111,844,113

8,703,008

26,074,890

28,156,064

2,783,379

739,928

45,386,844

Investment securities-total....................................................................................................................

U.S. Treasury securities....................................................................................................................

Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations...............................................

Obligations of States and subdivisions...........................................................................................

Other securities..................................................................................................................................

94,912,480

65,966,306

2,870,165

24,582,904

1,493,105

135,242,315

64,171,324

10,081,641

58,391,738

2,597,612

122,203,185

53,262,588

9,239,140

57,572,607

2,128,850

141,554,863

58,880,431

12,481,059

67,414,393

2,778,980

163,859,514

62,696,667

17,071,836

80,135,021

3,955,990

178,632,700

64,709,715

21,156,678

87,418,538

5,347,769

Trading account securities3. .................................................................................................................... 3,181,756 5,664,059 5,307,564 5,128,096

Federal funds s o ld ^ .................................................................................................................................. 6,526,458

264,671,3952

65,332,745 

3,735,180

7,809,567

2,626,560

30,712,679

9,712,405

286,751,602

70,325,953

3,992,931

7,262,023

2,596,261

31,210,921

562,501

2,647,857

22,053,459

2,425,147

14,938,963

5,646,962

3,994,818

10,323,657

108,393,788

63,355,683

22,706,108

2,639,497

1,082,791

15,952,321

298,189,504

73,053,364

4,319,352

7,302,286

2,563,475

32,321,718

588,760

2,718,829

23,238,944

2,581,078

15,794,299

6,208,570

3,517,601

11,153,583

112,214,990

66,005,700

22,366,443

3,807,987

1,343,990

19,643,272

328,225,896

82,314,290

4,173,726

7,476,243

2,966,378

37,438,104

803,880

3,177,970

26,277,989

4,405,298

16,908,213

7,202,440

3,646,064

12,506,206

118,401,203

74,796,848

24,850,695

4,523,889

1,463,857

25,634,862

388,902,133

99,086,276

4,752,270

7,236,346

3,181,876

46,425,199

1,225,769

4,550,113

31,714,703

6,119,843

23,407,695

11,165,572

4,467,145

14,302,106

132,497,555

87,629,904

29,084,924

5,443,349

1,780,153

Other loans and d is c o u n ts -to ta l...........................................................................................................

Real estate loa n s-tota l.......................................................................................................................

Secured by farmland....................................................................................................................

Secured by residential properties:

Secured by 1- to 4-family residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration...............................................................

Guaranteed by Veterans Administration......................................................................

Not insured or guaranteed by FHA or V A .................................................................

Secured by multifamily (5 or more) properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration3 .............................................................

142,717,5912

34,309,294

2,002,871

6,494,946

2,635,240

14,237,357

Not insured by FHA3 .......................................................................................................

Secured by other properties.........................................................................................................

Loans to domestic commercial and foreign banks ......................................................................

Loans to other financial institutions................................................................................................

Loans to brokers and dealers in securities......................................................................................

Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities........................................................................

Loans to farmers (excluding loans on real estate)........................................................................

Commercial and industrial loans (including open market paper)...............................................

Other loans to individuals-total......................................................................................................

Passenger automobile instalment loans....................................................................................

Credit cards and related plans:

Retail (charge account) credit card plans...........................................................................

Check credit and revolving credit plans.............................................................................

8,938,880

2,552,321

8,468,121

5,120,629

2,103,614

7,072,969

48,668,367

30,524,024

10,529,184

(5 )

(5 )

20,448,759

2,145,604

13,676,953

6,409,302

4,068,900

9,712,410

98,161,381

58,414,799

21,200,443

1,312,020

798,115

ASSETS AND LI ABI LITI ES OF BANKS 249

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 109. ASSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

DECEM BER C A L L D A TE S , 1962, 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Asset, liability, or capital account item Dec. 28, 1962 Dec. 31, 1968 Dec. 31, 19691 Dec. 31, 1970 Dec. 31, 1971 Dec. 31, 1972

2,857,682 5,520274 6,269,924 7,306,995

4,674,364

4,655,510

3,865,597

11,409,477

19,353,459

8,045,334

6,436,145

5,170,118

4,326,916

12,903,659

22,484,640

10,226,037

Residential repair and modernization instalment loans.........................................................

Other instalment loans for personal expenditures..................................................................

Single-payment loans for personal expenditures.....................................................................

All other loans (including overdrafts)..............................................................................................

2,762,423

5,034,282

9,340,453

3,898,252

3,494,813

9,390,559

16,698,575

6,749,301

3,654,863

9,936,340

17,066,160

7,346,631

3,716,802

10,534,538

16,928,945

7,660,319

Total loans and securities................................................................................................................ 234,935,796 406,440,168 421,848,948 461,360,747 517,036,246 598,297,791

Bank premises, furniture and fixtures, and other assets representing bank premises..............

Real estate owned other than bank premises................................................................................

3,884,209

106,984

6,656,856

323,257

8,070,059

360,820

651,095

3,308,881

7,139,779

9,143,432

406,832

740,897

10,285,384

390,833

911,550

11,524,646

369,193

1,077,700

Customers' liability on acceptances outstanding...........................................................................

Other assets..........................................................................................................................................

1,618,937

1,745,056

2,472,778

6,290,722

3,753,246

7,897,552

3,914,186

8,674,423

3,471,203

11,114,739

Total liabilities, reserves, and capital accounts ................................................................................................. 298,676,978 505,453,732 530,714,711 576,350,801 639,903,322 737,699,385

Business and personal deposits-total ...........................................................................................................

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-dem and..................................................................

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-tim e.........................................................................

Savings deposits............................................................................................................................

Deposits accumulated for payment of personal loans...........................................................

Other deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations.............................................

Certified and officers' checks, letters of credit, travelers' checks, etc........................................

216,424,179

123,296,625

88,678,022

71,043,588

783,826

16,850,608

4,449,532

361,993,247

172,006,973 

180,506,278 

96,166256

1,215,522

83,124,500

9,479,996

365,934,821

178,185,683

176,240,900

93,796,302

1,129,305

81,315,293

11,508,238

395,246,811

181,897,284

204,962,756

98,815,863

802,924

105,343,969

8,386,771

439,568,884

191,775,515

237,930,791

112,165,951

677,179

125,087,661

9,862,578

504,283,757

221,204,645

271,826,567

124,188,716

554,001

147,083,850

11,252,545

Government depo sits-to tal...............................................................................................................................

United States Government-demand ..............................................................................................

United States G overnm ent-tim e.....................................................................................................

States and subdivisions-dem and.....................................................................................................

States and subdivisions-tim e............................................................................................................

25,581,722

6,824,658

266,143

12,064,372

6,426,549

41,385,278

5,012,445

376,629

16,881,042

19,115,162

36,092,200

5,050,538

222,560

17,559,438

13,259,664

49,455,597

7,914,962

465,476

17,784,768

23,290,391

58,987,158

10,263,251

530,769

17,714,586

30,478,552

67,554,342

10,939,672

614,035

18,672,774

37,327,861

Domestic interbank d ep o s its -to ta l................................................................................................................

Commercial banks in the United States-dem and.........................................................................

Commercial banks in the United States-time ..............................................................................

Mutual savings banks in the United States-demand.....................................................................

Mutual savings banks in the United States-time .........................................................................

14,888,976

13,907,380

240,989

684,285

38,153

23,221,458

21,424,784

714,271

933,799

148,604

24,858,037

23,394,428

415,216

1,017,123

31,270

28,968,652

26,290,939

1,424,049

975,413

278,251

31,906,847

28,014,732

2,441,489

1,163,740

286,886

33,677,534

28,569,727

3,548,503

1,205,688

353,616

Foreign government and bank d e p o s its -to ta l............................................................................................

Foreign governments, central banks, etc.-dem and.......................................................................

Foreign governments, central banks, e tc .-tim e ............................................................................

Banks in foreign countries-dem and.................................................................................................

Banks in foreign c o u n trie s -tim e .....................................................................................................

4,548,654

724,335

2,431,688

1,265,391

127,240

8,051,716

866,885

4,752,732

2,118,758

313,341

10,104,607

940,239

6,378,964

2,475,098

310,306

8,842,795

919,683

4,627,306

3,000,626

295,180

8,721,173

803,364

5,053,554

2,681,096

183,159

11,391,934

908,731

6,517,493

3,637,309

328,401

Total deposits...........................................................................................................................................

Demand.....................................................................................................................................

T im e ..........................................................................................................................................

261,461,7006

163,216,578

98,226,953

434,651,699

228,724,682

205,927,017

436,989,665

240,130,785

196,858,880

482,513,855

247,170,446

235,343,409

539,184,062

262,278,862

276,905200

616,907,567

296,391,091

320,516,476

250 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Miscellaneous lia b ilitie s -to ta l.........................................................................................................................

Federal funds purchased (borrowed)7.............................................................................................

10,786,803 28,958,217

7,468,200

1,214,440

47,966,725

14,684,700

3,367,342

601,562

3,387,309

25,925,812

44,968,169

16,609,041

2,572,528

668,545

3,848,666

21,269,389

47,367,281

24,179,742

1,463,429

668,331

4,039,643

17,016,136

61,509,222

33,731,069

3,919,796

1,160,675

3,570,900

19,126,782

Other liabilities for borrowed m o n ey.............................................................................................

Mortgage indebtedness3 ....................................................................................................................

3,583,534

Acceptances o utstanding..................................................................................................................

Other liabilities ..................................................................................................................................

1,655,648

5,547,621

2,508,707

17,766,870

Total lia b ilitie s ........................................................................................................................................ 272,230,334 463,609,916 484,956,390 527,482,024 586,551,343 678,416,789

M inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries ........................................................................................... 3,295

6,178,797

5,885,873

108,824

184,100

39,576,229

1,998,316

37,577,913

103,416

10,529,322

17,460,832

8,426,787

1,057,556

3,219

6,299,150

5,998,689

115,601

184,860

42,566,408

2,091,879

40,474,529

107,304

11,137,824

18,072,590

10,145,848

1,010,963

3,551

6,443,382

6,151,274

113,427

178,681

46,905,046

2,956,180

43,948,866

91,930

11,811,129

19,895,816

11,135,068

1,014,923

5,594

6,909,306

6,623,801

112,167

173,338

52,367,696

4,092,820

48,274,876

68,924

12,853,653

21,528,422

13,012,232

811,645

Reserves on loans and securities-to tal..........................................................................................................

Reserve for bad debt losses on loans................................................................................................

Other reserves on loans3 ....................................................................................................................

2.694.275

2.694.275

5.215.817

5.215.817

Reserves on securities3 .....................................................................................................................

Capital accounts-total .....................................................................................................................................

Capital notes and debentures...........................................................................................................

Equity ca p ita l-to ta l...........................................................................................................................

Preferred sto ck..............................................................................................................................

Common stock..............................................................................................................................

Surplus ............................................................................................................................................

Undivided p ro fits .........................................................................................................................

Reserve for contingencies and other capital reserves.............................................................

23,752,369

20,496

23,732,173

34,794

6,882,362

11,458,444

4,789,690

566,883

36,627,999

2,110,137

34,517,862

90,686

9,772,605

16,173,907

7,419,669

1,060J995

PER CENTAG ES

Of total assets:

Cash and balances with other banks................................................................................................

U.S. Treasury securities and securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations

Other se curitie s..................................................................................................................................

Loans and discounts (including Federal funds sold and securities purchased under

agreements to re s e ll)..............................................................................................................

Other assets.........................................................................................................................................

Total capital a cco u n ts.....................................................................................................................

18.2%

22.3 

9.8

47.3 

2.4 

8.0

16.5%

14.7

12.1

53.6

3.1

7.2

16.8%

11.8

11.8

55.9

3.7

7.5

16.1%

12.4 

13.2

54.5 

3.8 

7.4

15.4%

12.5

14.0

54.4

3.8

7.3

15.2%

11.6

13.3

56.2

3.7

7.1

Of total assets other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities:

Total capital a cco u n ts....................................................................................................................... 13.5 10.2 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.4

Number of b a n k s ............................................................................................................................................ 13,126 13,488 13,473 13,511 13,612 13,733

1 For description of changes in 1969 in the Report of Condition, see pp. 237-238 and notes to tables.

2Assets in 1968 and prior years include "O ther loans and discounts" at gross (before deduction of valuation reserves) value, as reported in 1969-1972.

3Not available prior to figure shown, see note 1.

4P riorto December 31,1966, "Federal funds sold (loaned)” not reported separately; most were included with loans to banks; since 1967, includes securities purchased under agreements to resell, which previously were reported 

with "Loans to domestic commercial and foreign banks" and "Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities."

5Before 1967, loans extended under credit cards and related plans were distributed among other instalment loan items.

6 I ncludes postal savings deposits, $18,169 thousand.

7Prior to December 31,1966, Federal funds purchased were included in "Other liabilities for borrowed money"; since 1967, includes securities sold under agreements to repurchase, which previously were reported with "Other 

liabilities for borrowed money."

ASSETS AND LI ABI LITI ES OF BANKS

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 110. ASSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF IN S U R E D M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

D E C EM BER C A L L D A TE S, 1962, 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Asset, liability, or surplus account item Dec. 28,1962 Dec. 31, 1968 Dec. 31, 1969 Dec. 31, 1970 Dec. 31, 1971 Dec. 31, 1972

Total assets................................................................................................................................................. 40,166,8221 62 ,321,3771 6 4,837,8921 6 8,739,5241 77,891,927 87,650,051

Cash, balances w ith banks, and collection ite m s-to ta l................................................ ...............

Currency and c o in ........................................................................................................................

Demand balances with banks in the United S ta tes................................................................

Other balances with banks in the United S tates.....................................................................

Cash items in process of co llection.............................................................................. .............

783,711

123,167

458,012

160,125

42,407

883,058

164,965

497,725

157,610

62,758

780,079

179,378

499,506

42,964

58,231

1,115,656

173,646

538,858

316,584

86,568

1,273,735

195,679

551,149

445,384

81,523

1,520,399

215,345

568,211

627,530

109,313

S ecu rities-to tal.................................................................................................................................... 9,819,3351 11,878,9581 11,926,8251 1 3,550,8491 18,491,379 22,636,737

United States Government and agency securities-total ..................................................... 5,255,490 4,102,711 3,608,068 3,860,276 5,156,3215 

867,992

6,386,0035

968,157

1,823,997 1,915,014

832,859 1,095,116

1,631,473 2,407,716

State, county, and municipal obligations.................................................................................

Corporate bonds ..........................................................................................................................

Other bonds, notes, and debentures..........................................................................................

493,149 

| 3,260,2513

190,944 

J 5,937,6943

190,949 

| 6,273,9693

192,606 

J 7,413,742-

373,810

9,293,507

1,194,941

857,353

11,086,004

1,370,862

Corporate s to c k - to ta l.................................................................................................................

Bank..........................................................................................................................................

810,449 1,647,609

246,455

1,853,839

251,903

2,084,225

251,321

2,472,800

288,373

2,936,515

329,426

Other . . ......................................................................... 1,401,154 1,601,936 1,832,904 2,184,427 2,607,089

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell4 . ....................... 493,536 596,255

Other loans and d isco u n ts-to ta l.....................................................................................................

Real estate loa n s-tota l.................................................................................................................

Construction loans2 .........................................

28,993,418 1

28,441,482

48,409,2791

47,177,405

50,949,4961

49,329,087

52,753,8081

50,695,693

56,066,722

54,222,077

736,386

60,950,481

59,094,330

1,002,712

Secured by farmland...............................................................................................................

Secured by residential properties:

Secured by 1- to 4-family residential properties:

Insured by Federal Housing Administration.........................................................

Guaranteed by Veterans Administration ..............................................................

Not insured or guaranteed by FHA or V A ............................................................

Secured by multifamily (5 or more) residential properties:6

Insured by Federal Housing Administration . . . . . .

46,0725

8,681,7936 

8,836,8026

8,233,8456

111,935s

14,500,5126

10,940,2296

16,029,7706

106,943s

14,742,5776

11,030,4566

17,193,3096

112,723s

13,563,069

10,884,718

12,089,288

1,358,590

41,656

13,532,344

10,923,517

13,031 J?29

1,396,791

51,459

13,388,433

11,413,769

14,804,568

1,399,794

Not insured by FHA ........................... 6,015,291 7,136,586 8,265,926

Secured by other properties............................................................................................

Loans to domestic commercial and foreign banks ................................................................

Loans to other financial institutions..........................................................................................

Loans to brokers and dealers in securities.................................................................................

Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities..................................................................

Loans to farmers (excluding loans on real estate)..................................................................

Commercial and industrial loans.................................................................................................

Loans to individuals for personal expenditures.......................................................................

All other loans (including overdrafts).......................................................................................

2,642,970

8,0494

5,234

57,296

11,320

2,250

192,554

266,162

9,071

5,594,959

23,7734

25,109

37,369

5,143

1,409

237.600

869.601 

31,870

6,255,802

319,2794 

25,111 

30,710 

7,433 

1,201 

206,348 

987,198 

43,129

6,672,014

280,9994 

53,867 

16,342 

1,838 

1,068 

586,589 

1,081,513 

35,899

7,423,568

49,628

36,492

5,951

3,485

1,110

463,001

1,260,144

24,834

8,767,669

29,751

29,927

28,922

3,446

1,305

252,438

1,451,401

58,961

252 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Total loans and securities................................................................................................ 3 8 ,8 12,7531 60,2 8 8 ,2 3 7 1 6 2 ,876,3211 66,3 0 4 ,6 5 7 1 75,051,637 84,183,473

Bank premises, furniture and fixtures, and other assets representing bank premises___ 268,612 470,421 497,059 528,680 590,326 661,118

Real estate owned other than bank prem ises......................................................................... 19,675 36,449 47,607 62,805 90,987 147,340

41,518 59,309

Other assets................................................................................................................................... 282,071 643,212 636,826 727,726 843,724 1,078,412

Total liabilities and surplus accounts .......................................................................................................... 40,166,822 62,321,377 64,837,892 68,739,524 77,891,927 87,650,051

Deposits-total ............................................................................................................................................. 36,104,164 56,861,324 58,867,848 62,683,783 71,500,831 80,571,993

Savings deposits............................................................................................................................ 35,797,789 56,110,409 57,729,948 57,989,110 57,644,100 60,573,427

Deposits accumulated fo r payment of personal loans........................................................... 705 1,096 64 80 25

260,935 602,968 4,100,994 13,173,871 19,207,929

Savings and time deposits-total......................................................................................... 35,828,262 56,371,344 58,334,012 62,090,168 70,818,051 79,781,381

Demand deposits-total......................................................................................................... 275,902 489,980 533,836 593,615 682,780 790,612

Miscellaneous lia b ilitie s -to ta l.................................................................................................................. 503,798 781,183 1,068,152 1,000,127 975,9 9 6 1 1,114,469

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase.................................................................... 22,757

Other borrowings.......................................................................................................................... 7,278 70,814 381,690 252,171 100,045 98,980

Other liabilities ............................................................................................................................ 496,520 710,369 686,462 747,956 875,951 992,732

Total liab ilities.................................................................................................................... 36,607,962 57,642,507 59,936,000 63,683,910 72,476,827 81,686,462

M inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries2 ................................................................................. 1 0

Surplus a c c o u n ts -to ta l.............................................................................................................................. 3,558,860 4,678,870 4,901,892 5,055,614 5,415,099 5,963,589

Capital notes and debentures..................................................................................................... 150 3,657 4,617 6,068 10,456 59,372

Other surplus accounts................................................................................................................ 3,558,710 4,675,2131 4,897,2751 5,049,5461 5,404,643 5,904,217

PERCENTAGES

Of total assets:1

Cash and balances with other banks .............................................................................................. 2.0% 1.4% 1.2% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%

U.S. Government and agency securities......................................................................................... 13.1 6.6 5.6 5.6 6.6 7.3

Other securities................................................................................................................................... 11.4 12.5 12.8 14.1 17.1 18.5

Loans and discounts (including Federal funds sold and securities purchased

under agreements to resell).................................................................................................. 72.2 77.7 78.6 76.8 72.6 70.2

Other assets.......................................................................................................................................... 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2

Total surplus accounts....................................................................................................................... 8.9 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.0 6.8

Of total assets other than cash and U.S. Government and agency securities:

Total surplus accounts....................................................................................................................... 10.4 8.2 8.1 7.9 7.6 7.5

Number of b a n k s ..................................................................................................................................... 331 334 331 329 327 326

1 Figures on loans, and on securities in 1962 and 1968-1970, have been revised to a gross basis to provide comparability with data for 1971 and 1972. See page 238 for information on changes in reports in 1971.

2Not reported separately prior to 1971.

3Corporate bonds included with other bonds, notes, and debentures prior to 1971.

4 Federal funds sold included with loans to banks prior to 1971.

5Farmers Home Administration insured notes, previously reported as loans secured by farmland, included in U.S. Government and agency securities in 1971 and 1972.

6Prior to 1970, real estate loans secured by multifam ily residential properties were combined with those secured by 1- to 4-family residential properties.

ASSETS AND LIABI LITI ES OF BANKS 253

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 111. P E R C E N T A G E S O F A SSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S O P E R A T IN G T H R O U G H O U T 1972 IN 

T H E U N IT E D S TAT ES (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ), D E C E M B E R 31, 1972 

BANKS GROUPED BY AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS

Asset, liability, or capital account item

A ll

banks

Banks with deposits o fLess 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or

more

Total assets........................................................................................ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Cash and due from banks ........................................................ 15.2 17.2 14.2 11.5 10.9 10.7 10.8 11.4 13.9 14.5 19.2

U.S. Treasury and agency securities1 ..................................... 11.7 31.0 29.9 27.5 22.6 19.0 16.3 14.9 12.4 10.0 6.9

Obligations of States and political subdivisions................... 11.9 2.0 3.6 7.1 11.1 13.5 14.4 14.8 13.8 12.7 9.7

Other securities.......................................................................... .7 1.1 1.1 .7 .7 .9 .9 1.0 .8 .9 .5

Federal funds sold (loaned)2 ................................................... 3.5 9.2 6.7 5.7 5.4 4.6 3.7 3.4 3.7 4.1 2.6

Other loans and d isco u nts-to tal............................................ 52.7 38.5 43.1 45.9 47.6 49.1 51.1 51.5 52.0 53.8 54.9

Real estate loans-total ...................................................... 13.4 5.8 8.9 12.1 14.6 16.4 17.1 17.7 15.7 14.9 9.7

Loans to banks and other financial in s titu tio n s ............ 4.0 (5 )

.5 .4 .4 .5 .8 .9 1.9 3.8 7.5

Loans to purchase or carry securities.............................. 2.1 .2 .1 .2 .3 .3 .4 .6 1.5 1.2 4.0

Loans to farmers (excluding loans on real estate)......... 1.9 16.1 15.8 14.3 10.2 5.7 2.6 1.2 .9 .7 .6

Commercial and industrial loans ....................................... 17.9 5.4 5.2 6.5 8.2 10.2 12.7 14.3 16.2 18.9 23.4

Instalment loans for personal expenditures................... 8.8 7.7 9.0 9.0 10.3 12.0 13.2 12.4 11.1 9.1 5.2

Single-payment loans for personal expenditures............ 3.1 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.6 2.4

All other loans (including overdrafts).............................. 1.4 .8 .8 .5 .5 .6 .7 .6 1.2 1.5 2.0

Other assets................................................................................. 3.6 .9 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.5 4.8

Total liabilities, reserves, and capital a cco u n ts.......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Deposits-total .......................................................................... 83.7 86.4 87.2 89.3 89.7 89.7 88.8 88.6 86.2 83.5 78.4

Dem and.......................................................................... 40.2 61.9 49.0 41.1 38.8 37.7 37.3 37.8 40.2 42.4 41.4

Tim e................................................................................. 43.5 24.5 38.2 48.2 50.9 52.0 51.6 50.8 46.1 41.1 37.0

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-demand .. 30.2 53.4 42.5 34.7 32.2 31.2 30.9 31.1 30.6 31.9 28.6.

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations-tim e......... 36.9 20.9 34.1 44.1 46.5 47.1 46.2 44.3 39.1 34.7 29.7

U.S. Governm ent................................................................. 1.6 .8 .7 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 2.3 1.7

States and subdivisions........................................................ 7.6 10.8 9.0 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.5 9.5 9.5 8.9 5.5

Domestic in te rb a n k ............................................................ 4.9 .2 .4 .3 .3 .4 .8 1.5 4.3 4.6 8.4

Foreign government and b a n k .......................................... 1.0 .0 .0 (5 ) (5 ) (5 ) (5 ) (5 )

.1 .2 2.4

Other deposits...................................................................... 1.5 .3 .5 .7 .8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 2.2

Federal funds purchased (borrowed)3 ................................... 4.6 .0 .1 .1

(5 )

.1 .3 .6 .9 3.2 5.3 8.2

Other liabilities for borrowed money..................................... 1.2 .0 (5 )

.1 .1 .2 .3 .5 .9 2.4

Other liabilities4 ........................................................................ 2.5 .5 .9 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 3.1

Reserves on loans and securities ............................................ .9 .2 .5 .5 .6 .7 .8 .8 .9 .9 1.1

Capital notes and debentures................................................... .6 .0 (5 ) (5 )

.1 .2 .3 .3 .5 .7 .8

Other capital accounts............................................................... 6.5 12.9 11.2 8.8 7.9 7.1 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.2

Number of banks ...................................................................... 13,500 66 471 2,567 3,262 4,088 1,608 738 532 96 72

Securities held in trading accounts are included in "O ther assets." 

inclu de s securities purchased under agreements to resell, 

inclu de s securities sold under agreements to repurchase, 

inclu de s m inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries.

5 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note: For income and expense data by size of bank, see tables 117 and 118. Assets and liabilities (in $000) of all commercial banks by size of bank are contained in Assets and Liabilities-Commercial and Mutual Savings

Banks (with 1972 report of income), December 31, 1972.

254 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 112. P E R C E N T A G E S OF ASSETS A N D L IA B IL IT IE S OF IN S U R E D M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S O P E R A T IN G T H R O U G H O U T 1972 IN 

TH E U N IT E D S TAT ES (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ), D E C E M B E R 31, 1972 

BANKS GROUPED BY AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS

Assets, liabilities, or surplus account item All

banks1

Banks with deposits of-

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or

more

Total assets............................................................................................. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Cash and due from banks ............................................................ 1.7 3.7 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.6

United States Government and agency securities..................... 7.3 12.4 9.2 7.0 8.8 8.5 6.6 6.6

Corporate b o n d s ............................................................................. 12.7 7.9 8.7 7.8 9.8 10.6 12.4 15.0

State, county and municipal o bliga tion s................................... 1.0 .6 .6 .8 .7 .8 1.0 1.1

Other securities............................................................................... 4.9 7.3 6.8 6.8 5.4 5.6 5.3 4.0

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under

agreements to re s e ll................................................................. .7 2.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 .9 .5 .6

Other loans and discounts............................................................ 69.5 64.3 69.9 73.2 70.3 69.7 69.9 68.8

Real estate lo a n s -to ta l............................................................ 67.4 60.1 65.9 68.9 67.4 67.1 68.0 67.1

Construction loans............................................................... 1.1 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.8 .6

Secured by farmland............................................................ .1 .4 .4 .3 .2 (2) .1 (2)

Secured by residential properties:

Insured by FHA ............................................................ 16.9 6.8 4.1 7.4 9.4 15.4 16.4 20.2

Guaranteed by VA ........................................................ 13.0 4.0 4.8 6.4 8.4 12.0 11.8 15.8

Not insured or guaranteed by FHA or VA .............. 26.3 41.1 46.8 46.8 41.3 30.7 27.5 18.6

Secured by other properties.............................................. 10.0 6.7 7.9 6.6 7.0 7.7 10.5 12.0

Commercial and industrial lo a n s ............................................ .3 .4 .2 .5 .3 .1 .2 .4

Loans to individuals for personal expenditures.................. 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.6 2.4 2.3 1.3 1.2

All other loans including overdrafts....................................... .2 .5 .5 .2 .2 .1 .3 .1

Other assets...................................................................................... 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3

Total liabilities and surplus accounts................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D eposits-total................................................................................. 91.9 91.0 91.3 91.5 91.2 92.0 91.9 92.0

Savings deposits........................................................................ 69.1 70.0 72.7 72.1 71.4 69.3 70.1 67.8

Deposits accumulated for payment of personal loans. . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Fixed maturity and other time deposits.............................. 21.9 20.6 17.9 18.6 18.9 21.5 21.1 23.4

Demand d eposits...................................................................... .9 .4 .7 .8 .9 1.2 .8 .8

Miscellaneous lia b ilitie s ................................................................. 1.3 .8 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.5

Surplus accounts............................................................................. 6.8 8.2 7.6 7.4 7.6 6.9 6.9 6.5

Capital notes and debentures................................................. .1 .4 .3 (2) .1 .1 .1 (2)

Other surplus accounts............................................................ 6.7 7.9 7.4 7.3 7.6 6.8 6.8 6.5

Number of banks ................................................................................. 325 14 36 72 59 96 28 20

1 Dollar amounts of assets and liabilities of all mutual savings banks are shown in Assets and Liabilities-Commercial and Mutual Savings Banks (with 1972 report of income), December 31, 1972. 

2Zero or less than 0.05 percent.

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF BANKS 255

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 113. D IS T R IB U T IO N OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B AN KS IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ),

DECEMBER 31, 1972

BANKS GROUPED ACCORDING TO AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS AND BY RATIOS OF SELECTED ITEMS TO ASSETS OR DEPOSITS

Ratios 

(In percent)

All

banks

Number of banks with deposits o fLess 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Ratios of obligations of States and subdivisions to 

total assets o fZ e ro ........................................................................................ 970 63 221 357 209 104 14 1 1 0 0

More than 0.0 but less than 1.0 ....................................... 484 9 64 267 81 47 9 5 2 0 0

1.0 to 2 .4 9 ............................................................................. 602 5 83 291 119 73 18 7 6 0 0

2.5 to 4 .9 9 ............................................................................. 1,062 6 60 425 292 190 45 24 14 4 2

5.0 to 7 .4 9 ............................................................................. 1,313 5 41 343 407 329 100 34 37 7 10

7.5 to 9 .9 9 ............................................................................. 1,729 3 30 305 491 535 180 81 66 18 20

10.0 to 1 2 .4 9 ........................................................................ 1,857 0 13 235 466 618 265 116 108 20 16

12.5 to 1 4 .9 9 ........................................................................ 1,766 2 11 148 411 629 312 143 80 14 16

15.0 to 1 7 .4 9 ........................................................................ 1,405 0 10 104 288 562 208 134 74 19 6

17.5 to 1 9 .9 9 ........................................................................ 1,045 1 4 70 223 410 202 63 65 7 0

20.0 to 24.99 ........................................................................ 1,042 0 4 55 217 423 176 97 64 4 2

25.0 or m ore.......................................................................... 458 0 4 44 97 176 81 36 17 3 0

Ratios of U.S. Treasury securities to total assets o fLess than 5 ............................................................................. 1,756 21 55 253 353 555 238 123 106 26 26

5 to 9 .9 9 ................................................................................. 3,343 14 71 373 675 1,054 541 281 247 47 40

10 to 14.99............................................................................. 3,082 12 87 460 720 997 455 214 115 16 6

15 to 19.99............................................................................. 2,088 9 80 434 573 679 198 69 42 4 0

20 to 24.99 ............................................................................. 1,323 7 72 324 402 374 100 29 13 2 0

25 to 29.99 ............................................................................. 895 7 64 275 262 230 36 16 5 0 0

30 to 34.99 ............................................................................ 500 6 29 207 143 91 19 3 1 1 0

35 to 39.99 ............................................................................. 322 6 24 130 87 53 17 3 2 0 0

40 to 44.99 ............................................................................. 187 5 20 80 44 32 3 2 1 0 0

45 to 49.99 ............................................................................. 108 3 22 42 23 15 1 1 1 0 0

50 or m o re ............................................................................. 129 4 21 66 19 16 2 0 1 0 0

256 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ratios of loans to total assets o fLess than 2 0 .......................................................................... 112 8 23 44

20 to 24.99 ............................................................................. 122 3 16 41

25 to 29.99 ............................................................................. 252 3 27 82

30 to 34.99 ............................................................................. 514 8 33 150

35 to 39.99 ............................................................................. 804 7 43 185

40 to 44.99 ............................................................................. 1,268 10 49 271

45 to 49.99 ............................................................................. 1,853 10 47 374

50 to 54.99 ............................................................................. 2,286 9 78 378

55 to 59.99 ............................................................................. 2,444 8 69 386

60 to 64.99 ............................................................................. 2,038 10 46 310

65 to 69.99 ............................................................................. 1,311 5 59 232

70 to 74.99 ............................................................................. 499 6 31 116

75 or m o re ............................................................................. 230 7 24 75

Ratios of cash and due from banks to total assets o fLess than 5 ............................................................................. 551 1 18 141

5.0 to 7 .4 9 ............................................................................. 2,491 3 66 498

7.5 to 9 .9 9 ............................................................................. 3,559 10 97 600

10.0 to 1 2 .4 9 ........................................................................ 2,825 15 88 517

12.5 to 1 4 .9 9 ........................................................................ 1,745 16 83 313

15.0 to 1 7 .4 9 ........................................................................ 1,013 11 63 195

17.5 to 1 9 .9 9 ........................................................................ 621 8 36 135

20.0 to 24.99 ........................................................................ 574 14 43 151

25.0 to 29.99 ........................................................................ 198 5 23 55

30.0 or m ore.......................................................................... 156 11 28 39

Ratios of total demand deposits to total deposits o fLess than 2 5 .......................................................................... 471 1 11 65

25 to 29.99............................................................................. 1,043 0 13 156

30 to 34.9 9 ............................................................................. 1,764 2 32 295

35 to 39.99 ............................................................................. 2,265 3 45 403

40 to 4 4.9 9 ............................................................................. 2,354 8 70 444

45 to 49.9 9 ............................................................................. 2,048 8 83 427

50 to 54.99............................................................................ 1,439 6 60 284

55 to 59.99 ............................................................................. 951 7 47 200

60 to 64.99............................................................................. 513 9 49 114

65 to 69.99 ............................................................................. 337 8 29 88

70 to 79.99 ............................................................................. 267 11 27 71

80 to 89.99............................................................................. 97 10 20 27

90 or m o re ............................................................................. 184 21 59 70

17 13 2 2 3 0 0

31 21 7 3 0 0 0

68 57 14 1 0 0 0

163 112 34 10 4 0 0

223 241 65 28 12 0 0

337 369 125 63 38 4 2

423 603 223 100 61 6 6

533 726 290 137 107 18 10

513 782 318 167 146 29 26

462 597 303 147 110 32 21

323 401 174 59 47 6 5

144 133 42 20 5 0 2

64 41 13 4 1 1 0

146 165 49 24 7 0 0

682 804 286 106 39 7 0

877 1,201 476 186 101 8 3

651 863 365 179 124 17 6

403 465 213 119 96 24 13

217 252 116 60 67 17 15

135 147 58 32 40 13 17

114 134 33 23 40 10 12

47 35 12 8 11 0 2

29 30 2 4 9 0 4

132 179 47 20 15 1 0

274 352 150 67 28 2 1

442 582 234 110 60 5 2

561 736 299 115 84 11 8

551 752 288 145 76 10 10

476 568 254 117 90 16 9

342 415 162 74 66 17 13

218 266 102 40 50 15 6

96 122 41 24 39 6 13

95 66 12 12 13 9 5

71 41 16 13 8 4 5

19 12 4 1 4 0 0

24 5 1 3 1 0 0

ASSETS AND LI ABI LITI ES OF BANKS 257

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 1 3 . D IS T R IB U T IO N OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B AN KS IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ),

D ECEM BER 31, 19 7 2 -C 0 N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED ACCORDING TO AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS AND BY RATIOS OF SELECTED ITEMSTO ASSETS OR DEPOSITS

Ratios 

(In percent)

Number of banks with deposits o fbanks Less 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Ratios of total capital accounts to total assets other than 

cash and due from banks, and U.S. Treasury 

securities, and U.S. Government agency securities 

o fLess than 7 .5 .......................................................................... 862 0 2 37 128 314 195 102 62 11 11

7.5 to 9 .9 9 ............................................................................. 4,516 1 21 390 881 1,694 768 377 289 55 40

10.0 to 1 2 .4 9 ........................................................................ 3,727 1 73 574 1,018 1,259 435 190 134 24 19

12.5 to 1 4 .9 9 ........................................................................ 1,892 6 63 522 594 490 133 48 29 6 1

15.0 to 1 7 .4 9 ........................................................................ 985 3 64 350 313 183 46 15 10 0 1

0 17.5 to 1 9 .9 9 ........................................................................ 588 12 46 247 170 89 15 3 6 0

20.0 to 22.49 ........................................................................ 306 5 49 141 71 27 9 4 0 0 0

22.5 to 24.99 ........................................................................ 198 3 27 104 47 12 2 2 1 0 0

25.0 to 29.99 ........................................................................ 251 13 53 114 44 21 4 0 2 0 0

30.0 to 34.99 ........................................................................ 120 9 32 61 13 2 2 0 1 0 0

35.0 to 39.99 ........................................................................ 67 5 26 25 9 2 0 0 0 0 0

40.0 or m ore.......................................................................... 221 36 89 79 13 3 1 0 0 0 0

Ratios of total capital accounts to total assets o f21 Less than 5 ............................................................................. 376 0 4 28 56 147 75 42 1 2

1,652 1 9 166 347 607 260 132 103 11 16

6 to 6 .9 9 ................................................................................. 3,417 1 39 453 765 1,207 475 234 177 40 26

7 to 7 .9 9 ................................................................................. 3,201 1 59 536 793 1,021 438 186 127 25 15

8 to 8 .9 9 ................................................................................. 2,026 4 67 435 569 595 192 82 58 14 10

9 to 9 .9 9 ................................................................................. 1,145 6 61 325 327 272 82 38 29 2 3

10 to 10.99............................................................................ 683 10 60 212 190 135 53 12 8 3 0

11 to 11.99............................................................................. 374 11 43 146 97 47 16 8 6 0 0

12 to 12.99............................................................................ 227 1 29 96 63 28 8 2 0 0 0

13 to 14.99............................................................................ 243 12 42 97 57 23 9 2 1 0 0

15 to 16.99............................................................................ 106 11 19 49 15 5 1 2 4 0 0

17 or m o re ............................................................................. 283 36 113 101 22 9 1 1 0 0 0

Number of b anks........................................................................ 13,733 94 545 2,644 3,301 4,096 1,610 741 534 96 72

258 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INCOME OF INSURED BANKS

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

114. Income of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas), 1964-1972

115. Ratios of income of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas) 

1964-1972

116. Income of insured commercial banks in the United States (States and other areas), 1972

Banks grouped by class o f bank

117. Income of insured commercial banks operating throughout 1972 in the United States (States 

and other areas)

Banks grouped by amount o f deposits

118. Ratios of income of insured commercial banks operating throughout 1972 in the United States 

(States and other areas)

Banks grouped according to amount of deposits

119. Income of insured mutual savings banks in the United States (States and other areas), 

1968-1972

120. Ratios of income of insured mutual savings banks in the United States (States and other areas), 

1968-1972

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The incom e data received and published by the C orporation relate to 

com m ercial and m utual savings banks insured by the C orporation.

Commercial banks

P rior to 1969, reports of incom e and dividends were subm itted to the 

Federal supervisory agencies on e ithe r a cash or an accrual basis. In 1969, 

banks w ith assets o f $50 m illio n or more, and beginning in 1970, $25 m illio n 

or m ore, were required to re p o rt consolidated incom e accounts on an accrual 

basis. Sm aller banks con tin ue to have the o p tio n o f su b m ittin g th e ir reports 

on a cash or an accrual basis, except th a t unearned discount on instalm ent 

loans, and incom e taxes, m ust be reported on an accrual basis. For more 

detail on the m ethod of cash or accrual re p o rtin g by banks, and on the 

inclusion o f subsidiaries in consolidated statem ents of co n d itio n and income, 

refer to page 237 o f this report.

Incom e data are included fo r all insured banks operating at the end o f the 

respective years, unless indicated otherw ise. In a d d itio n , appropriate adjustments have been made fo r banks in operation du ring part o f the year but not 

at the end of the year.

in 1969 the R e p o rt o f Incom e was revised to include a more detailed 

breakdow n o f investm ent incom e and separation o f income fro m Federal 

funds transactions fro m other loan incom e. The overall contents o f "O p e rating incom e” were n o t changed sig n ific a n tly fro m p rio r years, the principal 

changes being the con solida tion o f subsidiaries and conversion to accrual 

accounting.

U nder "O p e ra tin g expenses,” expense of Federal funds transactions, 

w hich is now item ized separately, was included p rio r to 1969 under " Im e rest on borrow ed m o ney.” "In te re s t on capital notes and debentures,” now 

included in operating expenses, before 1969 was n o t treated as a charge 

against operating earnings or net incom e. The item "P rovision fo r loan 

losses” covers actual loan losses (charge-offs less recoveries), or an average 

percentage of loan losses experienced during the previous five years, applied 

to average loans outstanding du ring the year, beginning in 1969. N ew ly 

organized banks and others are also p e rm itte d to determ ine the ir loan ioss

ratio by averaging fo rw a rd fro m 1969 or th e ir firs t year o f operation. Prior 

to 1969, loan losses fo r m ost banks (those on a reserve basis) were not 

charged against operating incom e or net incom e. Instead, transfers to loan 

loss reserves were included as a charge against net incom e (b u t not against 

operating incom e). A ctual losses charged to loan loss reserves were treated as 

a m em orandum item.

Beginning in 1969, "A p p lic a b le incom e taxes” fo r incom e before securities gains or losses is an estimate of the tax lia b ility th a t a bank w ould incur 

if its taxes were based solely on operating incom e and expenses; th a t is, if 

there were no security gains or losses, no extraordinary items, etc.

Incom e fro m securities gains and losses, reported bo th gross and after 

taxes, p rio r to 1969 was reported as separate gain or loss items. It is now 

included, along w ith a sub traction fo r m in o rity interest in consolidated subsidiaries, before arriving at net incom e (after taxes).

The m em orandum item "T o ta l provision fo r incom e taxes” does not 

necessarily equal the sum o f "A p p lic a b le incom e taxes” and the tax effects o f 

security gains or losses and of e xtraordinary charges or credits. The principal 

difference is accounted fo r by the fa ct th a t the transfer to reserve fo r bad 

debts generally exceeds provision fo r loan loss and consequently tends to 

reduce tax lia b ility .

In com paring the 1969-1972 reports w ith p rio r data, certain generalizations are applicable. Because of the inclusion o f ad ditio nal items in "O p e rating expenses,” "In c o m e before taxes or security gains or losses” is understated, com pared w ith the current operating incom e o f p rio r reports. On the 

other hand, "N e t incom e” fo r years p rio r to 1969 tends to be som ewhat 

understated because it includes transfers to bad debt reserves w hich w ould 

generally exceed the provision fo r loan losses. Table 115 provides several 

operating ratios w hich a ffo rd com parisons between years p rio r to 1969 and 

more recent earnings experience.

Mutual savings banks

For a discussion o f the re port o f incom e and dividends fo r m utual savings 

banks used in 1970 and previous years, see the 1951 Annual Report, pp. 

50-52.

260 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE C O R P O R A T IO N

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Beginning Decem ber 31, 1971, incom e and expenses fo r m utual savings 

banks are reported on a consolidated basis in the same manner as required o f 

com m ercial banks, in clu d in g all dom estic branches, domestic bank premises 

subsidiaries, and o th e r sig n ifica n t nonbanking dom estic subsidiaries (see pg. 

238).

B eginning in 1972, banks w ith to ta l resources o f $2 5 m illio n or m ore are 

required to prepare th e ir reports on the basis o f accrual accounting. A ll 

banks are re quired to re p o rt incom e taxes on an accrual basis.

U nder operating incom e, certain incom e fro m securities fo rm e rly in the 

"o th e r” category are shown separately beginning in 1971. Income fro m U.S. 

Treasury securities is com bined w ith income fro m U.S. G overnm ent agency 

and co rp o ra tio n securities. S om ew hat fewer items are detailed under operating expense. B eginning in 1971, actual net loan losses (charge-offs less 

recoveries) are included as an expense item in the operating section o f the 

report. In 1970 and p rio r years (table 119), the am ounts shown fo r this 

expense item are "recoveries credited to valuation adjustm ent provisions on 

real estate mortgage loans" less "th e realized losses charged to valuation

adjustm ent provisions on these loans", w hich were reported in those years in 

the "m e m o ra n d a " section.

The nonoperating sections of the re p o rt were condensed in 1971, w ith 

realized gains and losses on securities, mortgage loans, and real estate reported " n e t" rather than in separate sections and captions as before. Detailed data fo rm e rly reported on reconcilem ent of valuation adjustm ent provisions was alm ost e n tire ly elim inated, except fo r a sim ple re conciliation o f 

surplus.

Sources of data

N ational banks and State banks in the D is tric t o f C olum bia no t members 

of the Federal Reserve System : O ffice o f the C o m p tro lle r of the Currency.

State banks members of the Federal Reserve System : Board o f Governors 

o f the Federal Reserve System.

O th e r insured banks: Federal Deposit Insurance C orporation.

INCOME OF INSURED BANKS 261

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 114. IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L BANKS IN THE U N IT E D STATES (STATES A N D O TH ER A R E A S ), 1 9 6 4 -1 9 7 2

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Income item 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 19691 1970 1971 1972

Operating incom e-total.........................................................................................

Interest and fees on loans2................................................................................

Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased under

15,024,487

9,785,238

16,817,187

11,204,863

19,508,414

13,286,400

21,781,611

14,646,637

25,478,404

17,121,079

30,806,805

20,726,664

811,580

2,845,257

551,068

2,215,971

134,548

1,021,900

1,120,196

693,578

686,043

34,716,420

22,967,366

1,006,367

3,078,725

688,421

2,620,257

151,832

1,132,292

1,178,192

842,480

1,050,488

36,364,008

23,069,354

871,167

3,395,663

916,559

3,127,136

238,033

1,257,807

1,231,470

989,432

1,267,387

40,247.555

25,630,498

1,026,550

3,396,365

1,144,761

3,493,981

322,239

1,366,455

1,262,022

1,083,104

1,521,580

Interest on U.S. Treasury securities.................................................................

Interest and dividends on securities of other U.S. Government

2,240,389 2,224,711 2,317,794 2,601,900 3,004,655

Interest on obligations of States and political subdivisions3 .........................

Interest and dividends on other securities3......................................................

Trust department incom e.................................................................................

Service charges on deposit accounts.................................................................

Other service charges, collection and exchange charges, commissions,

and fees.........................................................................................................

Other operating income.....................................................................................

Operating expense-total4 .......................................................................................

Salaries and wages of officers and employees.................................................

Pensions and other employee benefits............................................................

Interest on deposits............................................................................................

Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities sold under

agreements to repurchase5. ..........................................................................

1,085,334

629,694

781,405

280,289

222,138

1,285,287

689,628

842,775

304,276

265,647

1,531,517

756,130

915,049

354,036

347,488

1,904,886

820,269

987,187

411,021

409,711

2,376,223

906,206

1,055,964

478,028

536,249

10,897,460

3,519,062

490,732

4,088,061

12,486,120

3,762,024

525,692

5,070,781

14,561,852

4,095,742

598,768

6,259,472

16,553,642

4,537,896

667,345

7,379,863

19,354,237

5,101,803

755,744

8,681,705

24,076,791

5,878,812

903,469

9,789,893

1,205,787

433,120

100,742

1,073,339

1,331,926

258,587

773,072

521,064

3,397,493

27,588,602

6,656,884

T,060,167

10,483,795

1,400,838

464,568

104,730

1,254,520

1,555,734

301,214

909,090

703,150

4,550,860

29,650,981

7,202,972

1,192,011

12,217,994

1,095,648

139,388

142,381

1,410,190

1,730,402

320,212

1,018,128

867,260

4,365,009

32,996,608

7,754,773

1,330,440

13,844,020

1,429,171

115,240

213,532

1,583,538

1,926,695

343,157

1,087,844

973,238

4,664,812

Interest on other borrowed money5.................................................................

Interest on capital notes and debentures4. .................................................

127,277 189,519 301,768 266,476 528,986

Occupancy expense of bank premises, net......................................................

Gross occupancy expense............................................................................

Less rental income.......................................................................................

Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs, servicing, etc.............

Provision for loan losses4 . .

670,243

831,158

160,915

362,301

731,573

898,440

166,867

411,889

802,060

980,444

178,387

458,695

873,541

1,059,785

186,244

533,846

970,034

1,173,423

203,389

631,564

Other operating expenses...................................................................................

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses6 ...............................

Net current operating earnings (old basis)

1,639,784 1,794,642 2,045,347 2,294,675 2,684,401

4,127,027 4,331,067 4,946,562 5,227,969 6,124,167

6,730,014 7,127,818 6,713,027 7,250,947

Applicable income taxes6 2,164,419

4,565,595

-237,707

-512,242

-274,535

4,327,888

6,914

3,994

-2,920

235

4,334,567

2,173,775

4,954,043

-103,695

-224,028

-120,333

4,850,348

-12,810

-35,865

-23,055

245

4,837,293

1,689,146

5,023,881

213,245

359,279

146,034

5,237,126

-6 3 9

-12,552

-11,913

282

5,236,205

1,707,495

5,543,452

92,456

166,730

74,274

5,635,908

19,153

23,953

4,800

663

5,654,398

Income before securities gains or losses6 . . . ................

Securities gains or losses net6 .............................................................

Gross.................................................................................................................... -13,674 -426 -392,447 -4,312 -438,520

Net income before extraordinary items6 .............................................................

Extraordinary charges or credits net6 ............................................................

Tsx BS

Less minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries6 ................

Net income .....................................................................

Recoveries, charge-offs, transfers from reserves, n e t.......................................... -681,521 -786,746 -839,869 -904,645 -992,665

262 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Net income before taxes (old basis) ..................................................................... 3,431,832

1,148,203

1,050,624

97,579

3,543,895

1,029,162

927,423

101,739

3,714,246

1,029,906

911,585

118,321

4,319,012

1,177,154

1,020,988

156,166

4,692,982

1,267,044

1,086,889

180,155

Total provision for income taxes ..........................................................................

Federal income taxes.........................................................................................

State and local income taxes............................................................................

Net income after taxes (old basis)..........................................................................

1,505,336

1,287,514

217,822

1,863,787

1,619,790

243,997

1,651,807

1,367,492

284,315

1,598,569

1,288,725

310,144

2,283,629 2,514,733 2,684,340 3,141,858 3,425,938

Dividends on capital-total7. ................................................................................

Cash dividends declared on common stock...................................................

Cash dividends declared on preferred stock7. .................................................

1,088,310

1,062,561

25,749

1,202,349

1,146,186

56,163

1,307,387

1,240,048

67,339

1,426,202

1,342,538

83,664

1,589,114

1,488,670

100,444

1,769,314

1,762,279

7,035

2,040,027

2,033,288

6,739

2,230,556

2,225,125

5,431

2,196,868

2,193,052

3,816

Memoranda

Recoveries credited to reserves (not included above):

On loans .........................................................................................

On securities......................................................................................................

Losses charged to reserves (not included above):

On loans .............................................................................................................

On securities...................................................................................

157,791

4,515

394,181

43,683

124,062

4,158

429,490

25,761

143,859

3,300

545,647

60,282

168,680

5,638

601,194

29,072

219,115

1,913

629,707

32,262

209,124

1,986

697,874

12,448

255,350

1,260

1,236,988

2,881

317,320

2,253

1,404,520

3,714

363,663

6,243

1,250,989

4,333

Average assets and liabilities8

Assets-total.............................................................................................................

Cash and due from banks..................................................................................

U.S. Treasury securities .....................................................................................

Obligations of States and political subdivisions9. ..........................................

328,756,207

54,449,343

61,439,390

360,944,351

59,013,596

59,419,551

391,255,121

62,867,398

56,088,649

425,619,337

70,248,679

57,357,584

473,138,013

78,504,024

61,545,807

516,325,483

86,663,384

56,724,0831°

58,011,2001°

11,839,1301°

283,479,251

19,608,4351°

543,880,408

89,089,607

54,198,4071°

62,012,77110

12,821.68710

301,667,242

24,090,6941°

603,422,720

95,673,527

59,923,56210

74,606,15310

18,216,06410

327,633,687

27,369,72710

679,113,973

102,969,933

61,978,4901

84,210,3961

23,863,0511

376,543,347

29,548,7561

Other securities9. ...............................................................................................

Loans and discounts.........................................................................................

All other assets..................................................................................................

Liabilities and capital-total..................................................................................

Total deposits....................................................................................................

Demand deposits.........................................................................................

Time and savings deposits............................................................................

Borrowings and other liabilities.......................................................................

Total capital accounts.......................................................................................

Capital notes and debentures.....................................................................

Equity capital.... : ........................................ ...........................................

Number of employees (end of period)...................................................................

Number of banks (end of period)..................................................................................

36,360,062

168,082,284

8,425,128

41,540,772

191,391,533

9,578,899

47,054,'812

214,381,628

10,862,634

55,213,293

230,636,149

12,163,632

65,318,374

253,678,319

14,091,481

328,756,207

287,988,560

168,382,122

119,606,438

14,376,273

26,391,374

487,132

25,904J42

360,944,351

315,643,533

178,089,360

137,554,173

16,479,957

28,820,861

1,327,781

27,493,080

391,255,121

340,336,714

185,336,407

155,000,307

20,067,721

30,850,686

1,710,785

29,139,901

425,619,337

368,906,501

194,982,924

173,923,577

23,836,162

32,876,674

1,884,844

30,991,830

473,138,013

407,508,260

213,628,389

193,879,871

30,297,605

35,332,148

2,096,175

33,235,973

516,325,483

431,468,339

230,490,525

200,977,814

46,642,486

38,214,658

2,027,427

36,187,231

543,880,408

449,522,141

237,588,875

211,933,266

53,212,878

41,145,389

2,047,429

39,097,960

603,422,720

507,101,968

251,447,347

255,654,621

51,507,005

44,813,747

2,548,014

42265,733

679,113,973

568,240,268

271,122,732

297,117,536

61,179,885

49,693,820

3,546,497

46,147,323

702,658 732,163 777,361 815,037 866,725 904,008 959,867 980,660 1,025,997

13,493 13,547 13,541 13,517 13,488 13,473 13,511 13,612 13,733

1 Figures before 1969 may differ slightly from those published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Comptroller of the Currency because of differences in rounding techniques. Revisions in Report of Income in 1969 are

discussed on p. 260 also see notes to tables.

2"lncome on Federal funds sold" was included in "Interest and discount on loans" in 1968 and prior years (see 1968 report, p. 198).

^Income from "Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations” and from "Obligations of States and political subdivisions" were included in income from "Other securities" in 1968 and prior years.

4"lnterest on capital notes and debentures" and "Provision for loan losses" not included in "Operating expense-total" in 1968 and prior years.

5"Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase" was included in "Interest on borrowed money" in 1968 and prior years.

6Data are not available prior to 1969. See page 260 of this report.

7ln 1968 and prior years, "Dividends declared on preferred stock" was reported in combination with "Interest on capital notes and debentures."

8Averages of amounts reported at beginning, middle, and end of year. 1964-1968 averages of securities and loans have been revised to gross basis.

9ln 1968and prior years, "Obligations of States and political subdivisions" were included in "Other securities."

1 °Securities held in trading accounts are included in "All other assets."

INCOME OF INSURED BANKS 263

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 115. R A T IO S O F IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B AN KS IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S ), 1 9 6 4 -1 9 7 2

Income item 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Amounts per $100 of operating income

Operating in c o m e -to ta l............................................................................................... $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Income on loans1...................................................................................................... 65.13 66.63 68.11 67.24 67.20 69.91 69.05 65.84 66.23

Interest on U.S. Treasury securities ................................................................... 14.91 13.23 11.88 11.95 11.79 9.23 8.87 9.34 8.44

7.19 7.55 8.60 8.65

Interest and dividends on other securities3.......................................................... 7.22 7.64 7.85 8.74 9.33 2.23 2.42 3.17 3.64

Trust department in c o m e ...................................................................................... 4.19 4.10 3.88 3.77 3.56 3.32 3.26 3.46 3.40

Service charges on deposit accounts...................................................................... 5.20 5.01 4.69 4.53 4.14 3.64 3.39 3.39 3.14

Other charges commissions, fees, etc..................................................................... 1.87 1.81 1.81 1.89 1.88 2.25 2.43 2.72 2.67

Other operating incom e.......................................................................................... 1.48 1.58 1.78 1.88 2.10 2.23 3.03 3.48 3.78

Operating expense-total4 ............................................................................................. 72.53 74.25 74.64 76.00 75.96 78.15 79.47 81.54 81.98

Salaries and wages.................................................................................................... 23.42 22.37 20.99 20.83 20.02 19.08 19.18 19.81 19.27

Pensions and other benefits.................................................................................... 3.27 3.13 3.07 3.07 2.97 2.93 3.05 3.28 3.30

I nterest on time and savings deposits................................................................... 27.21 30.15 32.09 33.88 34.07 31.78 30.20 33.60 34.40

Interest on borrowed money5 ............................................................................... .85 1.13 1.55 1.22 2.08 5.65 5.67 3.79 4.37

Occupancy expense of bank premises, n e t.......................................................... 4.46 4.35 4.11 4.01 3.81 3.48 3.61 3.88 3.93

Furniture and equipment, etc................................................................................. 2.41 2.45 2.35 2.45 2.48 2.51 2.62 2.80 2.70

1.69 2.03 2.38 2.42

Other operating expenses ...................................................................................... 10.91 10.67 10.48 10.54 10.53 11.03 13.11 12.00 11.59

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses ................................... 21.85 20.53 18.46 18.02

Net current operating earnings (old basis)................................................................. 27.47 25.75 25.36 24.00 24.04

Amounts per $100 of total assets

Operating in c o m e -to ta l............................................................................................... 4.57 4.66 4.99 5.12 5.38 5.97 6.38 6.03 5.93

Net current operating earnings (old basis) ................... ................... 1.26 1.20 1.26 1.23 1.29

I ncome before income taxes and securities gains or losses ................................... 1.30 1.31 1.11 1.07

Net income6 .................................................................................................................... .69 .70 .69 .74 .72 .84 .89 .87 .83

Amounts per $100 of total capital accounts

Net income6 .................................................................................................................... 8.65 8.73 8.70 9.56 9.70 11.487 11.897 11.857 11.60

Cash dividends declared on common s to c k ............................................................... 4.03 3.98 4.02 4.08 4.21 4.61 4.94 4.97 4.41

Net additions to capital from incom e........................................................................ 4.53 4.56 4.46 5.22 5.20 6.71 6.80 6.71 6.96

Amounts per $100 of equity capital

Net income6 .................................................................................................................... 8.82 9.15 9.21 10.14 10.31 11.98 12.37 12.39 12.25

Special ratios

Income on loans per $100 of loans1............................................................................. 5.82 5.85 6.20 6.35 6.75 7.60 7.95 7.31 7.08

Income on U.S. Treasury securities per $100 of U.S. Treasury securities......... 3.65 3.74 4.13 4.54 4.88 5.02 5.68 5.67 5.48

Income on obligations of Statesand political subdivisions per $100 of

obligations of Statesand political subdivisions2 ................................................. 3.82 4.23 4.19 4.15

Income on other securities per $100 of other securities3....................................... 2.98 3.09 3.25 3.45 3.64 5.79 6.55 6.34 6.15

Service charges per $100 of demand deposits.......................................................... .46 .47 .49 .51 .49 .49 .50 .49 .47

Interest paid per $100 of time and savings d e p o sits .............................................. 3.42 3.69 4.04 4.24 4.48 4.87 4.95 4.78 4.66

Number of banks (end of p e rio d )............................................................................... 13,493 13,547 13,541 13,517 13,488 13,473 13,511 13,612 13,733

11ncludes Federal funds sold.

2"lnterest on State and local government obligations” included in "Interest and dividends on other securities" in 1968 and prior years. Income from securities held in trading accounts is included in "O ther operating income,

in clu d e s interest and dividends on securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations; includes interest on State and local government obligations before 1969.

4"lnterest on capital notes and debentures," which is included in "Interest on borrowed money” in 1969-1972, and "Provision for loan losses" were not included in "Operating expense— to ta l" in 1968 and prior years.

5lncludes interest on capital notes and debentures (see note 4) and Federal funds purchased.

6Because of changes in the form of reporting by banks, figures in 1969-1972 are not fully comparable with those in 1968 and prior years; see table 114 and page 260.

7ln computing this ratio, interest on capital notes and debentures has been added to net income, with tax adjustment at the regular corporate tax rate.

264 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able 116. IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ), 1972

BANKS GROUPED BY CLASS OF BANK 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Income item Total

Members F.R. System Nonmembers 

F.R. System

Operating 

throughout 

the year

Operating 

less than 

National State full year

Operating incom e-total ................................................................................................................................ 40,247,555 23,542,737 7.800,994 8,903,824 40,198.016 49,539

Interest and fees on loans......................................................................................................................... 25,630,498 15,084,947 4,968,276 5,577,275 25,598,503 31,995

Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to re s e ll.................... 1,026,550 641,771 152,366 232,413 1,022,502 4,048

Interest on U.S. Treasury securities....................................................................................................... 3,396,365 1,844,474 568,415 983,476 3,391,860 4,505

Interest and dividends on securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations......... 1,144,761 567,168 162,864 414,729 1,142,914 1,847

Interest on obligations of States and political subdivisions............................................................... 3,493,981 2,039,707 670,320 783,954 3,491,645 2,336

Interest and dividends on other securities ........................................................................................... 322,239 175,595 58,479 88,165 321,243 996

Trust department incom e......................................................................................................................... 1,366,455 770,938 498,054 97,463 1,366,420 35

Service charges on deposit accounts...................................................................................................... 1,262,022 718,310 186,247 357,465 1,260,222 1,800

Other service charges, collection and exchange charges, commissions, and fe e s ........................... 1,083,104 695,876 168,106 219,122 1,082,102 1,002

Other operating inco m e ........................................................................................................................... 1,521,580 1,003,951 367,867 149,762 1,520,605 975

Operating e xpe nse -to tal................................................................................................................................ 32,996,608 19,314,704 6,332,710 7,349,194 32,944,380 52,228

Salaries and wages o f officers and employees...................................................................................... 7,754,773 4,461,024 1,561,592 1,732,157 7,740,766 14,007

Pensions and other employee b e n e fits .................................................................................................. 1,330,440 778,680 294,884 256,876 1,329,019 1,421

Interest on d eposits............................................................ * ................................................................... 13,844,020 8,084,736 2,432,806 3,326,478 13,828,816 15,204

Expense o f Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase........... 1,429,171 976,133 411,219 41,819 1,429,077 94

Interest on other borrowed m oney......................................................................................................... 115,240 77,932 24,570 12,738 115,173 67

Interest on capital notes and debentures............................................................................................... 213,532 111,299 72,312 29,921 213,501 31

Occupancy expense of bank premises, n e t........................................................................................... 1,583,538 903,572 356,499 323,467 1,579,909 3,629

Gross occupancy expense.................................................................................................................. 1,926,695 1,131,441 424,771 370,483 1,922,952 3,743

Less rental income .............................................................................................................................. 343,157 227,869 68,272 47,016 343,043 114

Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs, servicing, etc.................................................. 1,087,844 651,214 196,917 239,713 1,085,957 1,887

Provision for loan losses............................................................................................................................ 973,238 584,310 183,349 205,579 971,811 1,427

Other operating expenses......................................................................................................................... 4,664,812 2,685,804 798,562 1,180,446 4,650,351 14,461

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses...................................................................... 7,250,947 4,228,033 1,468,284 1,554,630 7,253,636 -2,689

Applicable income ta x e s ................................................................................................................................ 1,707,495 982,206 373,420 351,869 1,706,200 1,295

Income before securities gains or losses....................................................................................................... 5,543,452 3,245,827 1,094,864 1,202,761 5,547,436 -3,984

Net securities gains or losses......................................................................................................................... 92,456 54,137 -7,540 45,859 92,313 143

166,730 95,862 3,792 67,076 166,464 266

Taxes ............................................................................................................................................................ 74,274 41,725 11,332 21,217 74,151 123

Net income before extraordinary item s...................................................................................................... 5,635,908 3,299,964 1,087,324 1,248,620 5,639,749 -3,841

Extraordinary charges or credits, n e t........................................................................................................... 19,153 8,312 5,444 5,397 19,139 14

23,953 8,907 8,472 6,574 23,909 44

4,800 595 3,028 1,177 4,770 30

INCOME OF INSURED BANKS 265

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 116. IN C O M E O F IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ), 1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D

BANKS GROUPED BY CLASS OF BANK

Income item Total

Members F.R. System Nonmembers 

F.R. System

Operating 

throughout 

the year

Operating 

less than 

National State full year

Less m inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries.....................................................................................

Net in c o m e ........................................................................................................................................................

Dividends on ca pital-to tal .............................................................................................................................

Cash dividends declared on common stock............................................................................................

Cash dividends declared on preferred s to c k ..........................................................................................

Total provision fo r income ta xe s...................................................................................................................

Federal income ta xe s.................................................................................................................................

State and local income taxes......................................................................................................................

663

5,654,398

370

3,307,906 1,092,768

293

1,253,724

663

5,658,225 -3,827

2,196,868

2,193,052

3,816

1,310,331

1,307,628

2,703

529,190

529,034

156

357,347

356,390

957

2,195,959

2,192,143

3,816

909

909

1,598,869

1,288,725

310,144

912,784

737,104

175,680

346,571

261,274

85,297

339,514

290,347

49,167

1,597,797

1,287,655

310,142

1,072

1,070

2

Memoranda

Recoveries credited to reserves (not included above):

On loans.........................................................................................................................................................

On securities ............ ...................................................................................................................

363,663

6,243

1,250,989

4,333

239,474

2,097

782,447

3,453

53,786

221

225,842

240

70,403

3,925

242,700

640

363,418

6,243

1,250,325

4,333

245

Losses charged to reserves (not included above):

On loans........................................................................................................................................................

On securities..................................................................................................................................................

664

Number of employees, December 3 1 ............................................................................................................

Number o f banks, December 31 ...................................................................................................................

1,025,997 591,210 182,277 252,510 1,022,962 3,035

13,733 4,614 1,092 8,027 13,500 233

266 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 1 1 7 . IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S O P E R A T IN G T H R O U G H O U T 1972 IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S

(S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S )

BANKS GROUPED BY AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Banks with deposits o fIncome item All

banks1

Less 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 millfon 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Operating income— to t a l................................................. 40,198,016 3,349 48,957 580,277 1,536,678 4,185,878 3,712,262 3,345,728 7,133,370 4,506,868 15,144,649

Interest and fees on lo a n s ........................................ 25,598,503 1,806 28,304 341,871 926,277 2,566,576 2,319,340 2,107,136 4,527,579 2,947,651 9,831,963

Income on Federal funds sold and securities 

purchased under agreements to resell.............. 1,022,502 198 1,914 20,703 53,947 133,498 97,544 80,440 158,024 104,988 371,246

Interest on U.S. Treasury securities....................... 3,391,860 791 10,268 105,947 229,862 528,251 397,711 326,647 581,072 330,011 881,300

Interest and dividends on securities of other 

U.S. Government agencies and corporations .. 1,142,914 239 3,250 39,928 88,133 206,183 173,957 147,052 247,615 69,558 166,999

Interest on obligations of States and

political subdivisions.......................................... 3,491,645 47 1,273 28,415 119,210 387,523 371,446 342,008 672,939 411,052 1,157,732

Interest and dividends on other securities............ 321,243 18 474 4,897 10,766 34,147 34,246 36,652 68,804 37,997 93,242

Trust department in c o m e ........................................ 1,366,420 0 6 626 1,485 18,100 36,646 58,751 258,293 173,152 819,361

Service charges on deposit accounts....................... 1,260,222 121 1,660 19,947 60,318 184,002 157,572 126,983 232,076 132,321 345,222

Other service charges, collection and exchange 

charges, commissions, and fees.......................... 1,082,102 92 1,177 12,402 31,481 83,098 77,985 78,715 217,936 152,917 426,299

Other operating incom e............................................ 1,520,605 37 631 5,541 15,199 44,500 45,815 41,344 169,032 147,221 1,051,285

Operating expense-total................................................. 32,944,380 2,728 39,938 477,726 1,252,226 3,411,718 3,043,218 2,766,792 5,913,891 3,698,558 12,337,585

Salaries and wages of officers and employees.. . . 7,740,766 1,210 13,796 134,178 304,684 767,308 670,426 624,926 1,395,189 869,501 2,959,548

Pensions and other employee benefits................... 1,329,019 122 1,263 14,329 39,414 109,882 104,438 100,993 237,215 154,697 566,666

Interest on deposits................................................... 13,828,816 594 14,189 212,933 595,307 1,647,690 1,447,100 1,289,775 2,512,524 1,436,639 4,672,065

Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase .... 1,429,077 1 26 331 1,370 5,595 12,675 22,490 162,989 173,665 1,049,935

Interest on other borrowed m o n e y ........................ 115,173 4 12 372 827 3,106 4,000 3,204 14,262 20,996 68,390

Interest on capital notes and debentures.............. 213,501 0 13 175 880 5,847 8,546 10,745 30,921 27,206 129,168

Occupancy expense of bank premises, n e t............ 1,579,909 150 1,529 15,934 45,048 134,448 131,937 127,390 293,091 178,807 651,575

Gross occupancy expense................................... 1,922,952 157 1,616 16,950 48,319 145,714 148,809 152,897 369,606 246,203 792,681

Less rental inco m e ............................................... 343,043 7 87 1,016 3,271 11,266 16,872 25,507 76,515 67,396 141,106

Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental 

costs, servicing, etc................................................ 1,085,957 104 1,174 14,083 38,283 107,897 100,506 97,858 236,410 138,806 350,836

Provision for loan losses............................................ 971,811 70 1,257 12,484 33,287 91,351 80,612 68,877 152,080 125,821 405,972

Other operating expenses.......................................... 4,650,351 473 6,679 72,907 193,126 538,594 482,978 420,534 879,210 572,420 1,483,430

Income before income taxes and securities gains 

or losses........................................................................ 7,253,636 621 9,019 102,551 284,452 774,160 669,044 578,936 1,219,479 808,310 2,807,064

Applicable income taxe s................................................. 1,706,200 149 2,140 25,994 69,186 178,389 144,299 120,208 257,463 186,807 721,565

INCOME OF INSURED BANKS 267

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 117. IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S O P E R A T IN G T H R O U G H O U T 1972 IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S 

(S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S )— C O N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Banks with deposits o fIncome item A ll

banks1

Less 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Income before securities gains or losses ..................... 5,547,436 472 6,879 76,557 215,266 595,771 524,745 458,728 962,016 621,503 2,085,499

Net securities gains or losses.......................................... 92,313 - 9 191 2,134 8,825 25,729 19,219 16,707 28,178 -10,285 1,624

Gross............................................................................. 166,464 - 7 218 2,664 11,693 36,927 30,506 29,042 49,451 794 5,176

Taxes............................................................................. 74,151 2 27 530 2,868 11,198 11,287 12,335 21,273 11,079 3,552

Net income before extraordinary items ..................... 5,639,749 463 7,070 78,691 224,091 621,500 543,964 475,435 990,194 611,218 2,087,123

Extraordinary charges or credits, n e t .......................... 19,139 0 3 170 761 2,121 1,781 2,065 -5 8 8 2,021 10,805

Gross............................................................................. 23,909 0 26 255 715 2,774 2,490 1,858 -3,471 3,604 15,658

Taxes............................................................................. 4,770 0 23 85 -4 6 653 709 -2 0 7 -2 ,88 3 1,583 4,853

Less m inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries .. 663 0 0 0 1 59 65 -1 78 210 251

Net inco m e ........................................................................ 5,658,225 463 7,073 78,861 224,851 623,562 545,680 477,501 989,528 613,029 2,097,677

Dividends on c a p ita l-to ta l............................................ 2,195,959 150 2,345 20,733 53,129 152,018 155,463 148,673 392,466 309,109 961,873

Cash dividends declared on common s to c k ......... 2,192,143 150 2,345 20,727 53,102 151,760 155,044 148,372 391,488 308,202 960,953

Cash dividends declared on preferred s to c k ......... 3,816 0 0 6 27 258 419 301 978 907 920

Total provision fo r income taxes ................................. 1,597,797 152 2,161 25,712 68,312 175,888 140,911 117,740 241,583 169,554 655,784

Federal income taxes................................................. 1,287,655 138 1,958 23,162 61,369 156,900 123,902 99,415 201,259 142,933 476,619

State and local income ta xe s................................... 310,142 14 203 2,550 6,943 18,988 17,009 18,325 40,324 26,621 179,165

Memoranda

Recoveries credited to reserves (not included above):

On lo a n s ...................................................................... 363,418 13 494 5,673 15,991 48,037 38,539 31,456 59,599 121,621 41,995

On securities............................................................... 6,243 0 0 247 126 202 439 895 4,076 68 190

Losses charged to reserves (not included above):

On lo a n s ...................................................................... 1,250,325 59 1,201 14,092 43,081 120,051 105,477 92,028 200,688 172,273 501,375

4,333 0 0 22 158 389 981 1,719 20 949 95

Number of employees (end of period) ....................... 1,022,962 230 2,314 21,460 43,859 113,268 99,454 91,519 193,716 116,697 340,445

Number of banks (end of p e rio d )................................. 13,500 66 471 2,567 3,262 4,088 1,608 738 532 96 72

1 This group of banks is the same as the group shown in table 116 under the heading "Operating throughout the year."

268 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 118. R A T IO S OF IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S O P E R A T IN G T H R O U G H O U T 1972 IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S

(S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S )1

BANKS GROUPED ACCORDING TO AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS

Income item

Banks with deposits o fLess 

than 

$1 million

$1 million 

to

$2 million

$2 million 

to

$5 million

$5 million 

to

$10 million

$10 million 

to

$25 million

$25 million 

to

$50 million

$50 million 

to

$100 million

$100 million 

to

$500 million

$500 million 

to

$1 billion

$1 billion 

or 

more

Amounts per $100 of operating income

Operating in c o m e -to ta l........................................................................................ $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Income on loans2............................................................................................... 59.84 61.72 62.48 63.79 64.50 65.11 65.38 65.69 67.73 67.37

Interest on U.S. Treasury securities3 ............................................................ 23.62 20.97 18.26 14.96 12.62 10.71 9.76 8.15 7.32 5.82

Interest on State and local government obligations3. ................................ 1.40 2.60 4.90 7.76 9.26 10.01 10.22 9.43 9.12 7.64

Interest and dividends on other securities4.................................................. 7.67 7.61 7.72 6.43 5.74 5.61 5.49 4.44 2.39 1.72

Trust department income .............................................................................. 0 .01 .11 .10 .43 .99 1.76 3.62 3.84 5.41

Service charges on deposit accounts ............................................................ 3.61 3.39 3.44 3.92 4.40 4.24 3.80 3.25 2.94 2.28

Other charges, commissions, fees, etc............................................................ 2.75 2.41 2.14 2.05 1.98 2.10 2.35 3.05 3.39 2.82

Other operating income3 ................................................................................. 1.11 1.29 .95 .99 1.06 1.23 1.24 2.37 3.27 6.94

Operating expense-total ..................................................................................... 81.46 81.58 82.33 81.49 81.51 81.98 82.70 82.90 82.06 81.46

Salaries and wages............................................................................................ 36.13 28.18 23.12 19.83 18.33 18.06 18.68 19.56 19.29 19.54

Pensions and other benefits............................................................................ 3.64 2.58 2.47 2.56 2.63 2.81 3.02 3.33 3.43 3.74

1 nterest on time and savings deposits............................................................ 17.74 28.98 36.70 38.74 39.36 38.98 38.55 35.22 31.88 30.85

Interest on borrowed money5 ....................................................................... .15 .11 .15 .20 .35 .68 1.09 2.92 4.92 8.24

Occupancy expense of bank premises, n e t.................................................. 4.48 3.12 2.75 2.93 3.21 3.56 3.81 4.11 3.97 4.30

Furniture and equipment, etc.......................................................................... 3.11 2.40 2.43 2.49 2.58 2.71 2.92 3.31 3.08 2.32

Provision for loan losses ................................................................................. 2.09 2.57 2.15 2.17 2.T8 2.17 2.06 2.13 2.79 2.68

Other operating expenses .............................................................................. 14.12 13.64 12.56 12.57 12.87 13.01 12.57 12.32 12.70 9.79

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses ........................... 18.54 18.42 17.67 18.51 18.49 18.02 17.30 17.10 17.94 18.54

Amounts per $100 of total assets6

Operating in c o m e -to ta l........................................................................................ 5.61 5.71 5.78 5.79 5.84 5.88 5.81 5.69 5.60 5.08

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses ........................... 1.04 1.05 1.02 1.07 1.08 1.06 1.01 .79 1.00 .94

Net incom e............................................................................................................... .78 .83 .79 .85 .87 .86 .83 .79 .76 .70

Memoranda

Recoveries credited to reserves (not included above):

On loans ............................................................................................................

On securities......................................................................................................

Losses charged to reserves (not included above):

On loans ............................................................................................................

On securities......................................................................................................

.02

0

.10

0

.06

0

.14

0

.06

(7 )

.14

(7 )

.06

(7 )

.16

(7 )

.07

(7 )

.17

(7 )

.06

(7 )

.17

(7 )

.05

(7 )

.16

(7 )

.05

(7 )

.16

(7 )

.05

(7 )

.21

(7 )

.04

(7 )

.17

(7 )

INCOME OF INSURED BANKS 269

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 118. R A T IO S OF IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D C O M M E R C IA L B A N K S O P E R A T IN G T H R O U G H O U T 1972 IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S

(S TA TE S A N D O TH E R A R E A S )1-C O N T IN U E D

BANKS GROUPED ACCORDING TO AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS

Banks with deposits o fIncome item Less $1 million $2 million $5 million $10 million $25 million $50 million $100 million $500 million $1 billion

than to to to to to to to to or

$1 million $2 million $5 million $10 million $25 million $50 million $100 million $500 million $1 billion more

Amounts per $100 of total capital accounts6

Net income8 .............................................................................................................. 6.01 7.36 8.91 10.70 11.96 12.16 11.93 11.48 11.00 10.43

Cash dividends declared on common s to c k ........................................................ 1.95 2.44 2.34 2.52 2.90 3.43 3.66 4.47 5.41 4.63

Net additions to capital from inco m e ................................................................. 4.06 4.92 6.56 8.16 9.00 8.63 8.12 6.82 5.33 5.47

Amounts per $100 of equity capital6

Net incom e................................................................................................................ 6.01 7.37 8.94 10.78 12.15 12.52 12.40 12.09 11.90 11.48

Memoranda

Recoveries credited to reserves (not included above):

On loans ............................................................................................................. .17 .51 .64 .76 .92 .85 .78 .68 .74 .59

On securities....................................................................................................... 0 0 .03 .01 (7 )

.01 .02 .05 (7 ) (7 )

Losses charged to reserves (not included above):

On lo a n s .............................................................................................................. .77 1.25 1.59 2.05 2.29 2.33 2.27 2.29 3.02 2.42

On securities....................................................................................................... 0 0

(7 )

.01 .01 .02 .04 (7 )

.02 (7 )

Special ratios6

Income on loans per $100 of loans2 .................................................................... 7.03 7.09 6.99 6.96 7.01 6.96 6.88 6.68 6.56 5.95

Income on U.S. Treasury securities per $100 of U.S. Treasury securities3. . 6.07 5.54 5.40 5.46 5.46 5.52 5.43 5.17 4.91 5.11

Income on obligations of States and political subdivisions per $100

of obligations of States and political subdivisions3 ................................... 3.88 4.18 3.98 4.06 4.00 4.10 4.03 3.88 4.01 4.01

Income on other securities per $100 of other securities4................................. 4.18 4.59 5.12 5.04 5.27 5.69 5.80 5.93 5.26 5.53

Service charges per $100 of demand deposits................................................... .33 .40 .48 .59 .68 .67 .58 .46 .39 .28

Interest paid per $100 of time and savings d ep osits........................................ 4.06 4.34 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.45 4.41 4.35 4.34 4.24

Number of banks, December 31, 1972 ............................................................... 66 471 2,567 3,262 4,088 1,608 738 532 96 72

1This group of banks is the same as the group shown in table 116 under heading "Operating throughout the year."

2I ncludes Federal funds.

3lncome from securities held in trading accounts is included in "O ther operating income.''

4 Includes interest and dividends on securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations,

inclu de s interest on capital notes and debentures and Federal funds purchased.

6 Ratios are based on assets and liabilities reported at end of year.

7Less than 0.005.

8Reported data are adjusted (see table 115, note 7).

270 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 119. IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ), 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Income item

Operating in c o m e -to ta l................................................................................................................................

Interest and fees on real estate mortgage loans, n e t...........................................................................

Interest and fees on real estate mortgage loans, gross.................................................................

Less: Mortgage servicing fees...........................................................................................................

Interest and fees on other loans..............................................................................................................

Interest on U.S. Government and agency securities2 ........................................................................

Interest on corporate bonds.....................................................................................................................

Interest on State, county, and municipal obligations2 ......................................................................

Interest on other bonds, notes, and debentures2 ...............................................................................

Dividends on corporate stock2 ................................................................................................................

Income from service operations..............................................................................................................

Other operating incom e............................................................................................................................

Operating expenses-total..............................................................................................................................

Salaries ........................................................................................................................................................

Pensions and other employee benefits..................................................................................................

Interest on borrowed m oney..................................................................................................................

Occupancy expense of bank premises (including taxes, depreciation, maintenance, rentals), net

Furniture and equipment (including recurring depreciation)..........................................................

Actual net loan losses (charge-offs less recoveries).............................................................................

Other operating expenses .......................................................................................................................

Net operating income before interest and dividends on deposits...........................................................

Interest and dividends on deposits-total ..................................................................................................

Savings deposits2 .......................................................................................................................................

Other time deposits2 ................................................................................................................................

Net operating income after interest and dividends on deposits.............................................................

Net realized gains (or losses) o n -to ta l .......................................................................................................

Securities.....................................................................................................................................................

Real estate mortgage loans.......................................................................................................................

Real estate...................................................................................................................................................

Other transactions.....................................................................................................................................

Less m inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries2..................................................................................

Net income before taxes.................................................................................................................................

Franchise and income taxes-total ..............................................................................................................

Federal income t a x ...................................................................................................................................

State and local franchise and income ta x e s .........................................................................................

Net incom e.......................................................................................................................................................

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

3,238,735 3,581,559 3,874,870 4,529,014 5,295,449

2,538,502 2,768,370 2,963,859 3,275,859 3,690,871

2,603,928 2,835,708 3,031,157 3,344,057 3,760,908

65,426 67,338 67,298 68,198 70,037

83,807 121,172 154,230 163,675 178,126

268,370 352,297

552,841 633,835 693,986 546,033 726,665

12,789 30,857

75,489 91,856

105,592 126,256

40,964 35,942 35,107 27,669 30,072

22,621 22,240 27,688 53,538 68,449

390,6691 4 4 3,0491 520,8621 581,693 671,818

175,307 193,613 217,536 243,446 270,353

37,149 41,860 47,072 55,944 63,882

4,021 9,864 20,327 7,862 6,713

47,184 52,491 60,655 71,113 82,820

16,414 19,726 22,603 28,365 32,237

889 898 1,363 3,328 4,500

109,705 124,597 151,306 171,635 211,313

2,848,0661 3,138,510 1 3,354,0081 3,947,321 4,623,631

2,612,638 2,808,141 2,987,200 3,418,845 3,943,233

3,058,645 3,392,798

360,200 550,435

235,428 330,369 366,808 528,476 680,398

7 ,2 0 3 1 -5 9 ,4 5 7 1 - 1 2 1 ,3 7 2 1 -5 8 ,2 8 6 -1 4 ,8 9 6

11,237 -37,719 -91,760 -44,290 3,481

-3,137 -23,381 -26,334 -12,133 -25,944

493 434 -5 6 8 -1,690 -5 0 9

-1,390 1,209 -2,710 -1 7 3 8,076

34

242,6311 270,912 1 245,4 3 6 1 470,190 665,468

47,710 61,874 78,421 126,601 186,303

8,429 14,303 25,310 63,833 108,679

39,281 47,571 53,111 62,768 77,624

194,9211 209,0381 167,015 1 343,589 479,165

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 119. IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ), 19 6 8 -1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Income item 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Memoranda

Change in surplus accounts, net ..............................................................

Discount on securities, total2 ....................................................................................................................................

218,5011 220,063! 188,484! 486,234

16,513

534,229

19,630

Average assets and liabilities3

Assets-total4. .............................................................................................................................................................................

Cash and due from banks......................................................................................................................................

U.S. Government and agency securities4 ..........................................................................................................

Other securities4 .....................................................................................................................................................

Real estate mortgage loans4 ..................................................................................................................................

Other loans and discounts4. ...............................................................

Other real e s ta te .........................................................................

A ll other assets.........................................................................

Liabilities and surplus accounts-total4 .............................................................................................................................

Total deposits...........................................................................

Savings and time deposits...............................................................................................................................

Demand deposits.....................................................................

Other lia b ilitie s .......................................................................................................................................................

Total surplus accounts4 .........................................................................................................................................

59.871.912

825,767

4,297,630

6,964,029

45,566,125

1,176,814

36,156

1,005,391

59.871.912

54,534,572

54,053,723

480,849

793,930

4,543,410

63.518.853

715,778

3,865,250

8,254,868

48,091,156

1,463,714

38,345

1,089,742

63.518.853

57,834,645

57,304,999

529,646

888,123

4,796,085

65.986.370

778.430

3,893,429

8,471,553

49,745,250

1,904,974

57,981

1,134,753

65.986.370

59,862,839

59,296,823

566,016

1,162,859

4,960,672

73.661.663

1,156,181

4,437,666

11,932,355

52,364,759

2,309,498

75,520

1,385,684

73.661.663

67,443,302

66,784,186

659,116

982,655

5,235,706

82.995.606

1,329,972

5,740,097

15,033,388

56,553,602

2,566,460

116,406

1,655,681

82.995.606

76,226,170

75,472,194

753,976

1,074,401

5,695,035

Number of employees (end of period)...................................................................................................................... 25,063 26,105 27,505 30,134 32,866

Number of banks (end of p e rio d )............................................................................................................................. 334 331 329 327 326

1 Figures have been revised to provide comparability w ith 1971-1972 data-see page 261 for information of changes in reports in 1971.

2Data are not available prior to 1971, see page 261.

3 For 1970 and prior years, averages of amounts for four consecutive official call dates beginning with the end of the previous year and ending with the fall call of the current year; for 1971-1972, averages of amounts reported 

at beginning, middle, and end of year.

4Averages fo r 1968-1970 have been revised to a gross basis; see notes to table 110.

272 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 120. R A T IO S OF IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN T H E U N IT E D S TA T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ), 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2

Income item 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Amounts per $100 o f operating income

Operating in c o m e -to ta l..................................................................................................................................................... $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00

Interest and fees on real estate mortgage loa n s-n et............................................................................................... 78.38 77.30 76.49 72.33 69.70

Interest and fees on other loans.................................................................................................................................. 2.59 3.38 3.98 3.61 3.36

\ ....... 5.93 6.65

Interest on corporate bonds ....................................................................................................................................... 17.07 17.70 17.91 12.06 13.72

\ ....... .28 .58

( 1.67 1.74

j 2.33 2.39

1 ncome from service operations ................................................................................................................................ 1.26 1.00 .91 .61 .57

Other operating incom e................................................................................................................................................ .70 .62 .71 1.18 1.29

Operating expense-total .................................................................................................................................................. 12.061 12.371 13.441 12.84 12.69

Salaries ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5.41 5.41 5.61 5.37 5.11

Pensions and other employee benefits...................................................................................................................... 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.21

Interest on borrowed m o n ey....................................................................................................................................... .12 .27 .52 .17 .13

Occupancy expense of bank premises (including taxes, depreciation, maintenance, re n ta ls)-n e t................ 1.46 1.47 1.57 1.57 1.56

Furniture and equipment (including recurring depreciation)............................................................................... .50 .55 .58 .63 .61

Actual net loan losses (charge offs less recoveries)................................................................................................. .03 .02 .04 .07 .08

Other operating expenses .............................. -........................................................................................................... 3.39 3.48 3.90 3.79 3.99

Net operating income before interest and dividends on deposits ............................................................................. 87.941 87.631 86.561 87.16 87.31

Interest and dividends on deposits-total ...................................................................................................................... 80.67 78.41 77.09 75.49 74.46

Savings deposits ............................................................................................................................................................ (2) (2) (2) 67.54 64.07

Other time deposits....................................................................................................................................................... 7.95 10.39

Net operating income after interest and dividends on deposits.................................................................................. 7.271 9.221 9.471 11.67 12.85

Net realized gains (or losses) o n -to ta l ........................................................................................................................... .221 — 1-661 — 3.14 1 -1 .2 9 -.2 8

Securities......................................................................................................................................................................... .35 — 1.05 — 2.37 -.9 8 .07

Real estate mortgage loans ......................................................................................................................................... -.1 0 — .65 — .68 -.2 7 -.4 9

Real estate ..................................................................................................................................................................... .01 .01 -.0 2 -.0 4 -.01

Other transactions......................................................................................................................................................... -.0 4 .03 -.0 7 (5 )

.15

Less m inority interest in consolidated subsidiaries...................................................................................................... (5 )

Net income before taxe s..................................................................................................................................................... 7.491 7.561 6.331 10.38 12.57

Franchise and income taxes-total .................................................................................................................................. 1.47 1.72 2.02 2.79 3.52

Federal income t a x ....................................................................................................................................................... .26 .40 .65 1.41 2.05

State and local franchise and income ta x e s ............................................................................................................. 1.21 1.32 1.37 1.38 1.47

Net inco m e ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6.021 5.841 4.311 7.59 9.05

INCOME OF INSURED BANKS 273

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 120. R A T IO S OF IN C O M E OF IN S U R E D M U T U A L S A V IN G S B A N K S IN THE U N IT E D S T A T E S (S TA TE S A N D O T H E R A R E A S ), 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D

Income item 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Amounts per $100 of total assets3

Operating in c o m e -to ta l..................................................................................................................................................... 5.41 5.64 5.87 6.15 6.38

Operating expense-total ................................................................................................................................................... .65 .70 .79 .79 .81

Net operating income before interest and dividends on deposits................................................................................ 4.76 4.94 5.08 5.36 5.57

Interest and dividends on deposits— total ....................................................................................................................... 4.37 4.42 4.52 4.64 4.75

Net operating income after interest and dividends on deposits.................................................................................. .39 .52 .56 .72 .82

Net realized gains (or losses)— to ta l................................................................................................................................... .02 -.0 9 -.1 9 -.0 8 -.0 2

Net income before taxes..................................................................................................................................................... .41 .43 .37 .64 .80

Franchise and income taxes-total ................................................................................................................................... .08 .10 .12 .17 .22

.33 .33 .25 .47 .58

Special ratios3

Interest on U.S. Government and agency securities per $100 of U.S. Government and agency securities4. . . . . 4.91 5.23 5.61 6.05 6.14

Interest and dividends on other securities per $100 of other securities4 ........................................................ 6.20 6.49

Interest and fees on real estate mortgage loans per $100 of real estate loans4 ......................................................... 5.57 5.76 5.96 6.26 6.53

Interest and fees on other loans per $100 of other loans4 ............................................................................................ 7.12 8.28 8.10 7.09 6.94

I nterest and dividends on deposits per $100 of savings and time deposits................................................................ 4.83 4.90 5.04 5.12 5.22

Net income per $100 of total surplus accounts4 ............................................................................................................ 4.29 4.36 3.37 6.56 8.41

Number of banks (end of p erio d )..................................................................................................................................... 334 331 329 327 326

1, 2, 3, 4 g ee n o te s t0 ta b le 11 9. 

5 Less than 0.005.

274 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 121. 

Table 122.

Table 123. 

Table 124.

BANKS CLOSED BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES;

DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS

Number and deposits of banks closed because of financial difficulties, 1934-1972

Insured banks requiring disbursements by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during

1972

Depositors, deposits, and disbursements in insured banks requiring disbursements by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1934-1972 

Banks grouped by class of bank, year o f deposit payoff or deposit assumption, amount of

deposits, and State

Recoveries and losses by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on principal disbursements 

for protection of depositors, 1934-1972

BANKS CLOSED AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS 275

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ro

^vl

o

Deposit insurance disbursements

Disbursem ents by the Federal D eposit Insurance C orporation to protect 

depositors are made when the insured deposits o f banks in financial d ifficulties are paid o ff, or when the deposits o f a failin g bank are assumed by 

another insured bank w ith the financial aid of the C orporation. In deposit 

p a yo ff cases, the disbursem ent is the am ount paid by the C orporation on 

insured deposits. In deposit assum ption cases, the principal disbursement is 

the a m ount loaned to fa ilin g banks, or the price paid fo r assets purchased 

fro m the m ; a d d itio n a l disbursem ents are made in those cases as advances fo r 

p ro te ctio n of assets in process o f liq u id a tio n and fo r liq u id a tio n expenses.

Noninsured bank failures

Statistics in this re port on failures o f noninsured banks are com piled 

fro m in fo rm a tio n obtained fro m State banking departm ents, fie ld supervisory officials, and other sources. Based on in fo rm a tio n received, the fo llo w ­

ing noninsured banks failed during 1972:

Deposits ($ mil)

( 12-31-71)

36.2

Date of

Closing

9-21-72

Bank

W .L. M oody and Co.

Galveston, Texas

B righto n Five Cents 43.1 10-16-72

Savings Bank (date

Boston, Mass. merged)

For detailed data regarding noninsured banks w hich suspended in the 

years 1934-1962, see the Annual Report fo r 1963, pp. 27-41. For 

1963-1971, see table 121 o f this report, and previous reports fo r respective 

years.

Sources of data

m

O

m

X

>

r

o

m“OOc/>

C/5

c

>

Z

o

m

o

O

X

T>

o

X

>

H

O

z

Insured banks: books o f bank at date o f closing; and books o f FDIC, 

December 31, 1972.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 121. NUM BER A N D DEPOSITS OF BANKS CLOSED BECAUSE OF F IN A N C IA L D IF F IC U L T IE S , 1 9 3 4 -1 9 7 2

Noninsured1

Without

disbursements

by FDIC2

With

disbursements

by FDIC3

Deposits (in thousands of dollars)

Noninsured1

Without

disbursements

by FDIC2

With

disbursements

by FDIC3

Total.

1934.

1935.

1936.

1937 .

1938.

1939.

1940.

1941 .

1942 .

1943 .

1944 .

1945.

1946.

1947 .

1948.

1949 .

1950.

1951 .

1952 .

1953.

1954.

1955 .

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959 .

1960.

1961 .

1962.

1963 .

1964.

1965.

1966 .

1967.

1968.

1969 .

1970 .

1971 .

1972.

61

32

72

83

80

72

48

16

23

5

2

1 

2

6

3

9

5

5

4

5

4

5

3

3

9

3

2

9

3

2

52

6

3

7

7

12

5

2

3

9

26

69

76

73

60

43

14

20

5

2

1

1

5

3

5

4

2

3

4

2

5

2

2

4

3

1

5

1 

2

7

5

7

4

3

9

7

6

1

9

25

69

74

73

60

43

14

20

5

2

1

1

5

3

4

4

2

3

2

2

5

2

1

4

3

37,332

13,987

28,100

34,141

60.444

160,211

142,787

18,805

19,541

12,525

1,915

5,695

494

7,207

10,674

9,217

5,555

6,464

3,313

45,101

2,948

11,953

11.689

12,502

10,413

2,593

7,965

10,611

4,231

23.444

23,867

45,256

106,171

10,878

22,524

40,120

52,7634

131,682

99.689

141,700 1,113,107

35,364 1,968

583 13,404

592 27,508

528 33,613

1,038 59,406

2,439 157,772

358 142,429

79 18,726

355 19,186

12,525

1,915

5,695

147 347

167 7,040

10,674

2,552 6,665

42 5,513

3,056 3,408

143 3,170

390 44,711

1,950 998

11,953

360 11,329

1,255 11,247

2,173 8,240

2,593

1,035 6,930

1,675 8,936

1,220 3,011

23,444

429 23,438

1,395 43,861

2,648 103,523

10,878

22,524

40,120

4234 52,340

131,682

79,304 20,385

26,449

1,968

13,319

27,508

33,285

59,406

157,772

142,429

18,726

19,186

12,525

1,915

5.695

347

7,040

10,674

5,475

5,513

3,408

3,170

18,262

998

11,953

11,329

1,163

8,240

2,593

6,930

8,936

’ '23,444

23,438

43,861

103,523

10,878

22,524

40,120

52,340

131,682

20,385

1For information regarding each of these banks, see table 22 in the Annual Report of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for 1963, page 221 of the report for 1964, page 179 of the report for 1965, and page 183 of the 1966 report. One noninsured bank placed in receivership in 1934, with no deposits at time of closing, is omitted (see table 22, note 9). Deposits are unavailable for 7 banks.

2For information regarding these cases, see table 23 of the Annual Report for 1963.

3For information regarding each bank, see the Annual Report for 1958, pp. 48-83 and pp. 98-127, and tables regarding deposit insurance disbursements in subsequent annual reports. Deposits are adjusted as of December 31, 1972, and exclude deposits for three cases requiring disbursements by the Corporation: 1 bank in voluntary liquidation in 1937 (payoff case no. 90); 1 noninsured bank in 1938 with insured deposits at date of suspension, its insurance status having been terminated prior

to suspension (payoff case no. 162); and 1 foreign-owned bank closed in 1941 by order of the Federal Government (payoff case no. 234).

4 Revised.

BANKS CLOSED AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEM ENTS 277

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 122. INSURED BANKS REQUIRING DISBURSEMENTS BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DURING 1972

Case

number Name and location

Class of 

bank

Number of 

depositors or 

accounts1

Date of closing or 

deposit assumption

First payment to 

depositors or 

disbursement by 

FDIC

FDIC

disbursement2

Receiver or liquidating agent 

or assuming bank

Deposit

payoff

299 Surety Bank and 

and Trust Company 

Wakefield, Massachusetts

NM 23,363 May 19, 1972 May 27, 1972 $16,105,414 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Case

number

Assets1 Liabilities and capital accounts1

Cash and 

due from 

banks

U.S. Government 

obligations

Other

securities

Loans,

discounts,

and

overdrafts

Banking 

house, 

furniture & 

fixtures

Other

real

estate

Other

assets

Total Deposits Other

liabilities

Capital

stock

Other

capital

accounts

Deposit

payoff

299 2,222,066 741,416 69,897 16,482,624 911,178 17,691 1,609,272 $22,054,144 20,384,717 63,739 581,188 1,024,500

1 Figures as determined by FDIC agents after adjustment of books of'the bank immediately following its closing, 

in clu d e s disbursements made to December 31, 1972, plus additional disbursements estimated to be required in these cases.

278 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 123. D E P O S ITO R S , DEPOSITS, A N D D IS B U R S E M E N T S IN IN S U R E D B A N K S R E Q U IR IN G D IS B U R S E M E N T S B Y T H E 

F E D E R A L DEPOSIT IN S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T IO N , 1 9 3 4 -1 9 7 2 

BANKS GROUPED BY CLASS OF BANK, YEAR OF DEPOSIT PAYOFF OR DEPOSIT ASSUMPTION, AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS, AND STATE

Classification

Number of banks Number of depositors1

Deposits1 

(in thousands of dollars)

Disbursements by FDIC1 

(in thousands of dollars)

Total Payoff

cases

Assumption

cases

Total Payoff

cases

Assumption

cases

Total Payoff

cases

Assumption

cases

Principal disbursements

Advances and 

expenses2

Total Payoff

cases3

Assumption

cases4

Payoff

cases5

Assumption

cases6

A ll banks................................................. 496 294 202 1,799.541 584,132 1,215,409 1,083,812 381,039 702,773 649,052 268,164 380,888 4,903 59,475

Class of banks

N a tio n al............................................ 91 34 57 358,318 98,513 259,805 224,675 103,523 121,152 116,052 57,824 58,228 1,506 8,214

State member F.R.S......................... 27 10 17 376,257 88,892 287,365 197,673 34,388 163,286 108,187 26,506 81,681 296 19,483

Nonmember F.R.S........................... 378 250 128 1,064,966 396,727 668,239 661,463 243,128 418,335 424,813 183,834 240,979 3,101 31,778

Year7

1934 ................................................. 9 9 15,767 15,767 1,968 1,968 941 941 43

1935 ................................................. 25 24 "V 44,655 32,331 12,324 13,319 9,091 4,229 8,891 6,026 2,865 108 272

1936 ................................................. 69 42 27 89,018 43,225 45,793 27,508 11,241 16,267 14,781 8,056 6,725 67 934

1937 ................................................. 75 50 25 130,387 74,148 56,239 33,349 14,960 18,389 19,161 12,045 7,116 103 905

1938 ................................................. 74 50 24 203,961 44,288 159,673 59,684 10,296 49,388 30,479 9,092 21,387 93 4,902

1939 ................................................. 60 32 28 392,718 90,169 302,549 157,772 32,738 125,034 67,770 26,196 41,574 162 17,603

1940 ................................................. 43 19 24 256,361 20,667 235,694 142,429 5,657 136,773 74,134 4,895 69,239 89 17,237

1941 ................................................. 15 8 7 73,005 38,594 34,411 29,718 14,730 14,987 23,880 12,278 11,602 50 1,479

1942 ................................................. 20 6 14 60,688 5,717 54,971 19,186 1,816 17,369 10,825 1,612 9,213 38 1,076

1943 ................................................. 5 4 1 27,371 16,917 10,454 12,525 6,637 5,888 7,172 5,500 1,672 53 72

1944 ................................................. 2 1 1 5,487 899 4,588 1,915 456 1,459 1,503 404 1,099 9 37

1945 ................................................. 1 1 12,483 12,483 5,695 5,695 1,768 1,768 96

1946 ................................................. 1 1 1,383 1,383 347 347 265 265 11

1947 ................................................. 5 5 10,637 10,637 7,040 7,040 1,724 1,724 378

1948 ................................................. 3 3 18,540 18,540 10,674 10,674 2,990 2,990 200

1949 ................................................. 4 4 5,671 5^671 5,475 5*475 2,552 2,552 166

1950 ................................................. 4 4 6,366 6,366 5,513 5,513 3,986 3,986 524

1951 ................................................. 2 2 5,276 5^276 3,408 3*408 1,885 1,885 127

1952 ................................................. 3 3 6,752 6,752 3,170 3,170 1,369 1,369 195

1953 ................................................. 2 2 24,469 24,469 18,262 18,262 5,017 5,017 428

1954 ................................................. 2 2 1,811 1,811 998 998 913 913 145

1955 ................................................. 5 " 4 1 17,790 8,080 9,710 11,953 6,503 5,450 6,784 4,438 2,346 106 665

1956 ................................................. 2 1 1 15,197 5,465 9,732 11,329 4,702 6,628 3,458 2,795 663 87 51

1957 ................................................. 1 1 2 338 2 338 1 163 1 163 1.031 1 031 20

1958 ................................................. 4 3 " V 9^587 4,380 5,207 8,240 4,156 4,084 3,026 2,796 230 38 31

1959 ................................................. 3 3 3,073 3,073 2,593 2,593 1,835 1,835 51

1960 ................................................. 1 1 11,171 11,171 6,930 6,930 4,765 4,765 82

BANKS CLOSED AND DEPOSIT. INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS 279

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 123. D E P O S ITO R S , D EPOSITS, A N D D IS BU R S EM EN T S IN IN S U R E D B A N K S R E Q U IR IN G D IS B U R S E M E N T S B Y T H E 

F E D E R A L DEPOSIT IN S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T IO N , 1 9 3 4 -1 9 7 2 -C O N T IN U E D 

BANKS GROUPED BY CLASS OF BANK, YEAR OF DEPOSIT PAYOFF OR DEPOSIT ASSUMPTION, AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS, AND STATE

Classification

Number of banks Number of depositors1

Deposits1 

(in thousands of dollars)

Disbursements by FDIC1 

(in thousands of dollars)

Total Payoff

cases

Assumption

cases

Total Payoff

cases

Assumption

cases

Total Payoff

cases

Assumption

cases

Principal disbursements

Advances and 

expenses2

Total Payoff

cases3

Assumption

cases4

Payoff

cases5

Assumption

cases6

1961 5 5 8 301 8 301 8,936 8,936 6,200 6,200 154

1963 2 2 36 430 36 430 23,444 23,444 19,232 19,232 325

1964 7 7 19 934 19 934 23,438 23,438 13,746 13,746 590

1965 ................................................. 5 3 2 15,817 14,363 1,454 43,861 42,889 972 11,431 10,958 473 601 123

1966 ................................................. 7 1 6 95,424 1,012 94,412 103,523 774 102,749 15,075 735 14,340 25 1,219

1967 4 4 4,729 4,729 10,878 10,878 8,135 8,135 238

1968 3 3 12,850 12,850 22,524 22,524 5,293 5,293 974

1969 ................................................. 9 " 4 5 27,371 6,541 20,830 40,133 9,011 31,122 37,110 7,628 29,482 267 3,593

1970 ................................................. 7 4 3 31,135 20,105 11,030 52,413 31,081 21,332 46,485 26,719 19,766 576 980

1971 ................................................. 6 5 1 71,938 31,838 40,100 132,023 74,476 57,547 160,908 53,818 107,090 620 4,955

1972 .............................. 1 1 23,650 23,650 20,474 20,474 22,536 16,292 6,244 308 95

Banks with deposits of

Less than $100,000 ....................... 107 83 24 38,347 29,695 8,652 6,418 4,947 1,471 5,000 4,309 691 88 154

$100,000 to $250,000 ................... 109 86 23 83,370 65,512 17,858 17,759 13,920 3,839 12,906 11,554 1,352 209 173

$250,000 to $500,000 ................... 62 37 25 92,179 57,287 34,892 22,315 12,921 9,394 15,615 10,549 5,066 164 611

$500,000 to $1,000,000 .............. 71 35 36 160,000 73,908 86,092 53,869 26,265 27,604 35,522 20,427 15,095 408 2,336

$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 ............ 57 21 36 209,808 70,324 139,484 76,335 27,761 48,574 44,227 22,028 22,199 638 3,700

$2,000,000 to $5,000,000 ............ 48 20 28 277,476 84,057 193,419 156,721 64,683 92,038 90,375 47,082 43,293 910 6,657

$5,000,000 to $10,000,000 ......... 24 5 19 256,796 40,754 216,042 161,285 37,655 123,630 80,147 26,118 54,029 587 7,962

$10,000,000 to $25,000,000 . . . . 10 5 5 246,209 122,711 123,498 172,107 85,809 86,297 99,647 69,313 30,334 955 6,719

$25,000,000 to $50,000,000 .... 5 1 4 284,809 12,481 272,328 199,594 40,176 159,418 95,193 9,700 85,493 532 25,773

$50,000,000 to $ 10 0,0 00 ,00 0 ... 3 1 2 150,547 27,403 123,144 217,409 66,902 150,507 170,416 47,082 123,334 410 5,388

State

Alabam a............................................ 4 2 2 9,170 2,059 7,111 6,170 3,985 2,185 3,567 2,572 995 94 91

Arkansas............................................ 7 6 1 5,446 4,541 905 2,538 1,942 596 1,720 1,576 144 43 48

C alifornia.......................................... 4 3 1 21,059 17,890 3,169 47,298 46,220 1,078 25,647 12,946 12,701 627 1,188

Colorado .......................................... 5 3 2 9,732 2,304 7,428 12,460 3,670 8,790 5,673 2,149 3,524 153 1,065

Connecticut 2 2 5,379 5,379 1,526 1,526 1,242 1,242 8

F lo rida .............................................. 5 2 3 14,082 1,725 12,357 17,665 2,668 14,997 6,163 2,145 4,018 65 644

Georgia.............................................. 10 8 2 9,410 8,797 613 1,959 1,870 89 1,620 1,551 69 33 33

2 2 2,451 2,451 1,894 1,894 1,493 1,493 29

Illin o is ............................................... 22 10 " n 82,294 44,375 37,919 54,656 28,972 25,684 31,908 23,926 7,982 462 791

Indiana.............................................. 20 15 5 30,006 12,549 17,457 13,594 3,933 9,662 6,197 3,096 3,101 39 384

280 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Io w a ................................................... 8 5 3 17,725 5,736 11,989 13,376 8,358 5,018 7,515 6,444 1,071 130 113

Kansas.............................................. 10 6 4 6,715 3,824 2,891 5,052 4,358 694 4,093 3,601 492 56 72

Kentucky .......................................... 25 19 6 39,925 18,964 20,961 15,522 5,213 10,309 11,943 4,505 7,438 110 425

Louisiana.......................................... 3 3 6.087 6.087 1.652 1.652 668 668 10

M aine................................................. 1 1 9 710 9,710 5,450 5,450 2,346 2,346 665

M a ryla nd .......................................... 5 2 3 22,567 6,643 15,924 4,566 828 3,738 3,109 735 2,374 9 371

Massachusetts................................... 3 1 2 32,696 23,650 9,046 23,493 20,474 3,019 17,856 16,292 1,564 308 1,030

Michigan .......................................... 13 5 8 165,811 10,173 155,638 177,381 11,334 166,046 140,527 9,633 130,894 183 6,359

Minnesota ........................................ 5 5 2,650 2,650 818 818 640 640 17

Mississippi ........................................ 3 3 1,651 1,651 334 334 257 257 5

M issouri............................................ 51 37 14 49,054 31,477 17,577 21,714 10,729 10,985 16,335 9,069 7,266 134 792

Montana............................................ 5 3 2 1,500 849 651 1,095 215 880 639 186 453 6 21

Nebraska.......................................... 7 7 6,482 6,482 8,729 8,729 5,549 5,549 55

New Ham pshire.............................. 1 1 1,780 1 780 296 296 117 117 8

New Jersey........................................ 40 ‘ 13 27 532,435 113,669 418,766 210,536 49,034 161,502 95,706 40,049 55,657 447 20,154

New Y ork ........................................ 26 3 23 269,621 28,440 241,181 145,439 13,286 132,153 67,997 10,836 57,161 32 10,847

North Carolina................................. 7 2 5 10,408 3,677 6,731 3,266 1,421 1,845 2,387 1,156 1,231 23 179

North Dakota ................................. 29 18 11 14,103 6,760 7,343 3,830 1,552 2,278 2,656 1,397 1,259 24 203

O hio ................................................... 4 2 2 13,751 7,585 6,166 7,223 2,345 4,877 2,098 1,610 488 7 44

Oklahoma.......................................... 12 8 4 27,650 20,149 7,501 18,920 11,053 7,867 10,284 7,936 2,348 178 466

O regon............................................... 2 1 1 3,439 1,230 2,209 2,670 1,368 1,302 1,948 986 962 11 81

Pennsylvania..................................... 30 8 22 168,834 43,828 125,006 84,595 14,340 70,255 60,149 10,133 50,016 75 9,839

South Carolina................................. 2 1 1 1,848 403 1,445 849 136 714 274 136 138 10

South D akota................................... 23 22 1 12,515 11,412 1,103 2,987 2,862 126 2,411 2,388 23 26 9

Tennessee.......................................... 12 8 4 12,358 9,993 2,365 1,942 1,620 322 1,278 1,164 114 28 25

Texas ................................................. 39 30 9 86,536 68,320 18,216 119,733 93,300 26,432 80,299 66,420 13,879 1,089 1,767

U tah................................................... 1 1 3,254 3 254 5,992 5,992 3 250 3,250 256

Verm ont............................................ 3 " 2 1 11,057 8,687 2',370 3] 7 25 3,375 '350 3',44 5 3,259 '186 21 22

V irg in ia ........................................... 9 4 5 35,715 12,638 23,077 17,778 7,652 10,127 8,263 3,867 4,396 299 505

Washington........ .............................. 1 1 4,179 4,179 1,538 1,538 935 935 512

West V irg in ia ................................... 3 3 8,346 8,346 2,006 2,006 1,458 1 458 11

Wisconsin.......................................... 31 20 " i V 26,898 18,739 8,159 9,512 5,966 3,545 7,188 5^096 2,092 54 436.

W yo m in g .................•....................... 1 1 3,212 3,212 2,033 2,033 202 202 19

''Adjusted to December 31, 1972. In assumption cases, number of depositors refers to number of deposit accounts.

2Excludes $512 thousand of nonrecoverable insurance expenses in cases that were resolved without payment of claims or a disbursement to facilitate assumption of deposits by another insured bcnk and other expenses of 

field liquidation employees not chargeable to liquidation activities, 

in clu d e s estimated additional disbursements in active cases.

4 Excludes excess collections turned over to banks as additional purchase price at termination of liquidation.

5These disbursements are not recoverable by the Corporation; they consist almost wholly of field payoff expenses.

in clu d e s advances to protect assets and liquidation expenses of $57,473 thousand, all of which have been fully recovered by the Corporation, and $1,904 thousand of nonrecoverable expenses.

7No case in 1962 required disbursements. Disbursement totals for each year relate to cases occurring during that year, including disbursements made in subsequent years.

Note: Due to rounding differences, components may not add to totals.

BANKS CLOSED AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE DISBURSEMENTS 281

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 124. RECOVERIES AND LOSSES BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ON PRINCIPAL 

DISBURSEMENTS FOR PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS, 1934-1972 

(Amounts in thousands of dollars)

Liquidation

status and year

of deposit payoff

or deposit

assumption

All cases Deposit payoff cases Deposit assumption cases

Numbar

of

banks

Principal

disbursements

Recoveries

to Dec.

31,1972

Estimated

additional

recoveries Losses1

Number

of

banks

Principal

disbursements2

Recoveries

to Dec.

31,1972

Estimated

additional

recoveries Losses1

Number

of

banks

Principal

disbursements3

Recoveries

to Dec.

31,1972

Estimated

additional

recoveries Losses1

Total ................. 496 649,050 509,354 72,176 67,520 294 268,163 175,472 44,170 48,521 202 380,887 333,882 28,006 18,999

Status

Active................. 53

443

9

25

69

75

361,420

287,630

941

8 891

249,181

260,173

734

6,206

12,325

15,610

28,055

60,618

70,338

23,290

10,136

7,048

1,462

1,768

265

1,653

2,349

2,183

2,601

1,885

577

5,017

654

6,554

3,244

1,031

2,998

1,738

4,765

4,698

18,246

11,786

72,176 40,063

27,457

207

2,681

2,455

3,549

2,425

7,153

3,796

591

29

265

155,932

112,231

941

6,026

8,056

12,045

9,092

26,196

4 895

79,821

95,651

734

44,170 31,941

16,580

24

178

205,488

175,399

169,360

164,522

28,006 8,122

10,877

Year4

207

1935 3 24 4,274

6,595

9,520

7,908

20,399

4,313

12,065

1,320

5,376

363

1,751

. . „

2,865 1,932 3 930

1936 14,781

19,161

30,479

67,770

74,134

23,880

10,825

7,172

1,503

1,768

265

1,724

2,990

2,552

3,986

1,885

1,369

5,017

913

6,784

3,458

1,031

3,026

1,835

4,765

6,200

19,232

13,743

42 1,460

2,524

1,184

27 6,725 5,730 995

1937 50 25 7,116 6,090 1,025

1938 74 50 24 21,387 20,147 1,241

1939 60

43

15

20

5

2

1

32 5,798 28 41,574 40,219 1,355

19 582 24

7

69,239 66,025 3,214

1941 8 12 278 213 11,602 11,225 378

1942 688 6 1,612

5,500

404

292 14 9,213 8,816 396

1943 123

40

4 123 1 1,672

1,099

1,672

1944 1 40 1 1,099

1945 1 1,768 1,768

1946 1 1 265 265

1947 5 13 59 5 1,724 1,653 13 59

1948 3

4

641 3 2,990 2,349 641

1949 369 4 2,552 2,183 369

1950 4 1,385 4 3,986 2,601 1,385

1951 2

3

2

2

2 1,885 1,885

1952 792 3 1,369 577 792

1953 2 5,017 5,017

1954 258 2 913 654 258

1955 5

2

1

230 4 4,438

2.795

1,031

2.796

1,835

4,765

6,200

19,232

13,743

4,208

2,581

1,031

2,768

230 1 2,346 2,346

1956 214 1 214 1 663 663

1957 1 . . „

1958 4 28

97

3 28 230 230

1959 3 3

1

1,738

4,765

4,698

18,246

11,786

97

1960

1961...................

196 3 

196 4 

5

2

7

1,501

400

1,636

5

2

7

1 1,501

400

1,636

586

323

586

323

196 5 

196 6 

196 7 

196 8 

196 9 

5

7

4

3

9

11,432

15,075

8,135

5,293

37,110

6,121

13,899

6,627

5,111

33,499

107

186

157

138

5,205

991

1,350

45

3

1

4

10,959

735

8,135

5,795

611

6,627

106

104

157

5,060

20

1,350

2

6

473

14,340

326

13,288

1

82

145

971

"3" 5,293 5,111 138 45

3,212 400 4 7,628 5,262 1,966 400 5 29,482 28,237 1,246

197 0 

1971

197 2 

7

6

1

46,485

160,907

22,535

33,946

99,259

1,058

8,861

47,898

10,477

3,675

13,750

11,000

4

5

1

26,719

53,817

16,291

16,770

15,719

7,073

24,349

9,291

2,875

13,750

7,000

3

1

19,766

107,090

6,2445

17,176

83,540

1,058

1,788

23,549

1,186

800

’ 4,000

’ Includes estimated losses in active cases. Not adjusted for interest or allowable return, which was collected in some cases in which the disbursement was fully recovered,

includes estimated additional disbursements in active cases.

3Excludes excess collections turned over to banks as additional purchase price at termination of liquidation.

4No case in 1962 required disbursements.

5During 1972, by court order. Public Bank, Detroit, Michigan, receivership was terminated and the remaining assets became an outright purchase of the Corporation.

Note: Due to rounding differences, components may not add to totals.

282 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INDEX

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
285

IN D EX

Absorptions:

Of insured banks requiring disbursements by FDIC. See

Banks in financial difficulties.

Of operating banks, 1972 .....................................................................16-17

Of operating banks approved by FDIC, 1972 .................... 16-17, 33-179

Of operating banks denied by FDIC, 1972 ................................. 180-206

Regulation of .......................................................................................14-15

Administrative Procedure A c t ..........................................................................214

Admission of banks to insurance. See also Applications from banks:

Applications for, 1972 ............................................................................ 12

Number of banks admitted, by class of bank, 1972 ............................ 218

Aid to operating insured b ank..........................................................................5-6

Applications from b a n k s ............................................................................... 12-15

Areas outside continental United States, banks and branches located in:

Number, December 31, 1972 ................................................ 221-222, 230

Assessments for deposit insurance................................................................25-27

Assets and liabilities of FDIC ....................................................................... 23-24

Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks. See also Deposits:

Commercial banks:

Changes during 1972 .................................................................. xi-xii

Grouped by insurance status,

June 30, 1972, and December 31, 1972 .......................... 239-246

Sources of data ............................................................................ 261

Insured commercial banks:

Amounts, December call dates, 1962, 1968-1972 ............. 249-251

Amounts, June 30, 1972, and December 31, 1972,

by class of bank.................................................................. 239-246

Major categories, average, 1964-1972 ......................................... 263

Percentage distribution, by size of bank, 1972 .................. 256-258

Percentages of items, by size of bank, 1972 .............................. 254

Mutual savings banks:

Changes during 1972 ....................................................................... xii

Grouped by insurance status, June 30, 1972, and December

31,1972 ............................................................................ 247-248

Sources of data ............................................................................ 261

Insured mutual savings banks:

Amount, December call dates, 1968-1972 ......................... 252-253

Major categories, average, 1968-1972 ......................................... 272

Percentages of items, by size of bank, 1972 .............................. 255

Assets purchased by FDIC from banks in financial d ifficulties.................... 3-5

Assumption of deposits of insured banks with financial aid of FDIC.

See Banks in financial difficulties.

Attorney General of the United States, summary

reports on absorptions ............................................................................ 39-194

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
286 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Audit of F D IC ........................................................ . . . 28

Bad-debt reserves. See Valuation reserves.

Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 .................................................................. 6

Bank ownership, changes, regulation of ...................................................16, 18

Bank performance, 1972 ...............................................................................xi-xii

Bank Protection Act of 1968 ............................................................................ 18

Bank supervision. See Supervision of banks; Examination of 

insured banks.

Banking offices, number of. See Number of banks and branches.

Banks in financial difficulties:

Insured banks requiring disbursements by FDIC:

Aid to operating bank, 1972 .................................................................. 5-6

Assets and liabilities of ..........................................................................278

Deposit size o f .........................................................................................280

Deposits protected, 1934-1972 ................................................ 4, 279-281

Disbursements by FDIC, 1934-1972 ...................................... 5, 279-282

Failure in 1972 ............................................................................................3

Loans made and assets purchased by F D IC ..............................................5

Location by State, 1934-1972 ..................................................... 280-281

Losses incurred by depositors.....................................................................4

Losses incurred by F D IC .................................................................. 5, 282

Number of, 1934-1972 .......................................................................... 277

Number of deposit accounts, 1934-1972 ...................................... 279-281

Recoveries by FDIC on assets acquired, 1934-1972 ....................... 5, 282

Noninsured banks:

Number and deposits of commercial banks closed,

1934-1972 .................................................................................... 276-277

Banks, number of. See Number of banks and branches.

Board of Directors of FDIC. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. See Federal Reserve

authorities.

Branches:

Establishment approved by FDIC, 1972 ........................................... 12-13

Examination of, 1971 and 1972 ............................................................... 9

Number of. See Number of banks and branches.

Call reports. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks;

Reports from banks.

CapitaTof banks. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Banks in

financial difficulties; Income of insured commercial banks;

Examination of insured banks.

Cease-and-desist proceedings............................................................................ 9-10

Charge-offs by banks. See Income of insured commercial banks;

Income of insured mutual savings banks; Valuation reserves.

Civil Rights Act nondiscrimination requirements 

in real estate lending activities ..................................................... 19, 209-210

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INDEX 287

Class of bank, banking data presented by:

Absorptions .................................................................................... 16, 218

Income of insured commercial banks, 1972 ................................. 265-266

Insured banks requiring disbursements by FDIC, 1934-1972 ............. 279

Number of banks and banking offices, 1972 ............... 218-219, 222-230

Number of banks and deposits ............................................................. 231

Classification of banks...................................................................................... 217

Closed banks. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Commercial banks. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Deposits;

Income of insured commercial banks; Number of banks and branches.

Comptroller of the Currency ................................................................6, 21, 261

Computers, report on time-sharing in commercial banks ...............................21

Consolidations. See Absorptions.

Consumer Credit Protection A c t ....................................................................... 18

Credit, bank. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks.

Crime reports received by FDIC ....................................................................... 19

Demand deposits. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Deposits.

Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................................... 210

Department of Justice, action to prevent a m erger...................................... 14

Deposit insurance, applications for .................................................................. 12

Deposit insurance coverage.....................................................................xii-xv, 30

Deposits insured by FDIC:

Estimated insured deposits, December 31, 1934-1972 .................... 29-30

Increase in maximum per d e p o sito r..................................................... xiii

Survey of, on June 30, 1972 ............................................................. xiii-xv

Deposits of: See also Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks:

Banks closed because of financial difficulties, 1934-1972 .................. 277

Commercial banks:

By insurance status and type of bank, and type of account,

June 30, 1972 ............................................................................ 241

By insurance status and type of bank, and type of account,

December 31, 1972 .................................................................. 245

By State and deposit size of bank ...................................... 232-236

Insured commercial banks:

Average demand and time deposits, 1964-1972 ....................... 263

By class of bank, December 31, 1972 ......................................... 231

By deposit size of bank, December 31, 1972 ............................ 231

December call dates, 1962, 1968-1972 ...................................... 250

Mutual savings banks, by insurance status, June 30, 1972, and

December 31, 1972 .................................................................. 248

Insured mutual savings banks:

Average demand and time deposits, 1968-1972 ....................... 272

December call dates, 1968-1972 ................................................ 253

Deposits, number of insured commercial banks with given ratios of

demand to total deposits...............................................................................257

Directors of FDIC. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Disbursements. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
288 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Disclosure of bank information, change of FDIC p o lic y ............... 20, 213-214

Dividends:

To depositors in insured mutual savings banks. See Income of insured 

mutual savings banks.

To stockholders of insured commercial banks. See Income of insured 

commercial banks.

Earnings of banks. See Income of insured commercial banks; Income of insured mutual savings banks.

Employees:

F D IC ......................................................................................................21-22

Insured commercial banks,

number and compensation, 1964-1972 .................................... 262-263

Insured mutual savings banks, number and

compensation, 1968-1972 ........................................................... 271-272

Examination of insured banks.

By FDIC, 1972 ....................................................................................6-7,9

Regions arid regional directors ................................................................vi

Expenses of banks. See Income of insured commercial banks;

Income of insured mutual savings banks.

Expenses of FDIC ......................................................................................... 24-28

Failures. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:

Actions on applications....................................................................... 12-15

Assessments on insured banks.............................................................25-28

A u d it...........................................................................................................28

Banks examined by, and submitting reports t o ....................................6-7

Borrowing p o w e r...................................................................................... 24

Capital s to c k ......................................................................................... 27-28

Coverage of deposit insurance.............................................................xii-xv

Deposit insurance disbursements........................................... 3-5, 278-282

Deposit insurance fund (surplus)................................................ 23-28, 30

Directors (members of the B o a rd )................................................ v, 21-22

Divisions ......................................................................................................iv

Employees ........................................................................................... 21-22

Examination of banks..........................................................................6-7,9

Financial statements, 1972 .................................................................. 23-27

Income arid expenses, 1933-1972 .......................................................... 28

Insured banks requiring disbursements by. See Banks in 

financial difficulties.

Liquidation activities ............................................................................ 3-4

Loans to, and purchase of assets from, insured banks ............... 5-6, 282

Losses incurred, 1934-1972 ............................................................. 5, 282

Methods of protecting depositors ............................................................. 3

O ffic ia ls ........................................................................................................ v

O rganization.............................................................................................. iv

Payments to insured depositors...................................... 3-5, 278, 279-282

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INDEX 289

Publications ......................................................................................... 20-21

Receiver, appointment a s ....................................................................... 3-4

Recoveries .........................................................................................5, 282

Regions ......................................................................................................vi

Regulation of interest rates .......................................................... 210-211

Reports from banks ............................................................................ 20-21

Research......................................................................................................21

Reserve for losses on assets acquired ................................................ 23-24

Rules and regulations ..................................................................... 209-214

Sources and application of fu n d s ........................................................26-27

Supervisory activities ............................................................................ 6-21

Survey of accounts and deposits .......................................................... xiii

Training programs ...............................................................................19-20

Federal Election Campaign A c t ....................................................................... 209

Federal legislation, 1972 ................................................................................. 209

Federal Reserve authorities ..............................................5-6,18,21,211,261

Federal Reserve member banks. See Class of bank, banking data presented by.

General Accounting O ffic e ................................................................................. 28

Income of F D IC .............................................................................................. 24-28

Income of insured commercial banks:

Amounts of principal components:

Annually, 1964-1972 .................................................................. 262-263

By class of bank, 1972 ................................................................ 265-266

By size of bank, 1972 ................................................................ 267-268

Classification of income data ........................................................ 260-261

Developments in 1972 ..........................................................................xi-xii

Ratios of income items:

Annually, 1964-1972 .......................................................................... 264

By size of bank, 1972 ................................................................ 269-270

Sources of data ...................................................................................... 261

Income of insured mutual savings banks:

Amounts of principal components, 1968-1972 ............................ 271-272

Developments in 1972 ...............................................................................xii

Ratios of income and expense items, 1968-1972 ....................... 273-274

Sources of data ...................................................................................... 261

Insolvent banks. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Insurance status, banks classified by:

Assets and liabilities of, June 30, 1972, and December 31, 1972 239-248

Changes in number of, 1972 .................................................................. 218

Class of bank and s iz e ............................................................................ 231

Income of insured commercial b a n ks ........................................... 265-266

Percentage of banks insured, by State, December 31, 1972 .... 222-230 

Insured banks. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Banks in 

financial difficulties; Deposits; Income of insured commercial banks;

Income of insured mutual savings banks; Number of banks and branches. 

Insured commercial banks not members of the Federal Reserve System.

See Class of bank, banking data presented by.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
290 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Insured deposits. See Banks in financial difficulties; Deposit insurance 

coverage.

Insured State banks members of the Federal Reserve System. See Class 

of bank, banking data presented by.

Interest rates paid on deposits, methods of computing and advertising 210-211 

Interest rates, surveys of:

Mortgage lending activity and rates ........................................................21

Rates paid by banks ................................................................................. 21

Investments. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Assets and 

liabilities of FDIC; Banks in financial difficulties.

Leeway securities................................................................................. 9,211-212

Legal fees, and other expenses incident to certain applications . . 12, 212-213 

Legislation relating to deposit insurance and banking:

Federal, enacted in 1972 ....................................................................... 209

Loans. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Banks in financial 

difficulties.

Losses:

Of banks. See Income of insured commercial banks; Income of 

insured mutual savings banks.

Of F D IC ..............................................................................................5, 282

On loans, reserves for. See Valuation reserves.

Provision for, in insured banks, 1964-1972 ..................262-264, 271-274

Mergers. See Absorptions.

Methods of protecting depositors ....................................................................... 3

Methods of tabulating banking data. See Banking data, classification of.

Mortgage lending by insured commercial banks, survey of ............................21

Mutual savings banks. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks;

Deposits; Income of insured banks; Number of banks and branches.

National banks. See Class of bank, banking data presented by.

New banks, 1972 ................................................................................. xi, 12, 218

Noninsured banks. See also Absorptions; Admission of banks to insurance; Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Banks in financial 

difficulties; Classification of banks; Class of bank, banking data presented 

by; Deposits; Number of banks and branches; Reports from banks.

Number of banks and branches:

Banks:

By insurance status and type of bank, June 30, 1972, and

December 31, 1972 ........................................................ 242, 246, 248

By insurance status, type of bank, number of branches, and

State, December 31, 1972 ........................................................ 222-230

By State and deposit size of bank ............................................ 232-236

By supervisory status and deposit size..............................................231

Changes during 1972 ............................................................. xi, 218-219

Branches:

By insurance status and type of bank, December 31, 1972 .......... 219

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INDEX 291

By insurance status, type of bank, and State, December 31,

1972 ............................................................................................ 222-230

Changes during 1972 .....................................................................xi, 219

Insured commercial banks:

December call dates, 1964-1972 ..................................................... 263

Distributed by capital ratios and distribution of assets and

deposits, December 31, 1972 ................................................ 256-258

Insured mutual savings banks:

December call dates, 1968-1972 ..................................................... 272

Noninsured banks by State, December 31, 1972 ....................... 222-230

Unit banks, by insurance status and State, December 31, 1972 . 222-230 

Obligations of banks. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks.

Officers of insured banks. See Employees.

Officials of F D IC ................................................................................................... v

Operating banks. See Number of banks and branches.

Payments to depositors in closed insured banks. See Banks in financial 

difficulties.

Personnel. See Employees.

Possessions, banks and branches located in. See Areas outside 

continental United States, banks and branches located in.

Protection of depositors. See Banks in financial difficulties; Deposit 

insurance coverage.

Real estate lending, Civil Rights Act 

nondiscrimination requirem ents................................................... 19,209-210

Receivership, insured banks placed in. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Recoveries:

By banks on assets charged off. See Income of insured commercial 

banks; Income of insured mutual savings banks.

By FDIC on disbursements. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Regions, F D IC ......................................................................................................vi

Removal proceedings ......................................................................................... 11

Reports from banks ...................................................................................... 20-21

Reserves:

Of FDIC, for losses on assets acquired ..............................................23-24

Of insured banks for losses on assets. See Valuation reserves.

With Federal Reserve Banks. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of 

banks.

Rules and regulations of the FDIC. See Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

Salaries and wages:

F D IC ...........................................................................................................24

Insured banks. See Income of insured commercial banks; Income of 

insured mutual savings banks.

Savings and loan associations ..........................................................................217

Savings and time deposits. See also Deposits ..............................................xi-xii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
292 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Securities. See Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks; Assets and 

liabilities of FDIC; Banks in financial difficulties.

Securities, bank, regulation o f ....................................................................... 15-16

Size of bank, data for banks classified by amount of deposits:

Assets and liabilities, percentages of, insured banks, 1972 .... 254-255

Banks requiring disbursements by FDIC, 1934-1972 .......................... 280

Income of insured commercial banks, 1972 ................................. 267-268

Income ratios of insured commercial banks, 1972 ....................... 269-270

Number and deposits of all banks ........................................................231

Number of employees of insured commercial banks, 1972 ............... 268

Number of insured commercial banks, grouped by ratios of selected

items to assets and deposits, December 31, 1972 .................... 256-258

State banking authorities................................. 4-6, 9-10, 18, 20, 238, 261, 276

State, banking data classified by:

Changes in commercial banks and branches, 1972 ....................... 220-221

Disbursements, deposits, and depositors in insured banks requiring

disbursements by FDIC, 1934-1972 ......................................... 280-281

Number and deposits of commercial

banks, by deposit size of b a n k ................................................... 232-236

Number of banks and branches, by class of bank and type of office,

December 31, 1972 ..................................................................... 222-230

Percentage of banks insured, December 31, 1972 ....................... 222-230

State banks. See Class of bank, banking data presented by.

Stockholders of banks, net profits available for. See Income of insured 

commercial banks.

Supervision of banks by FDIC ....................................................................... 6-21

Suspension proceedings................................................................................. 11-12

Suspensions. See Banks in financial difficulties.

Taxes paid by insured banks. See Income of insured commercial banks;

Income of insured mutual savings banks.

Terminations of insurance for unsafe and unsound practices.................... 10-11

Trust assets of insured commercial banks, report ........................................... 21

Truth-in-Lending Act ......................................................................................... 18

Unit banks, by insurance status and State, December 31, 1972 .......... 222-230

Valuation reserves. See also Assets, liabilities, and capital of banks:

Amounts held, June 30, 1972, and December 31, 1972 . . 241, 246, 248

Amounts held, December call dates, 1962, 1968-1972 ............... 251, 253

Violations of law or regulations, banks charged w it h ....................................9-12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis