Senator EDGE. Is that table subdivided? Doctor WILLIS. Yes; it is. This table has been further subdivided by years and States and by national bank failures and by State bank failures, and with your permission I will simply file it without going into the details of them. The main point I want to make with respect to it is as follows: First of all, that this great aggregate of bank failures shows a high degree of concentration in the second period that is mentioned, that is since the revision of section 5200 and the general change of conditions in banking since the close of the war, and also since the great development of very small banking, for, as you realize, a $25,000 bank to-day is what a $15,000 one was before the war, whether you change the size of transaction or the size of borrowing. That concentration in point of time is remarkable in itself, but you also have a tremendous concentration of failures geographically. Those failures are centralized in a very unusual way in the Middle West and Southwest, that is to say in those States where you have a very large number of extremely small banks and where the type of loans is one that calls either for large banks, that is banks that are able to handle substantial amounts of accommodations in favor of a staple crop, or else for branch banks which are in a position to transfer the loans to their parent offices. Senator EDGE. Doctor Willis, I have been referring to this table that you have divided into State and National banks, the one you referred to a few minutes ago. I think it is quite important in view of the fact that we are trying to strengthen the Federal reserve act to get the distinction between the two. Doctor WILLIS. This is State and National bank failures from 1900 to 1920; and this is State and National bank failures from January, 1920, to the present time. Senator EDGE. What I want is, which are in the Federal reserve system and which are not? Doctor WILLIS. You are quite right; I did not hand it to you, but I will now. These are member State bank failures [indicating]. The CHAIRMAN. The last statement made by the witness involves reference to a series of tables which are collectively numbered 8. (The tables referred to are here printed in full, as follows:) banks ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of Resources banks banks banks Num Num Num Num Num banks 7=12, m=13; n=14, 0=15, p=16, The letters a, b, c, etc., indicate number of banks counted but whose resources were unavailable for tabulation, a=1, b=2, c=3, d=4, e=5, f=6, g≈7, h=8, i=9, j=10, k=11 banks ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of Resources ber of banks banks banks banks Num banks NumResources ber of Resources banks Num The letters a, b, c, etc., indicate number of banks counted but whose resources were unavailable for tabulation. a=1, b=2, c=3, d=4, e=5, f➡6, 9=7, h-8, i-9, j➡10, k=11, l=12, m=13, n=14, o=15, p=16. 1 Includes 93 banks for which no data on resources were available. * Includes 82 banks for which no data on resources were available. NOTES.-Data for Kansas and Connecticut omitted. Summary table comparing number and average size of member and nonmember NOTE.-Data for 1925 is incomplete. The Federal Reserve Board wrote that it did not possess a list of There were no member State bank failures in the following States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Con- TABLE NO. 8.-A comparison of failures among member and nonmember State banks, trust companies, and incorporated savings banks [Source of data: Tabulation failure Forms A and B and Federal Reserve Bulletin] Per cent resources 55.84 No member State bank failures, 1920-1925. ARIZONA |