(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of concentration of economic power; monograph no. 1[-43]"

^MAAAAA£S552 



Northeastern University 




School of Law 
Library 



K>s^2ff2222gZ^/?yW^vyv^ 7W v'v 



76 3d Ses^fon 88 } SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT 

INVESTIGATION OF CONCENTRATION 
OF ECONOMIC POWER 



TEMPOEAKY NATIONAL ECONOMIC 
COMMITTEE 

A STUDY MADE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE SECURITIES 
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR THE TEMPORARY 
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SEVENTY-SIXTH CON- 
GRESS, THIRD SESSION, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOLUTION 
NO. 113 (SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS) AUTHORIZING AND 
DIRECTING A SELECT COMMITTEE TO MAKE A FULL AND 
COMPLETE STUDY AND INVESTIGATION WITH EESPECT 
TO THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC FOWER IN, AND 
FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER, PRODUCTION AND 
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES 



MONOGRAPH No. 29 PART I 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN THE 

200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL 

CORPORATIONS 



Printed for the use of the 
Temporary National Economic Committee 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1940 



1RTHEA" 



wrr\ijll l Oui » w <-/ 1* v/i uiu 



TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

(Created- pursuant to Public Res. 113, 75th Cong.) 

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Senator from Wyoming, Chairman 

HATTON W. SUMNERS, Representative from Texas, Vice Chairman 

WILLIAM H. KINO, Senator from Utah 

WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr., Senator from Maine 

CLYDE WILLIAMS, Representative from Missouri 

B. CARROLL REECE, Representative from Tennessee 

THURMAN W. ARNOLD, Assistant Attorney General 

•WENDELL BERGE, Special Assistant to the Attorney General 

Representing the Department of Justice 

JEROME N. FRANK, Chairman 

•SUMNER T. PIKE, Commissioner 

Representing the Securities and Exchange Commission 

GARLAND S. FERGUSON, Commissioner 

•EWIN L. DAVIS, Chairman 

Representing the Federal Trade Commission 

ISADOR LUBIN, Commissioner of Labor Statistics 

•A. FORD HINRICHS, Chief Economist, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Representing the Department of Labor -y~ 

JOSEPH J. O'CONNELL, Jr., Special Assistant to the General Counsel 
•CHARLES L. KADES, Special Assistant to the General Counsel 
Representing the Department of the Treasury 



Representing the Department of Commerce 

« • • 

LEON HENDERSON, Economic Coordinator 
DEWEY ANDERSON, Executive Secretarr 
THEODORE J. KREPS, Economic Adviser 
•Alternates. 



Monograph No. 29 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN THE 200 LARGEST NON- 
FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 



RAYMOND,W. GOLDSMITH 

REXFORD C. PARMELEE 

IRWIN FRIEND 

JAMES GORHAM 

HELENE GRANBY 



REPRINTED 
BY 

WILLIAM S. HEIN & CO., INC 

BUFFALO, N. Y. 
1968 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

This monograph was written under the direction of 

RAYMOND W. GOLDSMITH 

Assistant Director and Chief of the Research and Statistics Section, Trad- 
ing and Exchange Division, Securities and Exchange Commission 

and 

REXFORD C. PARMELEE 

Research and Statistics Section, Trading and Exchange Division, 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

with the assistance of 

IRWIN FRIEND 

JAMES GORHAM 

HELENE GRANBY 

The Temporary National Economic Committee is greatly indebted 
to these authors for this contribution to the literature of the subject 
under review. 

The status oj the materials in this volume is precisely the same as that 
of other carefully prepared testimony when given by individual witnesses; 
it is information submitted for Committee deliberation. No matter what 
the official capacity of the witness or author may be, the publication of 
his testimony, report, or monograph by the Committee in no way signifies 
nor implies assent to, or approval of, any of the facts, opinions, or recom- 
mendations, nor acceptance thereof in whole or in part by the members 
of the Temporary National Economic Committee, individually or collec- 
tively. Sole and undivided responsibility for every statement in such testi- 
mony, reports, or monographs rests entirely upon the respective authors. 

(Signed) Joseph C. O'Mahoney, 
Chairman, Temporary National Economic Committee. 

in 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Pag*. 

Let ter of transmittal xv 

CHAPTER I 

SCOPE AND MEANING OF STUDY OF DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN 
LARGE CORPORATIONS 

1. Place of study in the agenda of the Temporary National Economic 

Committee 1 

2. Scope of study 2 

3. Sources of data 4 

4. Some implications and limitations of study 5 

CHAPTER II 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN CORPORATIONS 

1. The present distribution of ownership 9 

a. Types of stockholders 9 

b. Number of stockholders 10 

c. Relations between income and stock ownership 10 

d. Number of shareholdings- 11 

e. Relations between income and number of shareholdings 12 

/. Concentration of stock ownership 13 

g. Concentration of stock ownership in individual corporations 14 

2. Trends in the distribution of ownership 16 

a. Number of stockholders 16 

b. Number of shareholdings 16 

c. Implications of increase in number of stockholders and share- 

holdings, 1927-37 16 

d. Concentration of stock ownership 17 

CHAPTER HI 

THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE 200 LARGEST 
XOXFIXANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

1. Scope and arrangement of chapter , 21 

2. Comparison of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations with all domestic 

corporations 22 

3. Number and value of shareholdings 23 

a. Aggregate number and value of shareholdings 23 

b. Distribution of issues by number of shareholdings and by value. 27 

c. Average value per shareholding- . 28 

d. Proportion of odd-lot and full-lot shareholdings. _ 30 

4. The value distribution of shareholdings 31 

a. Method of computation 31 

b. Common and preferred stock issues 32 

c. Differences among industrial groups 32 

d. Other differences 34 

v 



VI . TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

5. Distribution of total shareholdings by size of individual holding ... 35 

6. Concentration of ownership 37 

a. Method of measurement 37 

b. Results i _. _. 40 

7. Source and nature of data 51 

CHAPTER IV 

THE HOLDJNCS OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS IN THE STOCKS OF THE 200 
LARGEST NONFLNANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

1. Scope of chapter 55 

2. Aggregate holdings of officers and directors _ 56 

o. Aggregate value of holdings 56 

b. Proportion of stock outstanding held by officers and directors-- 57 

3. The Size of individual holdings of officers and directors 59 

o. Value of holdings _ 59 

b. Relationship of holdings to total stock outstanding 62 

4. Proportion of individual issues represented by combined holdings of 

officers and directors __ 63 

5. Source and character of data 65 

CHAPTER V 

THE HOLDINGS OF PPINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS (20 LARGEST RECORP 

HOLDINGS) 

1. Scope of chapter _ 69 

2. Extent of the 20 largest shareholdings _ 70 

o. The over-all picture 70 

b. Holdings of different types of owners 73 

(1) Over-all picture 73 

•(2) Differences among industries ._ 77 

3. Frequency distribution of ratios of holdings by 20 largest owners 80 

a. Common stocks 80 

b. Preferred stocks 86 

c. Stock issues and issuers of different size 87 

d. Individuals' holdings 89 

(1) Common stock issues 89 

(2) Preferred stock issues 89 

e. The largest single record shareholding ... 91 

(1) Common stock issues 91 

(2) Preferred stock issues 93 

4. Nature, treatment, and limitations of data 93 

CHAPTER VI 

TYPES OF OWNERSHIP CONTROL AMONG THE 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL 

CORPORATIONS 

1. Scope of chapter * 99 

2. Instrumentalities and types of ownership control 100 

a. Types of dominant stockholders 101 

b. Instrumentalities of control ( _ 102 

c. Types of control - 103 



TABLE OF CONTENTS VII 

Page 

3. Ownership control over the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. _• 103 

a. The over-all picture 103 

b. Different types of control 105 

(1) Family control: 

(a) Majority 105 

(6) Predominant minority . 107 

(c) Substantial minority 108 

(d) Small minority 109 

(2) Corporate control: 

(a) Majority 109 

(6) Predominant minority 110 

(c) Substantial and small minority 110 

4. Relationship between ownership and management 111 

a. Identity of ownership and management 111 

b. Representation in management less than ownership interest 112 

c. Representation in management exceeding ownership interest 113 

5. Conclusions 113 

CHAPTER VII 

FAMILY SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AMfiNG THE 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL 

CORPORATIONS 

1. Scope of chapter 115 

2. The du Pont sphere of influence 119 

3. The Mellon sphere of influence., 122 

4. The Rockefeller sphere of influence 126 

5. Implications 129 

CHAPTER VIII 

FOREIGN HOLDINGS IN THE 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

1. Source and character of data 133 

2. Foreign holdings in all 200 corporations 134 

3. Differences in the proportion of foreign holdings 136 

a. The over-all picture 136 

b. Differences between common and preferred stock issues 139 

c. Differences among industries 140 

4. The control aspect of foreign holdings 141 

5. Limitations of data 142 



LIST OF APPENDIXES 

Appendix 

I. The distribution of ownership of American corporations in 1937 145 

II. Trends in the distribution of ownership of American corporations. _ 183 

III. Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues in 200 

largest nonfinancial corporations 203 

IV. Statistical tables on the size distribution of ownership of the 200 

largest nonfinancial corporations 277 

V. Selection and lists of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 339 

VI. Statistical tables on holdings of officers and directors in the stocks 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations as of September 30, 

1939 355 

VII. Beneficial ownership of all equity securities by officers and directors 

in 200 largest nonfinancial corporations as of September 30, 1939__ 375 
VIII. Beneficial ownership of all equity securities by holders with more 
than 10 percent of any equity security in 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations as of September 30, 1939 (exclusive of ownership by 

officers and directors) 559 

IX. Statistical tables on principal stockholders (20 largest record hold- 
ings) of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations within the period 

1937-39 597 

X. Principal stockholders in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
(based on 20 largest record shareholdings and reflecting generally 

the situation prevailing around the end of 1937) 621 

XI. Classification of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations by type of 
dominant interest group (based on 20 largest record shareholdings 
and reflecting generally the situation prevailing around the end of 

1937) - 1483 

XII. Principal stockholders of three families and their shareholdings in 

the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 1505 

XIII. Questionnaires and form letters addressed to certain of the 200 
largest norfinancial corporations, their officers and directors, and 
20 largest stockholders of record 1529 

IX 



SCHEDULE OF CHARTS AND TABLES 

CHARTS 

CHAPTER II 

Following 
Page 

I. Concentration of total income and dividend income _. 14 

CHAPTER III 

II. Number and value of shareholdings of the 200 largest nonfinan- 

cial corporations classified by major industries - 24 

III. Distribution of number and value of shareholdings of the 200 larg- 

est nonfinancial corporations classified by major industries __ 25 

IV. Estimated distribution by value of shareholdings of common and 

preferred stock of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 33 

V. Concentration of ownership of stock in 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 41 

VI. Concentration of ownership in 351 stock issues of 170 large non- 
financial corporations classified by industry 42 

VII. Concentration of ownership in 351 stock issues of 170 large non- 
financial corporations classified by size of assets 43 

VIII. Concentration of ownership in the common stock issues of 17 
large nonfinancial corporations (in steel, automobile, non- 
ferrous metal, tire and rubber, chemical, and machinery 

companies) . -- 45 

IX. Concentration of ownership in the common stock issues of 16 

large nonfinancial corporations (in tobacco, meat packing, 

container, food, retail trade, and communication companies). 46" 

X. Concentration of ownership in the common stock issues of 18 

large nonfinancial corporations (in oil, railroad, electric power, 

gas and water holding and operating companies) 47 

XI. Concentration of ownership in the preferred stock issues of 18 
large nonfinancial corporations (in steel, nonferrous metal, 
tire and rubber, machinery, oil and meat packing companies) . 49 
XII. Concentration of ownership in the preferred stock issues of 18 
large nonfinancial corporations (in railroad, and electric 
power operating and holding companies) 50 

XIII. Concentration of ownership of stock in 10 selected corporations 

including and excluding certain nominee holdings 54 

CHAPTER IV 

XIV. Number and value of holdings of officers and directors in the 

stocks of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations as of 

September 30, 1939 61 

XV. Concentration of ownership of stock in 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations held by officers and directors and by all stock- 
holders ..._• 62 

XVI. Percentage of issue owned by officers and directors in the stock 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations as of September 
30, 1939 64 

XI 



XII SCHEDULE OF CHARTS AND TABLES 

CHATTER V 

Page 

XVII. Value of 20 largest shareholdings in stock issues of 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations classified by major industries 

classified by major industry groups 71 

XVIII. Value of 20 largest record shareholdings in stock issues of 200 

largest nonfinancial corporations 75 

XIX. Distribution by type of owner of value of identified holdings 
among 20 largest record shareholdings of 200 largest non- 
financial corporations 76 

XX. Proportion of stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions included in identified holdings among 20 largest record 
holdings classified by major industry groups 78 

XXI. Proportion of common stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings 82 

XXII. Proportion of preferred stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings 83 

XXIII. Proportion of common stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings 
classified by major industry groups 84 

XXIV. Proportion of preferred stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings 

classified by major industry groups 85 

XXV. Proportion of common and preferred stock issues of 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations included in 20 largest record share- 
holdings classified by value of issue 88 

XXVI. Proportion of stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions included in holdings of individuals, personal holding 
companies, and estates among 20 largest record shareholdings. 90 

XXVII. Percentage of largest record stockholding in stock issues of 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations classified by major industry 

groups 92 

XXVIII. Proportion of largest record shareholding in stock issues of 200 

largest nonfinancial corporations 94 

CHAPTER VII 

XXIX. Holdings of du Pont family in the 200 largest nonfinancial cor- 
porations 120 

XXX. Holdings of Mellon family in the 200 largest nonfinancial cor- 
porations 123 

XXXI. Holdings of Rockefeller family in the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 128 

CHAPTER VIII 

XXXIT. Proportion of dividends paid to foreigners in 1937 by 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations (as reported on Treasury 
Form 1042) 138 



SCHEDULE OF CHAR1S AND TABLES XIII 

TABLES 

CHAPTER IV 

Page 

1. Value of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations as a percentage of value of stock outstanding 57 

2. Number and value of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest 

nonfinancial corporations 60 

3. Relative size of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest non- 

financial corporations 63 

CHAPTER V 

4. Identified holdings of main classes of principal stockholders (20 largest 

record holdings) in stock of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations.. 73 

5. Relative importance of identified largest shareholdings among stock 

issues of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 81 

CHAPTER VII 

6. Identified stockholdings of 13 family interest groups with holdings of 

over $50,000,000 in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 116 

7. Holdings of Harkness family appearing among 20 largest shareholdings 

in stock of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 117 

CHAPTER VIII 

8. Frequency distribution of proportion of dividends paid to foreigners in 

1937 by 200 largest nonfinancial corporations (as reported on Treas- 
ury Form 1042) 137 

9. Frequency distribution of proportion of dividends paid to foreigners in 

1937 on stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations (as 
reported on Treasury Form 1042) 140 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Washington, September 24, 1940. 
The Honorable Joseph C. O'Mahoney, 

Chairman, Temporary National Economic Committee, 

Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Senator O'Mahoney: As the Commission's representa- 
tive on your Committee, I have the honor to transmit herewith a 
report on "The Distribution of Ownership in the 200 Largest Non- 
financial Corporations." This report was prepared by the staff of 
the Research and Statistics Section of the Trading and Exchange 
Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission and is sub- 
mitted as part of a study of corporate practices which the Temporary 
National Economic Committee assigned to the Commission. 

I. BACKGROUND FOR STUDY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP 
OF LARGE CORPORATIONS 

This study of the distribution of stock ownership and control in the 
200 largest corporations was assigned to the Commission by the 
Committee as an essential part of the investigation into the "concen- 
tration of economic power in their (the large corporations') financial 
control over production and distribution of goods and services" 
ordered by Congress in its joint resolution of June 16, 1938. These 
200 large corporations account for the bulk of activities in manufac- 
turing and mining industries, electric and gas utilities, transportation 
and communication; and, accordingly, an analysis of the distribution 
of their ownership gives a picture of the ownership of most of the 
Nation's productive facilities. Such ownership provides, of course, a 
significant clue to the ultimate center of economic power in these 
fields. 

The figures which have been assembled in this report present for 
the first time on a broad scale information on the size distribution of 
shareholdings in these 200 corporations and on the largest share- 
holdings appearing on the books of these corporations. The data are 
shown in more detail and, in several respects, presented with greater 
refinement than has been possible in previous studies in this field. 
They permit the study of some important aspects of the ownership of 
large corporations which have remained largely unexplored and include 
the first detailed information on foreign ownership of a considerable 
number of large corporations. 

The report is primarily statistical and the information presented 
has been based wherever possible on primary sources. An effort has 
been made to present the original data as fully as possible to enable 
Members of Congress and others interested in the problem of distribu- 
tion of ownership in large corporations to rearrange the material and 



XVI LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

to analyze it from whatever point of view seems desirable. Material 
submitted in reports under the several Acts administered by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission greatly facilitated the task of 
assembling the data for this study. 

II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

Omitting the explanations and qualifications set forth in the text, 
the chief findings of the report may be briefly summarized as follows: 

1. Three family groups — the du Ponts, the Mellons, and the 
Rockefellers — have shareholdings valued at nearly $1,400,000,000 
which directly or indirectly give control over 15 of the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations with aggregate assets of over $8,000,000,- 
000 — or more than 1 1 percent of their total assets. Thirteen family 
groups— including these three— with holdings worth $2,700,000,000, 
own over 8 percent of the stock of the 200 corporations. 

2. Only one-half of the large shareholdings of individuals in the 2Q0 
corporations are in the direct form of outright ownership, the other 
hali being represented by trust funds, ■ estates, and family holding 
companies. The study clearly shows the importance of these instru- 
mentalities for perpetuating the unity of control over a block of stock 
held by an individual or the members of a family. 

3. Each large interest group has shown a strong tendency to keep 
its holdings concentrated in the enterprise in which the family fortune 
originated. It is apparently 'uncommon for the income from the 
original investment (or other income) to be utilized in the acquisition 
of large or controlling positions in other big corporations. The branch- 
ing out of the Mellon family into a dominating position in half a 
dozen important corporations in as many industries is rather unusual 
and not duplicated among the other interest groups controlling any 
of the 200 corporations. Many large family interest groups, however, 
have greatly expanded their industrial sphere of influence by indirect 
means,, viz, the acquisition of control over additional enterprises by 
the corporations which they control, such acquisitions being financed 
mainly out of undistributed profits. 

4. In the case of about 40 percent of these 200 largest corporations, 
one family, or a small number of families, exercise either absolute con- 
trol, by virtue of ownership of a majority of the voting securities, or 
working control through ownership of a substantial minority of the vot- 
ing stock. About 60 of the corporations, or an additional 30 percent, 
are controlled by one or more other corporations. Thus, a small 
group of dominant security holders is not in evidence in only 30 
percent of the 200 large corporations. 

5. The financial stake of officers and directors in their own corpo- 
rations is relatively small. Officers and directors own 6 percent of the 
common stock and slightly over 2 percent of the preferred stock of 
the 200 corporations. One-half of the individual officers and directors 
own securities having a market value (as of September 30, 1939) of 
less than $20,000 each. There were only 245 cases — or slightly more 
than 1 per company — in which a single officer or director held stock 
worth more than $1,000,000 in his corporation. But these few cases 
accounted for 87 percent of the aggregate value of holdings of all 
officers and directors. Most of the large holdings are in the hands 
of officers or directors who represent dominant or controlling family 
groups. 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL XVII 

6. The 20 largest shareholdings in each of the 200 corporations 
account, on the average, for nearly one-third of the total value of all 
outstanding stock. In the average corporation the majority of the 
voting power is concentrated in the hands of not much over 1 percent 
of the stockholders. 

7. Another aspect of concentration of ownership in the 200 corpo- 
rations is shown in the distribution of all stock outstanding by the 
market value of individual shareholdings — a type of information 
hitherto unavailable. There were about 4,000,000 shareholdings 
with a value of $500 or less — out of a total of nearly 8,500,000 record 
shareholdings in the 200 corporations — but they comprised only 
3 percent of the value of all shares of the 200 corporations. The 
1,375,000 shareholdings worth $501 to $1,000 apiece made up only 
another 3 percent. On the other hand, there were 415,000 share- 
holdings with a value of over $10,000 each which accounted for about 
70 percent of the value of the total stock outstanding in the 200 
corporations. 

8. The number of Americans owning corporate stock is smaller 
than generally believed and probably amounts to only 8 to 9 million. 
Thus, less than 1 in 5 persons receiving income own corporate stock. 
(These figures, of course, do not include persons who are indirect 
stockholders through insurance companies, banks, etc., nor, of course, 
do they represent the total number of investors.) 

On the average, every stockholder holds shares in three different 
stock issues and in about two and one-half corporations. However, 
considerably over one-half of all stockholders own shares of one issue 
only. In general, the number of issues held increases fairly rapidly 
with income though even individuals with large income are generally 
stockholders in only a relatively moderate number of different cor- 
porations. 

9. The great bulk of the 8 to 9 million domestic stockholders own 
only small amounts of stock and the dividends they receive repre- 
sent but a minor proportion of their total income. About half of all 
stockholders have an annual dividend income of less than $100 and 
holdings worth less than $2,000. The group which depends eco- 
nomically to a large extent on the dividends from corporate stocks 
or the market value of those stocks is very small and probably numbers 
not much more than 500,000 people. 

10. The ownership of the stock of all American corporations is 
highly concentrated. For example, 10,000 persons (0.008 percent of 
the population) own one-fourth, and 75,000 persons (0.06 percent of 
the population) own fully one-half, of all corporate stock held by 
individuals in this country. 

11. Foreign investors have a considerable stake in the stock of the 
200 lamest nonfinancial corporations. Stockholders residing outside 
the United States are estimated to own over 6 percent of the common 
stock and nearly 4 percent of the preferred stock of these corporations, 
their holdings having a value at the end of 1937 of about si, 800,000,000 
and $200,000,000, respectively. These individual holdings represent 
not less than two-thirds of total foreign portfolio investments in 
the stock of all American corporations. Foreign ownership exceeds 
10 percent of total stock outstanding in about one-tenth of the 200 
corporations. Foreigners, however, apparently have majority control 
of only 1 of the 2Q0 corporations, the Shell Union Oil Corporation, 

•ji-.s-H.-, — 4i — No. 29 2 



XVIII LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

though their holdings are also very substantial in Allied Chemical & 
Dye Corporation and the American Metals Co., Ltd. 

III. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The report on The Distribution of Ownership in the 200 Largest 
Nonfinancial .Corporations was undertaken by the Commission's 
Monopoly Study Division and prepared under the direction of 
Raymond W. Goldsmith, chief of the Research and Statistics Section, 
and Rexford C. Parmelee. The following persons collaborated in the 
preparation of the report: Irwin Friend (ch. II); Helene Granby 
(ch. Ill); and James Gorham (chs. IV to VII). James Gorham also 
did a considerable amount of preparatory work for the entire study. 

The Commission desires to express its appreciation of the high de- 
gree of cooperation of the 200 corporations studied and of their officers, 
directors, and principal shareholders in furnishing the basic statistical 
data on which the report is based. The Commission also acknowl- 
edges the assistance of the Treasury Department in making available 
certain unpublished statistical material derived from income-tax 
statistics which has been used in chapters II and VIII and in appen- 
dixes I and II. 

Sincerely yours, 

(Signed) Sumner T. Pike, 

Commissioner. 



CHAPTER I 

SCOPE AND MEANING OF STUDY OF DISTRIBUTION OF 
OWNERSHIP IN LARGE CORPORATIONS 

1 . PLACE OF STUDY IN THE AGENDA OF THE TEMPORARY 
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

The importance within the agenda of the Temporary National 
Economic Committee of a study of the distribution of ownership in 
corporations is, perhaps, indicated by the fact that the President, in 
his message to Congress of April 20, 1938, on "Strengthening, and 
Enforcement of Antitrust Laws," 1 chose as his first topic the concen- 
tration of economic power, and devoted a considerable part of his dis- 
cussion of that subject to the distribution of stock ownership in cor- 
porations. His statement may serve as an apt introduction to this 
report: 

The danger of this centralization [of corporate assets and income] is not reduced 
or eliminated, as is sometimes urged, by a wide public distribution of their securi- 
ties. The mere number of security holders gives little clue to the size of their in- 
dividual holdings or to their actual ability to have a voice in the management. 
In fact, the concentration of stock ownership of corporations in the hands of a tiny 
minority of the population matches the concentration of corporate assets. 

This report supports, it is claimed, the President's assertion that the 
mere number of security holders obscures the more important fact of 
concentration of stock ownership in the hands of relatively few per- 
sons. It also provides important clues toward an answer to the second 
assertion that most security holders have little voice in the manage- 
ment. A full study of this problem, however, lies beyond the province 
of this report. 

While the total number of Americans owning corporate stock is 
known to be large, the correct figure has been uncertain, with no at- 
tempt at a careful determination made since 1932. Utilization of new 
and more comprehensive material has permitted the estimation for 
this study of the number of stockholders within a reasonable margin 
of error. The number of men and women owning, at the present 
time, stock in at least one corporation is found to be probably be- 
tween 8,000,000 and 9,000,000, or 6 to 7 percent of the country's popu- 
lation. This figure is considerably lower than the prevalent rough 
estimates, which have placed the number of stockholders at between 
10,000,000 and 15,000,000. 

Only about 1 in 15 inhabitants of this country and less than 1 in 5 per- 
sons receiving income owns corporate stock . Most of these stockholders 
receive only very small amounts of dividends or none at all. Indeed, 
it is probable that about one-half of the 8,500,000 stockholders receive 
less than $100 in dividends even in a year of relatively large dividend 
disbursements such as 1937, and that not more than about 2,000,000 

1 For full text see "Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power," pt. 1, exhibit No. 1, pp 185-191. 

1 



2 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

stockholders have an annual dividend income of more than $500. 
Dividend income and its fluctuations are of much less importance for 
the economic well-being of most of the remaining 6,500,000 stock- 
holders — and for many of the 2,000,000 stockholders with dividend 
income of over $500 — than regularity of employment, the level of 
wage and salary rates, or the size of their other income. At least 3 
out of 4 stockholders are not dependent for their livelihood on the 
vicissitudes of their shareholdings. They are not a distinct group with 
a predominant interest in high dividend rates or high prices of stocks. 
The number of persons for whom stocks constitute the major source of 
income and the major portion of property is very small. It is unlikely 
that this group comprises much more than 500,000 persons or one-half of 
1 percent of the population. For the remaining 8,000,000 stockholders 
the dividends they receive are only a supplement, though sometimes 
an important one, to their income. Their shareholdings represent 
only part of their wealth, though often not a negligible part. Safe- 
guarding the integrity of the stock investment of those 8,000,000 
stockholders against encroachments by large stockholders, manage- 
ment, or creditors is, therefore, an essential problem of public policy 
not so much on account of the contribution stocks make to their income 
and capital as for two other reasons: (1 ) The necessity of preserving or 
strengthening the faith of this numerous group of people of generally 
moderate income in the equitableness of the economic system under 
which they live; and (2) the importance of creating conditions which 
favor and justify the purchase by millions of small investors of equity 
securities in enterprises with which they cannot maintain direct 
contacts and which thev cannot effectively supervise by their own 
unaided efforts. 

2. SCOPE OF STUDY 

While a. broad picture of the concentration of ownership of all 
corporate stock has been available for many years in the Treasury's 
"Statistics of Income," very little has been known hitherto about the 
distribution of ownership of stock in individual corporations. It is 
known, of course, that the stock of the great majority of all small and 
medium-sized corporations is owned by a very small number of stock- 
holders, usually members of a family or a small group of business 
associates. Figures have also been widely publicized of the large 
number of individuals owning stock in some giant corporations. 
However, with few exceptions — mainly the result of the reports made 
under section 16 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 
17 (a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, and of 
special investigations conducted under congressional mandate — not 
much information has been available on the distribution and concen- 
tration of stock ownership in individual large corporations. Explo- 
ration of this problem, therefore, forms the main immediate objective 
of this study. 

The selection of the corporations to be included in an intensive study 
of the ownership of equity securities was dictated by the major 
objective of the Temporary National Economic Committee, i. e., the 
study of "the concentration of economic power in and financial 
control over production and distribution of goods and services." 2 
In keeping with this objective it was decided to limit the study 

» Public ResvNo. 113, 75th Cong. 3d sess., sec. 2 (a). 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 3 

to large corporations engaged directly or through wholly owned 
subsidiaries in the production of goods and services, omitting large 
corporations in the financial field, such as commercial banks, 
trust companies, insurance companies, and investment companies. 
The decision to exclude financial corporations was influenced by the 
fact that the distribution of ownership and the control of two important 
branches of finance, the life insurance companies and investment 
companies and trusts, have, been the subject in the recent past of 
study and investigation by Federal agencies. 3 

The specific number of large nonfinancial corporations to be included 
in this study was, to a certain extent arbitrary and contingent upon the 
availability of material and the amount of time and personnel allotted 
to the study. While it was essential to cover in this group of corpora- 
tions a large proportion of the nonfinancial sector of the corporate 
economy, the number of corporations to be included had to be kept as 
small as compatible with this objective in order to make possible 
analysis of individual cases and to prevent the study from becoming 
unwieldy. The number was finally set at 200 since it was found that 
inclusion of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations would insure a 
coverage of not much less than one-half of the total assets, dividends, 
shareholdings, and stockholders 4 of all nonfinancial domestic cor- 
porations. ^ Limitation of the study to the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations seemed the more justified as basic data on the size dis- 
tribution of ownership in an additional 1,500 large and medium-sized 
corporations with securities listed on a national securities exchange 
are presented in a companion report. 

The 200 nonfinancial corporations included in this study have been 
-elected on {\h> basis of the balance sheet value of their total assets at 
the end of the fiscal year 1937. 7 The most important exceptions to 
this general principle of selection consisted in (1) the elimination of 
companies in receivership or bankruptcy on January 31, 1940, and 
(2) the exclusion of corporations the majority of whose common stock 
was owned by a company already included in the group of the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations, unless the value of common and 
preferred stock issued by the subsidiary and outstanding with the 
public exceeded $00, 000, 000, the minimum limit of assets which de- 
termined the inclusion or noninclusion of a corporation in the study. 8 
Tin' study thus covers, broadly speaking, the 200 nonfinancial corpora- 
lions (other than companies in bankruptcy and receivership and 
subsidiaries without sufficient publicly held equity securities) which 
had total balance sheet assets of over $00,000,000 at the end of the 
fiscal year 1037. The exceptions made from this principle of selection 

1 Sec, for life insurance companies! "Investigation <"f Concentration of Economic Power," pts. 4, 10, 10a; 
.iml, for investment companies, the report of the Securities and Exchange Commission on "Investment 
Trusts and Investment Companies," pt. Two. eh. V. 

4 The report distinguishes throughout between the two terms "stockholder" and "shareholding." A 
stockholder is a person (including a corporation] who owns hires of one or more issue? of stock of one or more 
corporations; a sharelu tiling is a block of shan tock, which Mock is either owned beneficially 
by one person (a beneficial shareholding), or registered in the Looks of the issuing corporation in the name of 
one person (a bonk or record shareholding). 

5 A factor in fixing tho number at 200 was the precedent established by earlier studies in this field, especially 
"The Modern Porj oration and Private Property" by Berleahd Means, and "The Structure of the American 
Economy," by the N ources Committee. 

"See Temporary National Economic Commute |)h No. 30, Survej of Shareholders in l,7in 

Corporations with Securities Listed on a National Securities 1 iby. 

7 For a more detailed description of the principles followed in selecting the 200 corporations, see appendix V. 

8 A few additional deviations which were found necessary are described in appendix V. While the prin- 
ciple of selection <vas similar to that employed by Bi rle and Means, the group of corporations included in 
this study differs considerably from that used by Bei le and Means, mainly because of the exclusion of com- 
panies in bankruptcy, the inclusion of a number of closely held large corporal ions and changes in total assets 
between 1032 and 1937. The differences in the lists are discussed briefly in appendix V. 



4 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

are sufficiently small to justify the designation of the group finally 
chosen as the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 

These 200 corporations at the end of 1937 had assets of nearly 
$70,000,000,000, or about 25 percent of the assets of all corporations 
and about 45 percent of those of all nonfinancial corporations. They 
paid, in 1937, about $2,200,000,000 in dividends, or about 40 percent 
of dividends paid by all corporations and somewhat less than 45 per- 
cent of those of all nonfinancial corporations. 9 They had about 8% 
million shareholdings or about one-third of the shareholdings in all 
American corporations and about two-fifths of those in all nonfinancial 
corporations. Perhaps more important than these figures is the fact 
that the 200 corporations predominated in almost all of the major 
manufacturing industries of the country, its electric, gas, and water 
utilities, its railroads and large sections ol its retail distribution and 
its service industries. 

For* these 200 large corporations this report shows the size distribu- 
tion of book shareholdings (ch. Ill), analyzes the holdings of officers 
and directors (ch. IV) and of foreign stockholders (ch. VIII), and 
studies the 20 largest book shareholdings, first for broad groups of 
companies (ch. V) and then for individual corporations (chs. VI and 
VII). As a result of this study it is now known approximately what 
proportion of shares outstanding is held in small, medium-sized, and 
large blocks, what proportion is held by the management and by 
large stockholders not visibly represented in the management, what 
proportion is held abroad, and who are the large and probably the 
dominant stockholders of the 200 largest nonfinancial American 
corporations. Material is presented in a companion report on the 
size distribution of ownership, though not on its other characteristics, 
for over 1,700 corporations with close to 14,000,000 book sharehold- 
ings, including about 185 corporations with approximately 8,000,000 
shareholdings which form part of the group of the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations. 

The emphasis in this report is placed on primary factual informa- 
tion, i. e., statistical tables and lists of data pertaining to individual 
stock issues. It has been felt preferable to present the original data 
as fully as possible, thus enabling Congress and other students inter- 
ested in the problem of distribution of ownership in large corporations 
to rearrange the material in such ways as may best be adapted to their 
purposes and to analyze the material along various lines which it has 
not been possible to follow in this study. It is mainly for this reason 
that the presentation is not restricted to tables showing aggregate 
figures for shareholdings of all the 200 large corporations and for 
certain industry, size and stock price groups of corporations, but that 
there are also made available to the reader in appendixes III, VII, 
VIII, and X all the important data for each of the more than 400 
issues of common and preferred stock of the 200 corporations. 

3. SOURCES OF DATA 

While the sources and the nature of the data utilized will be ex- 
plained in full in each of the following chapters, it may be helpful at 
this point to summarize the sources of the material on which this 
report is based. 

9 These figures are after the exclusion of Intercorporate dividends. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 5 

Practically all the material underlying chapters III to VII was 
obtained through questionnaires answered by the 200 corporations 
included in the study and by many of their officers, directors, and 
shareholders. In particular, the data for chapter III were collected 
with the help of a questionnaire 10 addressed to the 200 corporations. 
The basic material for chapter IV consisted, for the great majority 
of the corporations, of the reports of their officers, directors, and 
principal stockholders, made to the Securities and Exchange Com- 
mission under section 16 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 
Many of these reports, however, were reinterpreted or amended 
through direct correspondence with these stockholders to make the 
information usable for this study. They were supplemented by 
reports from the directors and officers of those companies without any 
issue of equity securities listed on a national securities exchange and, 
therefore, not falling within the purview of section 16 (a). The lists 
of the 20 largest book shareholdings on which chapters V to VII are 
based were obtained directly from the 200 corporations. The informa- 
tion, however, was supplemented in numerous cases by information 
derived from correspondence with the record holders. The material 
presented in chapter VIII on the holdings of foreign stockholders was 
obtained from data on dividend payments to foreigners collected by 
the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 

In contrast to chapters III to VIII, which are based almost entirely 
on material hitherto unavailable, the discussion of the number and 
distribution of stockholders and shareholdings in all American corpora- 
tions presented in chapter II uses to a considerable extent published 
data, particularly statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 
supplemented by material collected by the income-tax study, a 
Work Projects Administration project sponsored by the Treasury 
Department, and other primary material which has recently become 
available. 

4. SOME IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY 

This study of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations has shown a 
high degree of concentration of ownership. The top 1 percent of book 
shareholdings, for example, accounted for about 60 percent of the 
common shares of these corporations. For most of the individual 
companies not much more than 1 percent of the common shareholdings 
of record comprised the majority of all common stock outstanding 
The 20 largest book shareholdings accounted for more than 50 percent 
of the common stock outstanding in about one-fourth of the 200 
corporations; from 25 to 50 percent in one-fifth of the corporations; 
and from 10 to 25 percent in one-third of the corporations. 11 Among 
the 196 issues of preferred stock .of these corporations there were 32 
instances in which the 20 largest record owners held over 50 percent 
of the issue; about 44 cases in which they held from 25 to 50 percent; 
and another 70 instances in which they held from 10 to 25 percent. 

As a first step in an analysis of the control situation in large corpora- 

10 For a copy of this questionnaire see appendix XIII. 

11 Book shareholdings, as reflected in the books of the corporations, are in many respects an inadequate 
measure of the distribution of the ultimate beneficial ownership of stock. A small proportion of the names 
appearing in the books of the corporations are not those of the beneficial owners but those of nominees, such 
as brokers, banks, and trustees. Thus, what appears to be a large concentrated block may in reality repre- 
sent the property of numerous owners, each of whom holds but a small number of shares. On the other 
hand, the beneficial owner of a large amount of stock may have distributed his holding among several nom- 
inees. These difficulties are discussed In some detail in cb. III. 



Q CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

tions, the shares held by family and other interest groups, which may 
be scattered over a number of record holdings and often represent 
legally distinct holdings, must be brought together. A considerable 
amount of this reclassification of record holdings has been done in the 
listings of the legal and beneficial holders of the 20 largest record 
shareholdings shown in appendix X and discussed in chapters VI 
and VII. 

Even a combination of distinct record holdings of voting stock which 
actually work in concert does not yet definitely solve the problem of 
who ordinarily controls each of the 200 corporations and under what 
circumstances such control, though secure in the usual course of 
events, might be endangered or lost. The material presented in 
chapters VI and VII of this study, however, identifies not only the 
large actually controlling blocks of stock but provides information 
on the existence of minority blocks which, due to a realinement of 
forces*; might become part of a controlling group. Also, by showing 
the ways in which the beneficial holdings of families and interest 
groups have been broken up among separate individuals and legal 
instrumentalities, 12 information has been developed that not only 
indicates the location of control in the recent past but also the lines 
along which control might be rearranged at some future date. The 
material presented in this study thus sheds light on situations in 
which, although large family aggregations of stock exist, ownership 
and management are separated as in companies with a widely dis- 
persed stock ownership, but for a different reason, viz, because of the 
legal separation between voting control of and beneficial interest in 
the income from such aggregations of stock. A consideration of such 
situations leads to forms of control, not covered by this study, which 
are independent of, or are not primarily dependent on, ownership. 

Studies and investigations, many of them made by agencies of the 
Federal Government, have in recent years brought to the attention of 
Congress and of the public the various forms and the prevalence of 
devices of control over corporations other than the outright owner- 
ship of stock embodying control proportionate to the capital con- 
tributed by all stockholders. Voting trusts, nonvoting stocks, stocks 
with multiple voting rights, blank stock (authorization to issue 
unlimited amounts of stock without extending preemptive rights to 
old stockholders) , management stock, and management contracts are 
some of the more important of these devices. Other types of control 
devices which confer a power of control much larger than corresponds 
to investment are represented by pyramided capital structures and 
holding company systems. Here a relatively small investment in the 
voting stock of the top company of the group gives control over the 
much larger funds contributed by all stockholders in the entire group 
of companies. Often equally effective and much more common as a 
method of control, however, is. the power residing in the control over 
the proxy mactyner} 7 ", a power strongly abetted by the inertia of the 
great mass of small stockholders. This power is wielded, in most 
cases, by the officers of the corporation who, in turn, are largely 
dependent on the support or acquiescence of the large stockholders 
unless holdings are very widely scattered. 

" The most important, of these legal instrumentalities, trusts, and personal holding companies are mech- 
anisms for keeping together blocks of stock which may represent a controlling or influential position in one 
or a number of corporations. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 7 

The present report does not deal with these control devices. They 
are hardly open to statistical study and can be explored only by an 
analysis of individual cases, such as was devoted, for example, to 
investment companies and trusts in the Securities and Exchange 
Commission's study. 13 These devices, however, are only additions 
to ownership control. Many of them are ancillary to, or dependent on, 
ownership for their effective working. Notwithstanding the great 
importance of these devices, particularly the control over the proxy 
machinery, ownership of voting stock remains the basic, the stablest, 
and the most secure vehicle of control. The high degree of concen- 
tration of ownership found in this study must, therefore, be regarded 
as the minimum measure of control over the 200 largest nonfinancial 
American corporations exercised by a small number of large stock- 
holders. 

15 See the Securities and Exchange Commission's report on Investment Trusts and Investment Com- 
panies pt. Two, ch. V, p. 361 et seq., and pt.Three, ch. II, p. 51 et seq. 



CHAPTER II 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN 
CORPORATIONS 

Before reporting the results of the detailed study of the distribution 
of stock ownership in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, it will 
be helpful to present a brief over-all picture of the number of stock- 
holders and shareholdings and of the distribution of ownership in all 
domestic corporations. Such a picture is of considerable interest in 
itself in any study of our corporate system and will, in addition, permit 
a rough comparison of the distribution of stock ownership of the 200 
corporations presented in chapters III to VIII with that of all domestic 
corporations. 

Much of the material used in this chapter has not been available 
previously. Utilization of this material has permitted a more accurate 
characterization of important aspects of the distribution of stock 
ownership in American corporations than has been possible in the 
past. A fairly detailed description of the sources of the material 
utilized in this chapter, the methods of estimation and their limita- 
tions, as well as a fuller treatment of the results will be found in 
appendixes I and II. 

1. THE PRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP 

A. TYPES OF STOCKHOLDERS 

At the end of 1937, approximately 35 percent of the stock of all 
American corporations was owned by other domestic corporations, 1 
about 1 percent by nonprofit institutions, and between 2 percent and 
3 percent by foreigners. The remainder, somewhat over 60 percent 
of the total stock outstanding, was owned by domestic individuals and 
estates and trusts, the latter accounting for somewhat over 10 per- 
cent of the outstanding stock. 2 About 10 percent of all stock, com- 
prising close to 20 percent of the stock owned directly by individuals, 
was registered in the names of brokers. 3 

In the remainder of the chapter certain sections will be concerned 
with all types of stockholders, while others will be devoted to domestic 
individuals only. Where the difference is of any importance, it will 
be pointed out. 4 

1 Includes relatively small amounts owned by personal holding companies. 

1 These estimates are based largely on the statistics of dividends received, as compiled by the Bureau of 
Internal Revenue. 

' In appendix I, it is indicated that somewhat over in percent of all stock listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange was registered in the names of brokers. This percentage was reduced to 10 percent in estimating 
roughly the proportion of all stock registered in the names of brokers. Such stock is estimated to have com- 
prised close to 20 percent of the stock owned directly by individuals on the assumption that only a small 
proportion of the shares owned by corporations or fiduciaries was registered in the names of brokers. 

1 For example, in considering the concentration of ownership of all American corporations as a whole, the 
discussion is best confined to individuals and estates and trusts, since the intercorporate holdings cancel 
out. On the other band, this is not true of the concentration of ownership in individual corporations or in 
the average corporat'on 

9 



10 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

B. NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS 

At the end of 1937 there were, it is estimated, from 8,000,000 to 
9,000,000 persons in this country owning stock in at least one corpora- 
tion. 5 The figure appears to be valid also for the end of 1939. This 
estimate is substantially below the prevalent rough approximations of 
10,000,000 to 15,000,000 stockholders. 6 It implies that only about 1 
out of every 15 inhabitants of this country and less than 1 out, of 
every 5 income recipients owned corporate stock. 

Though the number of stockholders at the end of 1937 (or 1939) was 
probably in the neighborhood of 8,000,000 to 9,000,000, the number 
may have been as low as 7,000,000 or as high as 10,000,000. A con- 
siderable degree of confidence can be put in these limits because they 
are based on separate estimates made by 4 methods largely inde- 
pendent of each other. 7 

C. RELATIONS BETWEEN INCOME AND STOCK OWNERSHIP 8 

The great majority of these 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders 
have small incomes, with over 90 percent receiving net incomes of less- 
than $5,000 in 1937. 

The prevalence and importance of stock ownership vary greatly 
among persons of different economic levels. 9 The proportion of stock- 
holders is lowest among people of small means and steadily increases 
with total income. For the country as a whole somewhat less than 
20 percent of all income recipients own stock in at least one corpora- 
tion. However, probably fewer than 10 percent of individuals with 
an income of less than $1,000 belong to the stockholding group. The 
proportion increases rapidly with income, as indicated by the fact 
that 70 percent of individuals with income in the neighborhood of 
$10,000 and almost all persons (94 percent) with income over $50,000 
received dividends in 1937, attesting their ownership of at least one 
issue of stock. 10 

The importance of dividends as a source of income increases sharply 
with total income. For all individuals, dividends in 1937 represented 

• The number of foreign, corporate, and institutional stockholders in American corporations is very small 
in comparison to the number of domestic individual stockholders. (See appendix I, p. 159.) For qual- 
ifications of the estimate of the total number of stockholders, see id., sec. II. 

6 For instance, the estimate of 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 for 1932 in "The Security Markets," published by the 
Twentieth Century Fund, and the estimate of 15,000,000 in the April 1938 issue of "Investor America," a 
publication of the American Federation of Investors. 

7 The 6rst method of approach is based on the allocation of dividend? received by domestic individuals to 
different income groups, the data being obtained primarily from Federal income-tax returns. For some of 
these eroups, the number of dividend recipients is known, while for others it may be estimated on the basis 
of an assumed average dividend receipt per individual. This method results, after an upward adjustment. 
for persons owning non-dividend-paying stocks only, in an estimate of about 6,000,000 to 7,000.000 stock- 
holders in 1937. The second method, also largely based on Federal income-tax data, starts with an analysis 
cf the proportion of persons in the different income levels who received dividends. This method leads to an 
estimate of about 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 stockholders in 1937. A third estimate of about 10,000,000 stockholders 
is obtained by dividing the estimated number of shareholdiucs of domestic individuals in American corpora- 
tion 1 ; by the estimated average number of stock issues held by such persons, the latter being approximated 
on the basis of a sample of Federal income-tax returns. The fourth approach, completely independent of 
the 3 others, is based on a survey conducted in November 1939 covering a sample of 5,000 persons chosen so 
as to be representative of the general adult population with respect to sex, marital status, age, geographical 
distribution, and economic level. The results or this survey, made for the New York Stock Exchange by 
Elmo Roper, were summarized in "The Exchange, " January 1940, pp. 14-16. This inquiry showed that 
about 18 percent of the persons interviewed owned stock. If this ratio is applied to the appropriate popula- 
tion, an estimate of about 9,000.000 stockholders is obtained. 

8 The discussion in this section is confined to domestic individuals and estates and trusts. 

( Certain shortcomings involved in the use of income-tax data for a study of the relations covered in this 
section should be mentioned: (1) No distinction is made between taxable individuals and taxable estates 
and trusts; (2) a return may cover more than one person, e. g., husband and wife; and (3) dividends received 
through nontaxable fiduciaries are not reflected in the data. These deficiencies, however, do not affect the 
results substantially. 

10 Some characteristics of the relationship between income and tho number of stocks owned will be pre- 
sented, below, pp. 14-5. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER \\ 

about 7 percent of aggregate income. 11 Dividends, however, consti- 
tuted slightly over 16 percent of the total income of individuals filing 
Federal income-tax returns. 12 The percentage rose from 5 percent of 
total income for taxpayers with a net income of less than $5,000 to 
almost 60 percent of total income for individuals with a net income of 
$100,000 or more. At the other extreme, dividends contributed less 
than 2 percent to the total income of the approximately 40,000,000 
income recipients not filing tax returns with the United States 
Treasury. 13 

Moreover, the importance of dividends as a source of income increases 
with total income even among dividend recipients. The proportion of 
dividends to total income probably was as low as 10 percent in 1937 
for dividend recipients with net income of less than $1,000, while it was 
higher than 70 percent for dividend recipients with a net income 
of $100,000 or more. 14 These figures illustrate the relatively small 
importance of dividends received by stockholders with small incomes 
and show that the incomes of stockholders of moderate means, who 
constitute the great majority of the 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 persons 
owning stock, depend only secondarily on the dividends they receive. 

D. NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

To complete the over-all picture it is necessary to determine the 
number of shareholdings in all American corporations, i. e., the num- 
ber of holdings of shares by individuals or other classes of holders. 15 
Comparable information for the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
will be presented in chapter TIL 

There were about 17,500,000 shareholdings at the end of 1937 in 
corporations with securities listed on a national securities exchange. 18 
The number of shareholdings was obtained for practically all such 
corporations from reports submitted by the companies to the Securi- 
ties and Exchange Commission. It was also possible to derive from 
reports made to Government agencies or from financial manuals 17 a 
satisfactory approximation of the number of shareholdings in banks 
and insurance companies; and in investment companies, public utility 
holding companies, and large nonfinancial companies, none of whose 
securities were listed on a national securities exchange. The number 
of shareholdings in these companies at the end of 1937 is estimated 
to have been about 4,000,000. A rough estimate had to be made for 
all other companies, consisting mainly of over 400,000 small- and 
medium-sized corporations. This estimate (based largely on the fre- 
quency distribution, by size, of assets of practically all corporations 
in the United States and on the relationship between assets and num- 
ber of shareholdings for a sample of corporations collected in 1922 by 
the Federal Trade Commission) indicated the existence of another 

11 See Suryey of Current Business for June 1940, p. 8. 

" See Statistics of Income for 1937, pt. 1, p. 12. This estimate takes into account the fact that over half 
of the income from fiduciaries is dividend income. (Id., pp. 173 and 186.) 

13 These 40,000,000 people are mainly income recipients with incomes of less than $1,000 or $2,500, depend- 
ing on family status, and, in. addition, nonreporting persons who did not file income-tax returns though 
legally required to do-so. 

14 This is the ratio of dividend income to statutory net income of dividend recipients. The ratio of divi- 
dend income to total income of dividend recipients, which cannot be estimated as readily, would be some- 
what smaller. The difference is considerable only in the very high income brackets 

ls A stockholder is considered to have as many shareholdings as the number of different issues in which 
he hclds stock. 

" Actually, there were about 15,500,000 book or record shareholdings which are estimated to represent 
about 17,500.000 beneficial shareholdings. (See appendix I, pp. 169-71.) 

" For details, see id., pp. 168-75. 



12 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

3,000,000 to 6,000,000 shareholdings. The total number of share- 
holdings in 1937 (or 1939), therefore, probably was about 26,000,000.** 
Approximately five-sixths of these shareholdings were in common 
stocks, preferred shareholdings aggregating only somewhat over 
4,000,000. 19 

Of the total of 26,000,000 shareholdings in American corporations, 
it is estimated that somewhat less than 1,000,000 were owned by 
domestic corporations and nonprofit organizations or by foreign stock- 
holders, with the remaining 25,000,000 owned by domestic individuals. 

E. RELATIONS BETWEEN INCOME AND NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

The comparison of 26,000,000 shareholdings (of which over 2 1 ,000,000 
were in common stocks) and 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders indi- 
cates that on the average every stockholder held shares in 3 different 
stock issues and in about 2^ corporations. 20 This average, however, 
is of restricted significance in view of the great variability in the 
number of stocks owned by individual investors. Considerably over 
one-half of all stockholders held shares. in one issue only. On the 
other hand, there were a few stockholders who owned shares in over 
a hundred issues. 21 In general, the number of issues held increased 
fairly rapidly with a stockholder's total net income or his dividend 
income. 

Preliminary data, based on a random sample of 5,000 Federal 
income-tax returns 22 reporting -dividend income of less than $10,000 
for 1936, indicate that in that year stockholders with net income of 
less than $5,000, and more than $1,000 or $2,500 (depending on their 
marital status), received dividends from 2.4 corporations on the 
average. 23 About 62 percent received dividends from only 1 corpo- 
ration and only 3.7 percent held stock in 10 or' more corporations 
paying dividends. Stockholders with net income from $5,000 to 
$10,000 reported stockholdings in about 3.2 dividend-paying corpo- 
rations, on the average; 55 percent reported receipt of dividends from 
1 corporation only while 7 percent owned shares in 10 or more dividend- 
paying corporations. 

A comparable preliminary tabulation is also available for all indi- 
viduals with dividend income of $10,000 or over. Of these persons 
those with a net income of $100,000 or more held stock in 25 dividend- 
paying corporations, on the average, whereas persons with net income 
from $10,000 to $15,000 held, on the average, stock in 13 dividend- 
paying corporations. There were only 41,880 persons with dividend 
income over $10,000, not much over one-half percent of all dividend 
recipients, but they accounted for between 700,000 and 800,000 
shareholdings in dividend-paying stock issues, or about 4 percent of 
the approximately 20,000,000 shareholdings of domestic individuals 
in such stocks. 



18 The number of shareholdings may well have been as low as 24,500,000 or as high as 27,500,000. For 
qualificatioes of this estimate, see ibid. 

11 It is estimated that somewhat over 20,000,000 of the 26,000,000 shareholdings were in dividend-paying 
stocks. 

"> These averages are not affected substantially by the inclusion of domestic corporations, nonprofit 
organizations, and foreign stockholders. The following discussion is restricted to domestic individuals 
and estates and trusts. 

21 In 1936, 101 individual income-tax returns reported receipt of dividends from 100 or more corporations. 

M See p. 10, note 9, for an enumeration of some limitations o (these data. 

13 There is no reason to assume that the figures would be much different in 1937. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 13 

P. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP 2 * 

Since the total dividends paid by American corporations to domestic 
individuals and fiduciaries in 1937 amounted to somewhat over 
$4,500,000,000, the 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders seem to have 
received an average dividend income of slightly over $500, corres- 
ponding to an average investment with a market value of about 
$10,000 for the year. 25 

Compared to the average dividend income of $500 in 1937, most 
stockholders received only very small amounts in dividends and had 
correspondingly small investments in stock. Probably in the neigh- 
borhood of half of the 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders in 1937— 
a year of relatively high dividend payments — received less than $100 
in dividends, and not more than 2,000,000 stockholders had an annual 
dividend income of over $500. There were not many more than 
100,000 stockholders with a dividend income exceeding $5,000, while 
fewer than 10,000 individual stockholders received over $50,000 in 
dividends. 

The numerous stockholders receiving small amounts of dividends 
accounted for only a negligible portion of all dividends received by 
individuals. In 1937 the 50 percent of the stockholders each of whom 
received less than $100 in dividends accounted together for con- 
siderably less than 5 percent of total dividend income of individuals. 
The more than 80 percent of the stockholders with a dividend income 
of less than $500 probably received not much over 10 percent of the 
total dividend income of individuals. Thus the importance of the 
ownership of corporate stock by these small stockholders is hardly 
considerable in spite of their large number. 

These figures suggest that notwithstanding the wide dispersion of 
ownership indicated by the large number of stockholders, ownership 
of stock was highly concentrated in the hands of a relatively few 
persons. This is shown quite convincingly in chart I. 26 Thus the 
10,000 persons with the highest dividend incomes, comprising not 
much over one-tenth of 1 percent of the total number of stockholders 
and about one-fiftieth of 1 percent of the total number of income 
recipients, received about 25 percent of all dividends paid to individuals 
and may, therefore, be estimated to have owned, directly or indirectly, 
about one-fourth of all stock of domestic corporations. 27 Fewer than 
75,000 persons, i. e., less than 1 percent of the number of stockholders 
and considerably less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the total number 
of income recipients, were necessary to account for one-half of all 
dividends received by individuals. This certainly represents an 
impressive degree of concentration of ownership. Indeed, chart I 
shows that dividend income is concentrated even more highly than 
total income. 28 

M The discussion in this section is confined to domestic individuals and estates and trusts. 

» By the. end' of the year the average market value. of this investment had declined, it is estimated, to 
about $7,000. 

K In chart I three Lorenz curves are presented to depict the relative concentration of total income and 
dividend income. (In general, the larger the area between the Lorenz curves and the line of equal distribu- 
tion, the greater the concentration. For a more detailed discussion of this type of graphic presentation, see 
chapter III, pp. 37-9.) The data on the distribution of total income were obtained from Consumer 
Incomes in the United States, prepared by the National Resources Committee, while the data on the dis- 
tribution of dividend income are presented in appendix I, sec. II, A. 

i7 Seep. 10, note 9, for an enumeration of some limitations of these data. The data have been adjusted 
in part for the manner of reporting dividends received through fiduciaries. (See appendix I, sec. II, Al, 
and appendix II, sec. II, B.) 

" The Lorenz curve for total income is based on the distribution of total income among consumer units 
made up of families pooling their income in a common fund, and single individuals. Actually, however, 
there is little difference between the Lorenz curve based on the distribution of income among families and 
that based on the distribution among single individuals. 



14 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



G. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP IN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS 

The concentration of corporate ownership in the aggregate for all 
domestic corporations, which has been described in the preceding 
subsection, does not necessarily reflect a similar concentration of stock 
ownership in individual corporations or in single issues. The concen- 

Chakt I. — Concentration of total income and dividend income 



NUMBER OP RECIPIENTS 
(PERCENT OP TOTAL) 
100 



NUMBER OP RECIPIENTS 
(PERCENT OP TOTAL) 

ioo- 



.Distribution of Total Income among' all 
Income Recipients, 1935 - 1936 

.Distribution of Dividend Income among 
Dividend Recipients, 1937 

Distribution of Dividend Income among 
all Income Recipients, 1937 





20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 10< 

INCOME OF RECIPIENTS (PERCENT OP TOTAL) 

These curves Indicate the smallest proportion of Income recipients or dividend 
recipients necessary to account for any given proportion of the total income or 
dividend Income received by domestic Individuals. Thus Curve I Indicates the 
percentage of Income recipients, cumulated from the largest Income recipient 
downward, necessary to account for any percentage of total income received by 
Individuals; Curve II Indicates the percentage of dividend recipients, cumu- 
lated from the largest dividend recipient downward, necessary to account for 
any percentage of total dividend income received by Individuals; a,nd Curve III 
Indicates the percentage of Income recipients, cumulated rrom the largest re- 
cipient downward, necessary to account for any percentage of total dividend 
Income received by Individuals. 



tration of corporate stock in the hands of the wealthy may result 
from either large shareholdings in single issues or a wide diversification 
of holdings in many corporations. One of these two aspects of the 
distribution of stock ownership, the number of shareholdings typically 
held by individuals, has already been discussed in subsection E, where 
it was shown that, though the higher the total income or dividend 
income the higher the number of stocks held, even individuals with 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 15 

large income are stockholders in only a relatively moderate number 
of different corporations. The other aspect of the distribution of 
stock ownership involving the size distribution of shareholdings in the 
average corporation will be considered briefly in this subsection. 

Prior to this stud} 7 , data on the distribution of shareholdings in 
individual corporations by number of shares were rare and information 
on the distribution of shareholdings by market value practically non- 
existent. 29 As this subject will be discussed in detail in chapter III 
of this report for the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations and is 
covered in a separate report for a group of 1,710 corporations with 
securities listed on a national securities exchange, a few summary 
figures will suffice at this point. 

The average shareholding in these 1,710 companies, which accounted 
for about three-fifths of the number of shareholdings in all domestic 
corporations, had a market value, at the end of 1937, of about $3,000. 
The - average shareholding of domestic individuals appears to have been 
considerably lower, not much over $2,000. 30 However, the average is 
again not particularly representative of the distribution. About half 
of all shareholdings had a market value, at the end of 1937, of less 
than $500. In spite of their large number, shareholdings witji a value 
of less than $500 accounted for only about 4 percent of the market 
value of all stock outstanding in these corporations and roughly 5 
percent of the stock in noncorporate shareholdings. Shareholdings 
with a value of over $10,000 each constituted only 4 percent of all 
shareholdings but accounted for about 60 percent of the total market 
value of shares outstanding. 31 If corporate shareholdings are excluded, 
both of these ratios would, of course, be somewhat reduced; it is not 
possible, however, to estimate on the basis of available data how large 
the reduction would be. 

These figures give a rough indication of the inequality of the dis- 
tribution of ownership in'the average corporation with securities listed 
on a national securities exchange. The picture once more is that of 
a wide dispersion of ownership which is more apparent than real. 
Notwithstanding the large number of shareholdings in most large 
corporations, not much over 1 percent of the holders are required 
in most cases to account for the majority of the stock outstanding 
or for voting control. These findings are particularized in chapter 
III in a study of the size distribution of shareholdings in the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations and in chapter VI in an analysis of 
the 20 largest book shareholdings in each of the stock issues of these 
corporations. 

Though practically no data are available on the distribution of 
ownership of the average small corporation, it is, of course, known 
that these companies usually have only very few stockholders. 32 The 
problem of concentration of ownership in these companies, however, 
does not have the same economic meaning or importance as the con- 
centration of ownership in the large corporations covered by this 
study, because it does not imply control over funds contributed by 

*• For an exception, see the Securities and Exchange. Commission report on Investment Trusts and In- 
vestment Companies pt. Two, eh. V, p. 361 et ;eq. 

30 This is approximately the same figure that is obtained by dividing the average market value of the 
Investment of domestic individuals in American corporations at the end of 1937, namely $7,000, by the aver- 
age number of stocks held, which has been estimated to be abort three. 

31 Although these proportions are based on record shareholdings, they are not much different from those 
which would be obtained from beneficial shareholdings. (For details see appendix 1, pp. 169-71 

3i In 1922, the only year for which such'information is available, about one-half of a representative sample 
of companies had less than a dozen stockholders. (See appendix I, table 17 p. 174.) 

268445— 41— No. 20 3 



IQ CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

a large number of smaller stockholders, unable to influence the man- 
agement of their own accord, and because ownership control of these 
corporations does not carry with it a position of economic power. 

2. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP 

The tirst part of this chapter has given a broad outline of the dis- 
tribution of ownership at the end of 1937, an outline which is believed 
to be still valid at the present time in all important respects. It is of 
some interest to compare this picture, even if only in a cursory mariner, 
with the characteristics of the distribution of ownership in prior years 
and to indicate any trends which seem to have existed. Though only 
scattered data are available for such a comparison, it is possible to 
discern and explain in part some important trends in the distribution 
of ownership, particularly in the past decade. 

A. NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS 

The first detailed estimation of the number of stockholders in do- 
mestic corporations indicated the existence of between 4,000,000 and 
6,000,000 stockholders at the end of 1927. 33 A substantial increase 
in the number of stockholders unquestionably occurred over the next 
10 years, as there were probably between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 
stockholders in 1937. . Though any measure of the extent of the in- 
crease is subject to a considerable margin of error, the rate of growth 
appears to have been less spectacular than is often assumed, the 
increase in the number of stockholders between 1927 and 1937 prob- 
ably amounting to about 70 percent. The predominant part of this 
increase took place in the first half of the period, i. e., before 1933. 

B. NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

While the first careful and reasonably accurate estimate of the 
number of stockholders was made for as late a year as 1927, there 
exist prior estimates of the number of shareholdings. Thus it has 
been estimated that the total shareholdings in American corporations 
was about 4,400,000 in 1900, 14,400,000 in 1923, and 18,000,000 in 
1928. 34 At the end of 1937 the number of shareholdings, it is esti- 
mated, was about 26,000,000, the increase in the preceding decade 
takirig place largely in the first half of the period. Though the esti- 
mates of the number of shareholdings, particularly those for the earlier 
years, are subject to considerable error, there is little doubt that the 
number had been increasing at a fairly rapid rate for several decades 
prior to the end of 1932 and that there has been relatively little change 
since that year. 

C. IMPLICATIONS OF INCREASE TN NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS AND 
SHAREHOLDINGS, 1927-37 

The increase in the number of stockholders between 1927 and 1937 
was proportionately much greater than the increase in the equity 

33 Means, Gardiner C, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932), p. 374 
"The first 2 estimates were made bv H. T. Warshow (The Distribution of Corporate Ownership in 
the United States, Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1924); the third by Gardiner C Means (The 
Diffusion of Stock Ownership, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1930). As a result of an apparent 
upward bias in the manner of their derivation, these figures, originally estimated as the number of book 
shareholdings, are probably a closer approximation of the number of beneficial holdings. (See appendix II. 
pp: 198-9.) They have been used as such in this report without upward adjustment. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER \*J 

capital of domestic corporations through new issues. The proportion 
of the total equity in all American corporations held by the average 
individual stockholder, therefore, was smaller at the end of 1937 than 
at the end of 1927. The increase in the number of stockholders prob- 
ably resulted in large part from a shift in ownership of part of the 
stock outstanding at the beginning of the period from the hands of a 
relatively small number of stockholders to a larger number of stock- 
holders, each holding a smaller average proportion of the total stock 
capitalization. Only a relatively small part of the increase appears 
to be attributable to the absorption, through public offerings, of newly 
issued shares by persons not previously owning stock. 36 

It is to be expected that a considerable increase in the number of 
stockholders such as occurred over the period 1927-37 would be accom- 
panied by a rise in the number of shareholdings. However, an increase 
in the number of shareholdings may reflect not only an increase in the 
number of stockholders but also the absorption of newly issued secu- 
rities by persons already owning stock or a greater diversification of 
their holdings of outstanding stock. 36 For the period 1927-37 37 the 
most important reason for the increase in the number of shareholdings 
by about 8,000,000 seems to have been the purchase of shares by per- 
sons not previously owning stock. There is some evidence, though 
the data are not conclusive, of a slight decline in the average number 
of shareholdings per individual over the period, possibly occasioned 
by the shift of ownership in the direction of the new smaller owners. 

One aspect of the increase in the number of shareholdings is subject 
to some degree of measurement, viz, the acquisition of newlv issued 
stock by persons not previously holding such stock. It is estimated 
that the absorption of newly issued stocks accounted for somewhat 
less than one-fourth of the increase in the number of shareholdings 
from 1927 to 1937. 38 The remainder of the increase must be attributed 
to transactions involving a shift in ownership from larger to. smaller 
stockholders, such as is reflected, for example, in the odd-lot purchase 
balance on the New York Stock Exchange. 39 All of these tendencies 
are, of course, also reflected in the increase in the number of stock- 
holders. 

D. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP 

There is, then, evidence of a wider diffusion of ownership in Ameri- 
can corporations at the end of 1937 than at the end of 1927, both in 
the larger number of stockholders and the smaller proportion of the 
total equity in American corporations owned by the average stock- 
holder. Further evidence pointing in this direction is provided by 
the substantial purchase balance in odd-lot transactions on the New 
York Stock Exchange from the end of 1927 to the end of 1937. The 
question naturally arises whether this constitutes a significant or 
important diminution over this period on the degree of concentration 

M New issues of investment companies and trusts and of utility companies are 2 important instances in 
which, it appears, the purchasers frequently did not previously own stock in any corporation. 

" Changes in record shareholdings also reflect shifts into or out of brokers' names, but an attempt has 
been made* (appendix II, pp. 189-91) to adjust for this mechanical factor in order to isolate the trends in 
beneficial shareholdings which are discussed above. The effect of such shifts does not seem to be so im- 
portant as has been supposed. 

37 The number of shareholdings at the end of T927 was probably not much smaller than at the end of 1928, 
for which it was estimated at 18,000,000 by Gardiner C Means. 

38 For details see appendix II, p. 192. 

38 The purchase balance of odd-lot customers on the New York Stock Exchange and the acquisition of 
newly issued stock by persons not previously holding such stock are, of course, not entirely independent 
as part of the increase in the number of shareholdings resulting from the absorption of newly issued shares 
may be reflected in the odd-lot balance on the New York Stock Exchange. (On the New York Stock 
Exchange odd-lot trading refers generally to trading in lots from 1 to 99 shares.) 



18 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



of stock ownership in the hands of a few persons, in spite of the fact 
that a very high degree of concentration has previously been shown 
to have existed even at the end of 1937. Data on the distribution of 
dividend income in. 1927 and 1937 would seem to furnish the simplest 
means of investigating this problem. Unfortunately the data avail- 
able (viz, information tabulated from income-tax returns) are not on 
a strictly comparable basis throughout this period. In particular, 
an important element of noncomparability between 1936 and 1937 
and earlier years is introduced by the different treatment of dividends 
received through fiduciaries and partnerships. Nevertheless, it is 
still possible to use these data to obtain a rough idea of changes in 
the concentration of dividend income over the period from 1927 to 
1937. 40 

The following table shows that though there is some evidence of a 
smaller degree of concentration of stock ownership in the hands of a 
few persons at the end of the period than at the beginning, the differ- 
ence is not very substantial. Furthermore, there is no suggestion 
of a continued trend in this direction, as the only indication of diminu- 
tion in the concentration of stock ownership appears in the first part 
of the period and there is even some evidence of a slight reversal of 
this tendency in the second part. 41 



Largest individual dividend recipients 
reporting on income-tax returns 



Largest 1,000 recipients... 
Largest 25,000 recipients. 
Largest 100,000 recipients 



Percentage of all cash dividends received by domestic indi- 
viduals 



12.5 
43.5 
66.0 



1929 



11.7 
39.'5 
59.4 



1931 



12.7 
39.1 
56.5 



13.1 
42.2 
58.0 



B.O 
41 2 
00.0 



10.4 
37. 6 



The same results are presented somewhat differently in the next 
table which shows for each year the number of stockholders and the 
proportion of the population of the United States necessary to account 
for one-half of the total cash dividends received by domestic indi- 
viduals. 





1927 


1929 


1931 


1933 


1935 


1937 


Number - -- --- - 


38,000 
.032 


51,300 
.042 


59,500 
.048 


45,000 
.036 i 


47,000 j 

.037 ! 

1 


6i, ooo 




.017 







It is not impossible that the apparent shift in corporate ownership in- 
dicated by these income-tax data may simply reflect differences in re- 
porting on income-tax returns, tax>-evasion devices, or other mechanical 
factors. However, in conjunction with the smaller average propor- 
tion of the total capitalization of American corporations held by indi- 
viduals at the end of the period, and the substantial purchase .balance 

*i See appendix II, pp. 195-7, for details and Qualifications. A partial adjustment was made in- the data 
for 1937 for purposes of comparability with prior years. 

41 The apparent decmase in the concentration of dividend income from the end of 1935 to the end of 1937 
is partly, and may be entirely, due to such changes in reporting methods as could not be adjusted for. How- 
ever, the direction of the change is in accord with the substantial purchase 'balance in odd-lot transactions 
on the New York Stock Exchange from 1935 through 1937. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER \ 9 

of odd-lot transactions on the New York Stock Exchange over this 
period, these data do appear to indicate a somewhat wider diffusion 
of ownership in 1937 than a decade earlier. 

These figures, of course, do not directly reflect changes in the 
degree of concentration of ownership in the average corporation. 
Such changes would have to be ascertained by a study of the distri- 
bution of ownership in a representative sample of corporations for 
both the years 1927 and 1937, a study for which necessary data are 
not available. It seems likely, however, on the basis of the data 
already presented, that there was a somewhat wider diffusion of 
ownership in the average corporation at the end of the decade 
than at the beginning, though the difference was probably not very 
pronounced. 42 

Very little is known about changes in the distribution of ownership 
of corporate stock for earlier periods. Prior studies, based on divi- 
dends received by individuals in different net income classes as 
reported in Federal income-tax data, suggest that there was a con- 
siderable shift in corporate ownership from larger to smaller stock- 
holders during the period 1916-21, with little change in the subsequent 
years up to 1927. 43 

4J Further evidence pointing to a wider diffusion of ownership in the average, corporation at the end of the 
decade than at the beginning is furnished by the fact that for 43 very large corporations (comprising those 
companies among the 200 largest nonfinancial companies for which the information was readily available) 
each record shareholding in 1937 represented on the average a smaller proportion of the total capitalization 
of these companies than it did in 1927. (See appendix II, p. 197.) This evidence, however, is far from 
conclusive, particularly in view of the nonrandom nature of the companies included. 

*> H. T. Warshow, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for November 1924, covered the years 1916-22, 
while Gardiner C. Means in the August 1930 issue of the same journal extended this study to the end of 
1927. 



CHAPTER III 

THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE 200 
LARGEST NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

1. SCOPE AND ARRANGEMENT OF CHAPTER 

This chapter summarizes the statistical material accumulated on the 
distribution by size of shareholdings of the common and preferred 
stocks of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. Chapter IV deals 
with the holdings of officers and directors in these 200 corporations; 
supplementary information on the holdings of persons other than 
officers and directors owning more than 10 percent of any issue of 
equity securities of these companies is presented in appendix VIII. 
In chapters V to VII the 20 largest record shareholdings in each equity 
issue of the 200 corporations are analyzed. Finally, chapter VIII 
describes the extent of the foreign holdings in the 200 corporations. 
Together chapters III through VIII give a fairly detailed picture of 
the distribution of ownership of the equity securities of the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations and of large or controlling shareholdings in 
these companies at the end o*f 1937. 

The remainder of this chapter is divided into 6 sections. In the 
first of these sections the 200 corporations covered in the study are 
compared with all domestic corporations with respect to size of assets, 
value of equity securities, and number of shareholdings using the 
over-all estimates developed in chapter II. It is found that the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations represent between two-fifths and 
one-half of the assets, dividends, shareholdings, and stockholders of 
all nonfinancial domestic corporations. Determination of the distri- 
bution of ownership in these 200 corporations, therefore, goes very far 
toward answering the question of the concentration of ownership in 
one of the most significant segments of our corporate economy. 

The 4 sections then following (sees. 3 to 6) describe and discuss 
the main statistical features of the size distribution of stock ownership 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. In section 3 this statisti- 
cal discussion deals with the total number and value of shareholdings 
in the 200 corporations as a whole and in groups classified by industry 
and size of issuer, type, and price of issue, number of shareholdings, and 
average value per shareholding. Sections 4 and 5 summarize the 
material on the size distribution of all shareholdings in the 200 cor- 
porations. The discussion in section 4 is based on the distribution of 
the approximate total of 8,500,000 shareholdings by the estimated 
market value of each holding. In contrast, the basic material of 
section 5 consists of a classification of these same 8,500,000 share- 
holdings by the number of shares included in each holding. Section 6 
is devoted to a discussion of the degree of concentration of ownership 
existing in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, for industry and 
size groups of issuers and for selected individual issues, and may be 

21 



22 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

regarded, in many respects, as a summary of the findings of the entire 
chapter. Section 7 describes briefly the nature of the data utilized in 
this chapter. 

The statistical material on which chapter III as a whole is based is 
so voluminous that it was found preferable to present in the text only 
a few figures and a number of charts. However, the basic data on the 
size distribution of shareholdings for each of the more than 400 issues 
of common and preferred stocks of the 200 corporations are presented 
in detail in sections I to III of appendix III. Statistical aggregates on 
the number of shareholdings and on the distribution of shareholdings 
by number of shares and estimated value of holdings will be found in 
the tables constituting appendix IV. 

2. COMPARISON OF 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL COR- 
PORATIONS WITH ALL DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS 

hough the 200 corporations included in the study represent only 
an insignificant fraction — not more than 0.2 percent — of all domestic 
corporations, they accounted, in 1937, for about 8,500,000 sharehold- 
ings, out of about 24,000,000 record shareholdings in all domestic 
corporations. The 200 corporations, whose distribution of ownership 
is studied in detail in this report, thus accounted for about one-third 
of the shareholdings of all domestic corporations and about two-fifths 
of those of nonfinancial corporations. 

On the other hand, it is not possible to determine how many of the 
8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders in American corporations owned 
shares of at least 1 stock issue of these 200 corporations. It is obvious, 
of course, that the number of persons holding shares of 1 or more issues 
of the 200 corporations is considerably smaller than 8,500,000 — the 
number of record shareholdings — since many investors undoubtedly 
owned shares in more than 1 equity issue of these corporations. There 
are neither over-all nor sample data to serve as a basis for an estimate 
of the average number of different issues of these 200 corporations held 
by persons who own shares in at least 1 issue (the so-called "duplica- 
tion ratio")- Use of the duplication ratio of about 3 applicable to the 
issues of all corporations 1 yields an estimate of about 3,000,000 per- 
sons owning stock in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 

The market value of the 404 issues of common and preferred stock 
of the 200 corporations at the end of 1937 amounted to about 
$33,000,000,000. This was somewhat over one-third of the estimated 
value of the stock of all domestic corporations and probably around 
one-half of the value of the stock of all nonfinancial corporations. Of 
the 404 issues, 295 were listed (or admitted to unlisted trading privi- 
leges) on the New York Stock Exchange or the New York Curb Ex- 
change. The market value at the end of 1937 of these issues aggre- 
gated about $28,600,000,000, or approximately 60 percent of the value 
of all equity securities listed on the two New York exchanges and 
nearly 65 percent of that of the stocks of nonfinancial corporations so 
listed. 

The 200 corporations in 1937 paid dividends amounting to about 
$2,200,000,000. This was equivalent to about 30 percent of aggregate 
dividends paid by all American corporations and almost 40 percent of 
those paid by nonfinancial corporations. If intercorporate dividends 

1 Cf. ch. II, p 12. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 23 

were eliminated, which can be done only approximately for the 200 
corporations, the share of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations in 
dividends paid to noncorporate stockholders would probably be around 
40 percent for all domestic corporations and somewhat under 45 per- 
cent for nonfinancial corporations. 

The total assets of the 200 corporations, based upon consolidated 
balance sheets at the end of 1937, amounted to about $70,000,000,000. 2 
They were thus equal to about 25 percent of the assets of all domestic 
corporations submitting balance sheets to the Bureau of Internal 
Revenue and to slightly over 40 percent of the assets of all nonfinancial 
ec porations. 3 

Measured either by number of shareholdings, market value of secu- 
rities, dividends paid, or total assets, the 200 largest nonfinancial cor- 
porations studied in detail in this report, then, represent between tww- 
fifths and one-half of all nonfinancial corporations. 

The proportion of assets represented in the group of 200 corpora- 
tions varies, of course, very much among the major industries. Only 
a very small fraction is covered of all corporate assets in the service 
industries (with the exception of motion pictures), in the construction 
industries, and in merchandising with the exception of certain branches 
of retail trade such as chain stores, mail-order houses, and department 
stores. The proportion is also low — not over 10 percent — in most con- 
sumers' goods industries, such as textiles, paper and printing, leather, 
and beverages. In the tobacco and in the food industries (mainly as a 
result of the high coverage in the meat-packing industry), however, 
about one-half and one-third, respectively, of total corporate assets are 
covered. In the chemical industry also about one-third of the total 
corporate assets is accounted for by those companies included in the 
stud" but the proportion appears to be relatively higher in heavy 
chemicals. One-half or more of total assets is represented for such 
important industries as petroleum refining, automobiles, steel, non- 
ferrous metals, and several important sections of the machinery indus- 
tries. The proportion of assets covered by the companies in the group 
here studied is also high in the railroad and the electric-power indus- 
tries, amounting to about one-half in both cases. 

3. NUMBER AND VALUE OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

A. AGGREGATE NUMBER AND VALUE OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

The 200 largest American nonfinancial corporations, around the end 
of 1937, reported slightly under 8,500,000 record shareholdings, con- 
sisting of 7,027,000 holdings of common stock and 1,394,000 holdings 
of preferred stock. 4 The aggregate value of these shareholdings at 
the prices of December 31, 1937, amounted to approximately 
$33,300,000,000. The 208 common stock issues of the 200 companies 
had an aggregate value of about $28,100,000,000 while their 196 
issues of preferred stock wore valued at $5,200,000,000. 

Charts II and III show the importance of manufacturing companies 
in the group of 200 corporations. (For details see appendix IV, 

1 For lists of companies, showing the total assets of each, see appendix V, sec. III. 

3 Both the figures for the aggregate assets of the 200 corporations and for the corporations reporting to the 
Bureau of Internal Revenue include certain duplications resulting from intercorporate shareholdings, loans, 
and other transactions. It is probable that these duplications are relatively more important for all corpora- 
tions than for the 200 corporations and that, therefore, the actual proportion of total assets represented by 
the 200 corporations is slightly higher than' the figures given in the text. 

4 For discussion of differences between re^rd and beneficial shareholdings, see infra, pp. 38 and 51. 



24 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart II. — Number and value* of shareholdings of the 200 largest nonfinancia] 

corporations 



MILLIONS 
10 



Classified by Major Industries 

NUMBER OF SHARBHOLDISGS 




ALL 
STOCK ISSUES 



* Based on market prices on or about Dec. 31, 1937 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



25 



Chart III.— Distribution of number and value* of shareholdings of the 200 largest 

nonfinancial corporations 



PERCENT 
ICC 



Classified by Major Industries 

T OF NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 



PERCENT 
100' 




P E .. CENT OF VALUE OF SIIAR 



ICC 




2C8 COMMON 
STOCK ISSUES 



196 PREFERRED 
STOCK ISSUE'S 



ALL 
STOCK ISSUES 



* Based on market prices on or about Dec. 31, 1937 



26 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

table 22, for common stock and table 28 for preferred stock.) Among 
common stocks, the 101 issues of 96 manufacturing corporations 
accounted for about 52 percent of the total number of shareholdings 
and 65 percent of the ■ estimated total market value. Among the 
preferred stocks the predominance of manufacturing companies was 
only slightly less pronounced, the 75 issues of 61 manufacturing 
corporations representing almost 41 percent of the total number of 
shareholdings and slightly over 50 percent of the total market value 
of the issues included in the study. Measured by the number of 
shareholdings and the market value of the shares held, the most 
important industries in the manufacturing group were petroleum 
refining, machinery and tools, automobiles and parts, chemicals, 
nonferrous metals, iron and steel, tobacco products, and foods. 

The electric, gas, and water utility companies held second place 
among the major industrial groups. The 47 common stock issues of 
the 45 companies in this industry accounted for about 22 percent of 
the total shareholdings, but for only 11 percent of the aggregate 
market value. Among the preferred stocks, on the other hand, this 
industry was first in importance, the 81 issues of the 39 companies 
represented accounting for slightly under 50 percent of the total 
number of preferred shareholdings, but for only about 35 percent of 
the total market value of all such issues included in the study. Com- 
munications ranked third among the major industrial groups, due 
mainly to the large number of shareholdings and the very substantial 
aggregate value of the common stock of the American Telephone & 
Telegraph Co. Railroads (which had been more affected by the 
exclusion of companies in- receivership than any other industry group) 
accounted for but 9 percent of the number of common shareholdings 
and for only 6 percent of their aggregate value; among preferred 
stocks the comparable proportions were nearly 7 percent of sharehold- 
ings and somewhat over 6 percent of the market value of all issues 
covered. The fifth major industry group, merchandising, had about 
3^ percent of the number and 4% percent of the value of common 
shareholdings, but less than 2 percent of the number and less than 3 
percent of the value of preferred shareholdings. 

The number and value of shareholdings of common stock of the 200 
corporations are classified in table 23 (appendix IV) by the size of 
the issuer; the comparable picture for preferred stock issues is pre- 
sented in table 29 (appendix IV). The 44 giant corporations with 
assets of over $500,000,000 each accounted for 3,844,000 common 
shareholdings, or 55 percent of the total number of common share- 
holdings in all of the 200 corporations, and for 616,000 preferred 
shareholdings, equivalent to 45 percent of the total. The proportions 
represented by these giant corporations were slightly lower when 
measured by the market value of the shares outstanding, amounting 
to about 47 percent for common stocks and 42 percent for preferred 
stock issues. 

The classification of shareholdings of the 404 issues by price on 
December 31, 1937, is shown for common stocks in table 24 (appendix 
IV) and for preferred stocks in table 30 (appendix IV). Among the 
common shareholdings approximately 25 percent was in issues selling 
at under $10 per share, 30 percent in issues priced between $10 and $30, 
28 percent in issues in the $30 to $60 range and 17 percent in issues 
selling at over $60 per share. Among preferred stocks the proportion 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 27 

of issues soiling at higher prices was, of course, larger. Thus, only 
4 percent of the total preferred shareholdings was in issues selling at 
under $10 per share, and 21 percent each in issues in the $10 to $30 
and $30 to $60 ranges. On the other hand, about 55 percent of all 
preferred shareholdings was in issues with a price of $60 or more. 

Of the total 7,027,000 common shareholdings 87 percent was ac- 
counted for by the 155 issues listed on the New York Stock Exchange, 
as shown in table 27 (appendix IV), and over 99 percent by the 187 
issues listed on any exchange. Table 33 (appendix IV) indicates that 
both proportions were considerably lower for preferred stock issues, 
amounting to 66 percent for the 127 issues listed on the New York 
Stock Exchange and slightly under 90 percent for the 173 issues listed 
on any exchange. In other words, unlisted issues included around 10 
percent of all preferred shareholdings, but less than 1 percent of all 
common shareholdings. Measured by the market value of issues, 
on the other hand, the proportion of unlisted issues is considerably 
larger among common stocks because of inclusion in this group of a 
few closely held issues of considerable value. On a combined basis, 
unlisted issues accounted for about 5% percent of the total value of all 
stocks of the 200 corporations. 

B. DISTRIBUTION OF ISSUES BY NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS AND BY 

VALUE 

The stocks covered in the study varied in type from 14 issues of 
common and 4 issues of preferred stock wholly owned by a parent 
corporation, and the issues held by small groups of individuals, such 
as the stock of the Ford Motor Co., to the common stock of the 
American Telephone & Telegraph Co., with 641,308 shareholdings. 
No distinctions were drawn in the statistical presentation between 
issues of corporations that were closely held, as opposed to those 
widely held. While the subject of large shareholdings is treated in 
detail in chapters V to VII and in appendix IX, it may be noted at 
this point that in nearly 50 of the 208 common stock issues included 
in the tables, 50 percent or more of the outstanding shares was owned 
by a single family or a small group of holders, while a similar situa- 
tion prevailed among 24 of the 196 outstanding preferred stock issues. 
These closely held issues accounted for 11 percent of the total value 
of all common stock issues and slightly over 8 percent of that of all 
preferred stock issues included in the study. 

The distribution of the 404 issues by the number of shareholdings 
per issue is shown in table 25 for common stocks and in table 31 
for preferred stocks. Among the 208 common stocks there were 
24 issues with less than 1,000 shareholdings each, including the 
14 issues wholly owned by a single other corporation. The number 
of shareholdings varied between 1,000 and 10,000 in 62 cases, which 
together accounted for not much over 4 percent of the total common 
shareholdings in the 200 corporations. The 109 issues with 10,000 to 
100,000 shareholdings accounted for nearly 3,700,000 shareholdings in 
the aggregate, or slightly over 50 percent of the total. There were 
only 13 issues with more than 100,000 shareholdings each, but com- 
bined they accounted for 3,063.000 shareholdings, or nearly 44 percent 
of the total, the common stock of the American Telephone & Tele- 
graph Co. alone representing nearly 10 percent of all shareholdings in 



28 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

the 208 issues. The importance of a few widely held stocks was evi- 
dent in the fact that the 20 issues with the largest number of share- 
holdings — 75,000 or more in each case— while representing only one- 
tenth of all issues, accounted together for more than one-half of all 
reported common shareholdings in the 200 corporations. 

Among preferred stocks the proportion of total shareholdings 
accounted for by a small number of widely owned issues was some- 
what less substantial. Of the 196 issues, 34 had less than 1,000 
shareholdings each and together accounted for less than 1 percent of 
total holdings, compared to 24 issues with not even one-tenth bf 1 
percent of all shareholdings among common stocks. Over 120 issues — 
or more than 60 percent of the total number against only a little over 
30 percent among common stocks — had between 1,000 and 10,000 
shareholdings each, and together represented nearly 40 percent of the 
t»tal against a proportion of less than 5 percent for common stock 
issues. There were only 39 preferred stock issues— about one-fifth 
against a comparable proportion of three-fifths among common 
stocks — which had more than 10,000 shareholdings each, together 
accounting for about 60 percent of all shareholdings, compared to 95 
percent in the case of common stock issues. The largest preferred 
stock issue — that of the United States Steel Corporation — had less 
than 67,000 shareholdings or only about 10 percent as many holdings 
as the most widely held common stock, that of the American Tele- 
phone & Telegraph Co. 5 

C. AVERAGE VALUE PER SHAREHOLDING 6 

The average value per shareholding obtained by dividing the total 
estimated value of all issues by the number of shareholdings amounted 
to just over $4,000 for common stocks and to about $3,700 for preferred 
stocks. 

The 208 common stock issues of the 200 corporations are distributed 
in table 26 (appendix IV) by the value of the average shareholding in 
each individual issue; comparable data are shown for preferred stocks 
in table 32 (appendix IV). Only 30 of the common stock issues, or less 
than 15 percent of the total, had an average value per shareholding of 
less than $1,000. Together these issues accounted for about 1,600,000 
shareholdings, or 23 percent of the total, but their aggregate value 
amounted to less than 3 percent of that of all 208 issues. At the 
other extreme, the average value per shareholding exceeded $10,000 
in 53 issues, comprising less than 5 percent of all shareholdings, but 
over 25 percent of the total value of all issues. The very wide range 
in the value of the average shareholding per issue of common stock 
represents to some extent, but by no means entirely, differences in the 
size of the original average investment. A considerable part of the 
variation in the 1937 market value of the average shareholding is a 

' The importance of a relatively few large issues is also shown when the individual issues are classified 
not by the number of shareholdings, but by their calculated value at the end of 1937. (See, in appendix IV, 
table 70 for common and table 71 for preferred stock.) The average market value per issue of common stock 
was about $135,000,000, but one-half of the issues had a value of about $60,000,000 or less. Among preferred 
■stocks the average value was only $26,000,000 and one-half of the issues showed a value of less than about 
$15,000,000. While each of the issuing corporations had assets of more than $60,000,000, over io percent of 
the common stock issues and about 40 percent of the preferred stock issues had a value of less than $10,000,000. 
Not less than 74 common stock issues, or over one-third of the total had a total value of $100,000,000, or more, 
but only 8 preferred stock issues exceeded that limit. These issues accounted for about 83 percent of the 
total value of all common and 28 percent of that of all preferred stock issues of the 200 corporations. 

8 The average value per shareholding reflects not only individual but corporate shareholdings which in 
some cases exert the more dominant influence. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 29 

result of price developments occurring after the initial offering. It is 
evident, in particular, that many of the issues which now show a very 
low value per average shareholding were hot distributed in correspond- 
ingly small blocks, the low value rather reflecting, to a large extent, 
decline in the price per share between the date of original offering and 
December 31, 1937. 

Among preferred stocks 32 issues, or again about 15 percent of the 
total number, had an average value per shareholding of less than 
$1,000. These accounted, together, for almost 25 percent of the total 
number of preferred shareholdings but less than 5 percent of their 
aggregate value. There were only 35 preferred stock issues with an 
average value per shareholding of $10,000 or more, accounting for 
merely 5 percent of all shareholdings, but for about 23 percent of the 
total value of all preferred stock issues, about the same proportions as 
existed among common stocks. 

Marked variations in the average value per shareholding occurred 
also among the different industries, as shown in table 22 (appendix IV) 
for common stocks and in table 28 (appendix IV) for preferred stocks. 
Among common stocks the average value per shareholding was con- 
siderably higher in the manufacturing group ($5,074), and in merchan- 
dising ($5,192), than in the railroads ($2,497), and in the electric 
power, gas, and water companies ($2,057). Much wider variations, of 
course, are shown between minor groups within the various industries, 
but these often are less significant because such subgroups contain 
only a small number of issues. The relatively high average value per 
shareholding in the chemical industry ($13,494), in the operating elec- 
tric power companies ($9,736), and in the tobacco industry ($7,281), 
as well as the very low value in the utility holding companies ($1,190), 
and in the food industries ($1,782), however, appear worth mentioning. 7 

For preferred stocks the variations were at least as large. Those of 
manufacturing companies showed an average value per shareholding 
■of $4,658, compared, on the one hand, to an average value of $7,599 
for merchandising companies, and on the other hand, to $3,733 for 
railroads and $2,677 for electric, gas, and water utilities. 

No definite relationship appeared to exist between the size of the 
issuer and the average value per shareholding. However, there was, 
as would be expected, a direct relationship between the market price 
per share and the average value per shareholding (the average value 
in general increasing with higher market price per share) and an inverse 
relationship between the average market value per shareholding and 
the number of shareholdings per issue (the average value declining 
rapidly with an increase in the number of shareholdings per issue). 

There may, however, be some interest in the fact that the average 
value per shareholding was much higher for unlisted common stock 
issues than for issues listed on an exchange, and that among listed 
issues those admitted to unlisted trading privileges on the New York 
Curb Exchange showed a much higher average value per shareholding 
than fully listed issues. Among fully listed issues, those listed on the 
New York Stock Exchange had a considerably higher value per aver- 
age shareholding ($3,954) than those listed on the New York Curb 
Exchange ($2,399) or only on national securities exchanges outside of 
New York ($1,228). The same relationship prevailed among issues 

These differences, obviously, are partly due to the appreciation and depreciation of the shares of these 
companies after original distribution. 



30 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

of preferred stock, with the exception that the unlisted issues had an 
average value per shareholding considerably below that of the listed 
issues, due primarily to the relative preponderance in this group of a 
sizable number of small shareholdings in low-priced utility issues. 

D. PROPORTION OF ODD-LOT AND FULL-LOT SHAREHOLDINGS 

Tables 22 to 33 (appendix IV) show the number of shareholdings of 
100 shares or less and the number and market value of the shares 
included in these holdings separately from similar information for 
shareholdings in blocks of over 100 shares. This is roughly equivalent 
to the distinction between odd lots and full lots. 8 

For all 208 common stock issues taken together 88 percent of the 
7,027,000 shareholdings fell into the category of 100 shares or less. 
As it is known from several samples that lots of exactly 100 shares 
constituted only about 5 percent of the total number of shareholdings, 
it may be estimated that odd-lot shareholdings accounted for some- 
what under 85 percent of all common shareholdings in the 200 cor- 
porations. The proportion was considerably higher among preferred 
stocks, where holdings of 100 shares or less accounted for 93.3 percent 
of all shareholdings and where odd-lot shareholdings may be estimated 
to have represented about 90 percent of the total. 

Notwithstanding their numerical preponderance, holdings of 100 
shares or less accounted for only 17.6 percent of all common shares 
and for 33 percent of all preferred shares of the 200 corporations. 
Again tentatively adjusting for lots of exactly 100 shares, it appears 
that odd lots accounted for somewhat less than 1 5 percent of common 
shares and a little less than 30 percent of preferred shares, whether 
measured by the number of shares held or by their aggregate market 
value. Combining common and preferred stocks, odd-lot sharehold- 
ings seemingly represented nearly seven-eighths of the total number 
of shareholdings, but accounted for not much over one-fifth of the 
total market value of all shares in the 200 corporations. 

Differences among industries in the proportion of shareholdings in 
lots of 100 shares or less were not very large for either common or 
preferred stocks. The proportion of shares included in such share- 
holdings of 100 shares or less, on the other hand, varied considerably. 
Of the common stocks of manufacturing companies, 18 percent of the 
outstanding shares was held in lots of 100 shares or less, compared to 
24 percent for railroads and over 41 percent for communication com- 
panies (chiefly American Telephone & Telegraph Co.) on the one hand, 
and 16 percent for merchandising companies and 14 percent for elec- 
tric, gas, and water utilities, on the other. Among preferred stocks 
the proportion amounted to about 35 percent for manufacturing cor- 
porations and 34 percent for utility companies, compared to only 25 
percent for railroads and 12% percent for both merchandising and 
communication companies. 

In general, the proportion of shareholdings in lots of 100 shares or 
less tended to increase with a rise in the market price of the issue. 
No clear relationship existed between the proportion of shareholdings 
of 100 shares or less and the size of the issuer or the market value of 



' On the New York Stock Exchange "odd lots" generally refer to lots from 1 to 99 shares. Thus, a lot of 
exactly 100 shares is ordinarily regarded as a round lot, while in tables 22 to 33, blocks of 100 shares are 
combined with those of 1-99 shares. This particular classification was made necessary by the terminology 
of the original questionnaire of the Research Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 31 

the average shareholding. The proportion of shareholdings of 100 
shares or less and of the shares included in such holdings tended to 
increase somewhat with 'the number of shareholdings per issue. Issues 
admitted to full trading privileges on any exchange showed higher 
proportions of holdings of 100 shares or less and of shares included in 
such holdings than issues admitted to unlisted trading privileges only, 
and for common stocks, higher proportions than both issues not listed 
on any national securities exchange or admitted to unlisted trading 
privileges only. 

4. THE VALUE DISTRIBUTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

In distinction to the presentation in tables 22 to 33 (appendix IV) 
of shareholdings in the 404 common and preferred stock issues of the 
200 largest nonfinancial corporations in terms of significant over-all 
figures, tables 34 to 45 (appendix IV) present a detailed breakdown of 
total shareholdings by dollar-value groups. 

A. METHOD OF COMPUTATION 

In the original schedule submitted by these companies to the Securi- 
ties and Exchange Commission, the size distribution of holdings was 
based on the number of shares in each holding. 9 Seven size classes 
(1-10, 11-25, 26-100, 101-500, 501-1,000,' 1,001-5,000, and over 5,000 
shares or similar groups) were available for practically all issues with 
the exception of the largest issues for which more detailed information 
was generally given. To transform this classification of shareholdings 
for each issue from a share basis to a value basis — a transformation 
essential for several comparisons — the limits of each size class were 
multiplied by the price per share on December 31, 1937, with the 
result that the value limits for each size class differed from issue to 
issue. 10 In order to group different issues together it was essential to 
use some uniform classification. For this purpose, five value classes 
of shareholdings were set up, the lowest class including all sharehold- 
ings with a value of $500 or less, the second to fourth consisting of 
those with values of $501 to $1,000, $1,001 to $5,000, and $5,001 to 
$10,000 respectively, while the fifth value class comprised all share- 
holdings valued at over $10,000. In cases where the original market- 
value range, derived by multiplying the limits of ti size class in a single 
issue by the price per share, overlapped two or more of these five uni- 
form value classes, shareholdings had to be allocated among them by 
interpolation. This was done on the assumption of an even distribu- 
tion of shareholdings within the original size classes except for the 
highest size group (over 5,000 shares) for which information, available 
in most cases on the actual size of the 20 largest shareholdings, was 
used as the basis for allocation. This procedure inevitably results in 
some distortion of the actual distribution in many individual issues 
and for small groups of issues. However, judging from tests which 
have been made, the shortcomings of this method of transforming size- 
classes (in terms of number of shares) into value classes of sharehold- 
ings do not appear to be serious enough to invalidate any general 
conclusions. 

• These data will be discussed infra, pp. 35-6. 

,0 For example, the value limits of the 1-10 share group would be $25 and $250 for an issue selling at $25 per 
share, while they would be $75 and $750 for an issue selling at $75 a share. 

jr,s445 — 41 — No. 29 4 



32 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

B. COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

Chart IV shows the number of shareholdings in each of the five value 
classes separately for common and for preferred stocks. Nearly one- 
half of the 7,027,000 common shareholdings had a value of $500 or less 
at the prices of December 31, 1937. Holdings with a value of $501 to 
$1,000 constituted about 16 percent of the total number of common 
shareholdings, while those with a value of $1,001 to $5,000 each 
amounted to about 25 percent of the total number. Only slightly less 
than 5 percent of all shareholdings had a value individually of $5,001 
to $10,000, and of over $10,000, respectively. 

Among the 1,394,000 preferred shareholdings the percentage of hold- 
ings with a value of $500 or less was about 10 percent lower than that 
among common stocks. Each of the other four value groups accounted 
for a somewhat higher percentage among preferred shareholdings than 
among common, the difference being particularly visible in the higher 
proportion of holdings valued between $501 to $1,000 and $5,001 to 
$10,000. 

Taking common and preferred stock issues together, it appears that 
about 4,000,000 shareholdings, or slightly less than one-half of the total 
number, had a value of $500 or less. About 1,375,000 or 16 percent 
of all shareholdings were valued from $501 to $1,000, and about 
2,180,000 or almost 26 percent had a value of $1,001 to $5,000. There 
were only about 450,000 shareholdings (5 percent of the total), how- 
ever, with a value of $5,001 to $10,000 and 414,000 shareholdings (5 
percent) valued at over $10,000. 

C DIFFERENCES AMONG INDUSTRIAL GROUPS 

Among the major industrial groups, holdings of lowest value (i. e., 
up to $500) were relatively most numerous among the electric, gas, 
and water utilities foi toe common stock issues and among the rail- 
roads for the preferred stocks. (See appendix IV, table 34, for. com- 
mon stock and table 40 for preferred stock.) Among the common 
stocks generally — except for a few industrial subdivisions dominated 
by high priced, widely held issues or those reflecting exclusively the 
situation in some closely held companies — the distribution pattern of 
greatest frequency was one of largest number of shareholdings in the 
value group up to $500, sharp recession in the $501 to $1,000 value 
class, substantial rise to a secondary peak in the $1,001 to $5,000 group 
and precipitate tapering off beyond that level. The more exceptional 
pattern of progressive decline in number of shareholdings from one 
value group to another was shown in only a few instances, most 
notably by department stores and utility holding companies. 

Over 50 percent of all common shareholdings fell into the lowest 
value class (that of up to $500) in the groups comprising food and 
related products, textiles, paper and allied products, tire and other 
rubber products, automobiles and parts, department stores, amuse- 
ments, all subgroups of the transportation industry and electric, gas, 
and water utility holding companies. 11 In most of the other industrial 
subgroups the proportion of total common shareholdings with a value 
of $500 or less ranged from 30 to 50 percent. 

11 Concentration ii> the lowest value group is, of course, more significant in such cases as the electric, gas. 
and water utility hoi ling companies, the railroads and food products among the industrials than in the 
textile and paper cor panies, for example, because of the more substantial coverage in the former instances. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



33 



Chart IV. — Estimated distribution by value* of shareholdings of common and 
preferred stock of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 



MILLIONS 



NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 



VALUE OF 
SHAREHOLDINGS 

'A Over S10, 000 

I 

$5,001 - $10,000 



$1,001 - $5,000 
$501 - $1,000 
Less than $501 




MILLIONS 




10 



- 2 




ALL 
STXK ISSUES 



* Baaed on market prices on or about bee. 31, 1937 



34 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Among the companies in the tobacco products, chemical, miscel- 
laneous manufacturing industries, and communications, however, 
less than 30 percent of all common shareholdings fell into this lowest 
value class. Lumber and lumber products, printing and publishing, 
and the wholesale, commission, and brokerage group among the 
merchandising issues were the only industrial groups which showed 
the largest number of shareholdings in the highest value class — a re- 
sult to be expected in view of the fact that these subgroups consisted 
of but one issue each and reflected the situation in 3 of the most 
closely held among the 200 companies, namely, Weyerhaeuser Timber 
Co., Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., and Anderson, Clayton 
& Co. Among the major groups represented by a larger number of 
companies, the smallest proportion of all comrrion shareholdings to 
fall in the top value class was in the electric, gas, and water utility 
holding companies. 

Among the preferred stocks (table 35, appendix IV), the share- 
holdings with a value of $500 or less accounted for over 50 percent of 
all holdings in only a handful of industrial groups, in particular the 
extractive industries, textiles, printing and publishing, amusement, 
and all divisions of transportation. The significance of this concen- 
tration was greatest in the case of the railroads because of the rela- 
tively heavier coverage of the field. In general, the range of variation 
among the various value classes was wider for preferred shareholdings 
than for the correspondingly grouped common shareholdings because 
of the more numerous instances among the preferreds in which in- 
dividual issue's dominated the composite industrial picture. 

D. OTHER DIFFERENCES 

The largest proportion of common shareholdings in the lowest value 
class and the smallest proportion of holdings in the highest value 
class were found, according to table 35 (appendix IV), among the 
companies with assets of under $100,000,000. The smallest relative 
proportion of holdings in the lowest value class and the largest in the 
intermediate $1,001 to $5,000 group occurred in corporations with 
assets of $200,000,000 to $500,000,000. The distribution pattern of 
shareholdings by value in companies with assets of $500,000,000 and 
over approximated more closely that of the lowest asset class than that 
of either of the intermediate size groups. In these largest of the 200 
corporations, a little over 50 percent of all holdings had a value of 
$500 or less while only 4.3 percent was valued in excess of $10,000. 

Among the preferred shareholdings, classified by size of corporation 
(table 41, appendix IV), the variation in the proportion of holdings 
falling within the various value classes was less pronounced than 
among the common shareholdings. In general, however, the propor- 
tion of total holdings having a value in excess of $5,000 was somewhat 
larger among the preferred issues, but in none of the size groups did 
the proportion of holdings valued at $5,000 or less drop below about 
85 percent of the total. 

In the classification of shareholdings by market price of shares at 
December 31, 1937 (see appendix IV, table 36 for common stocks and 
table 42, for preferred stocks), there appears an obvious inverse correla- 
tion between price of issue and proportion of holdings in the lowest 
value class; the higher priced the issue, the lower the proportion of 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 35 

holdings in the lowest value class. The reverse situation occurred, 
though less clearly, in the highest value group, the proportion of such 
holdings rising steadily with increase in price of the issue. 

The classification by number of shareholdings per issue (appendix 
IV, table 37 for common stocks and table 43 for preferred stocks) 
gives, naturally enough, a rather clear-cut impression of the effect of 
dispersion of ownership upon the distribution of holdings among the 
various value groups. The larger the number of shareholdings per 
issue, the heavier the concentration of shareholdings in the lowest 
value group and the smaller the proportion of holdings in the highest 
value class. Of the 52 shareholdings of the 17 common stock issues 
with less than 100 holdings each, only 6 were valued at $500 or less 
and 32 had a value in excess of $10,000. At the opposite extreme, 
of the 3,063,000 holdings in the 13 common stock issues with 100,000 
shareholdings or more, about 52 percent was valued at up to $500 
and fewer than 4 percent had a value in excess of $10,000. Among 
the preferred stocks the same general tendencies in the relationship 
between number of shareholdings per issue and proportion of holdings 
in the various value groups appeared, except for the more moderate 
variation in percentages from the more closely to the more widely 
held issues. 

When related to the market value of the average shareholding per 
issue, the distribution of shareholdings by value groups (see appendix 
IV, table 38 for common stocks and table 44 for preferred stocks) 
followed the same general pattern as appeared in the classification by 
market price per issue. 

The distribution of shareholdings among the various value groups 
by the listing status of the shares (see appendix IV, table 39 for com- 
mon stocks and table 45 for preferred stocks) shows that among the 
listed common stock issues of registered corporations, those listed on 
the New York Stock Exchange had the smallest percentage of holdings 
in the lowest value class and the highest percentage of holdings in the 
highest value class. This was true of the preferred stocks as well. As 
between listed and unlisted issues, however, the preferred and common 
stocks exhibited markedly divergent tendencies. Among common 
stocks, the unlisted issues showed a very much smaller percentage of 
shareholdings in the lowest value class than the listed issues and a very 
much larger percentage of holdings in the highest value class. Among 
preferred stock issues no such differences appeared. 

5. DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE 
OF INDIVIDUAL HOLDING 

In contrast to the distribution of all record shareholdings in the 200 
corporations by value of holdings discussed in section 4 (appendix IV, 
tables 34 to 45), tables 46 to 69 (appendix IV) reflect the distribution 
of these holdings on the basis of the number of shares in each holding. 
Because of the lack of complete uniformity in the size intervals among 
which the original data on shareholdings were distributed, the tabular 
presentation in this instance has of necessity been made in two sections 
for each type of stock, common and preferred. Accompanying each 
of the oven-numbered tables from 46 through 68 in appendix IV, 
which cover the companies submitting the information for seven size 
classes exactly as defined in the questionnaire, is a subsidiary table 



36 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

presenting, on a comparable basis, similar data relating to that 
minority of issues for which the reports deviated more or less from 
the pattern of distribution by size asked for in the questionnaire. 12 

For 175 of the 208 common stock issues, and 176 out of the 196 pre- 
ferred stock issues, data were available on a comparable basis for the 
7 intervals requested in the questionnaire; i. e., 1-10, 11-25, 26-100, 
101-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-5,000, and over 5,000 shares. The common 
stock issues for which the information was available in this standard 
form accounted for almost 59 percent of the total common sharehold- 
ings, about 70 percent of all outstanding shares, and about 68 percent 
of the total value of all 208 stock issues. Coverage was more nearly 
complete for preferred stocks, about 87 percent of aggregate holdings 
and outstanding shares and 86 percent of aggregate value being repre- 
sented by issues with the data in standard form. 

By combination of the tables for the distributions in standard and 
in irregular form it is found that of the total 7,027,000 shareholdings 
in all 208 common stock issues, about 88 percent comprised 100 shares 
or less, almost 10 percent ranged individually from 101-500 shares 
each, and a little over 1 percent from 501 to 1,000 shares, while less 
than 1 percent fell in the 1,001-5,000 share category and about one- 
fourth of 1 percent comprised over 5,000 shares each. The correspond- 
ing proportions of total shares held were 17.6 percent for the 1-100 
share group, 21.1 percent for the 101-1,000 share group, 12.8 percent 
for the 1,001-5,000 share group, and 48.4 percent for the one-fourth 
of 1 percent of holdings with over 5,000 shares each — confirmation once 
again of the tendency evident in several phases of this study toward 
concentration of ownership of a preponderant proportion of total com- 
mon shareholdings among a very limited percentage of all holdings. 

Judging by the 175 common stock issues for which a uniformly 
detailed subdivision of holdings of 100 shares or less was available, 
about 33 percent of total such holdings included 1-10 shares; 24 per- 
cent, 11-25 shares; and 31 percent, 26-100 shares. The corresponding 
proportions of shares held were 1% percent for all holdings of 1-10 
shares each, 3 percent for those of 11-25 shares, and about 12 percent 
for the holdings comprising 26-100 shares each. 13 

Combining corresponding tabulations among the preferred stocks, 
it appears that of the total 1,394,000 shareholdings in all 196 issues, 
a little over 93 percent comprised 100 shares or less, about 6 percent 
ranged individually from 101 to 500 shares each, about one-half of 1 
percent from 501 to 1,000 shares, and less than one-half of 1 percent 
from 1,001 to 5,000 shares each, while only one-tenth of 1 percent 
included in excess of 5,000 shares. The corresponding proportions of 
total shares held were, in the same order, 33.0, 20.9, 7.2, 14.3, and 24.6 
percent — confirmation from a different approach of the previously 
noted lesser degree of concentration among preferred than among 
common shareholdings. Holdings of over 1,000 shares accounted 
for only 40 percent of nil outstanding preferred shares, compared 
to over 60 percent among common stocks. 

Touching briefly upon some of the more Salient points of similarity 
and contrast in size distribution between preferred and common 

u The most common d fferenee between the size distributions in standard form and those in irregular 
form were in the groups within the limits up to 100 shares. Variations here were so numerous as to make 
uniform classification within narrower limits impossible. 

18 More complete coverage of all 208 common stock issues in this detailed comparison would have resulted 
in some, but apparently only moderate, modification of these percentage relationships. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 37 

shareholdings in relation to various basic characteristics, it is noted 
from the asset size classification (appendix IV, tables 48 and 49 for 
common stocks and tables 60 and 61 for preferred stocks) that the 
percentage of shareholdings in each of the groups over 25 shares is 
lower among preferred than among common stocks regardless of 
asset size of the issuer corporation. In the 11-25 share group propor- 
tionate holdings are about the same. In the 1-10 share group, how- 
ever, tendencies are reversed, and the proportion of such holdings is 
sharply higher for preferred than for common stock issues. (Much 
of the difference between preferred and common stock is, of course, 
due to the higher average price at which preferred stocks sell.) In 
relation to total shares outstanding, the proportion of shares held 
in every size class is uniformly higher for preferred than for common 
stocks in all but the top category of over 5,000 shares. 14 

The size classification of shareholdings by market price of shares at 
December 31, 1937 (see appendix IV, tables 50 and 51 for common 
stocks, and tables 62 and 63 for preferred stocks) fails to show any 
clearly defined relationship between the proportion of shareholdings 
falling within the various size groups and the price of the issue. 

Among the preferred stocks there appears a tendency toward steady 
diminution in the proportion of holdings in the size groups over 100 
shares and, to a lesser extent, in the 26-100 share group as well, with 
increase in the number of shareholdings per issue. (See appendix IV, 
tables 52 and 53 for common stock and tables 64 and 65 for preferred 
stock.) Among the common stocks this tendency does not become 
clearly established until the 501-1,000 share group is reached. In 
both types of stock, on the other hand, but less clearly among the 
preferreds, one notes among size groups from 100 shares down — par- 
ticularly in the groups composed of 1 to 10 and 11 to 25 shares — a 
definite trend toward steady rise in proportion of shareholdings with 
increase in number of sharenoldings per issue. 

The classification by listing status (appendix IV, tables 56 and 57 
for common stock and tables 68 and 69 for preferred stock) provides 
corroborative evidence of the difference in type of holding in unlisted 
preferred as opposed to unlisted common stocks, unlisted preferred 
stocks showing a heavy concentration in the smaller-size holdings, 
while unlisted common stocks show a relatively high proportion of 
large holdings. 

6. CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP 

A. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT 

The preceding sections have dealt with certain totals of sharehold- 
ings in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. They have given 
a concrete idea of the number of sharenoldings of different size and 
their relative importance among the 200 corporations, and have indi- 
cated differences in size distribution of sharenoldings by type of stock, 
industry and size of issuer, price of issue, number of shareholdings 
and average value of shareholding per issue. These sections have also 
touched briefly upon the concentration of ownership prevailing among 
the 200 corporations, by indicating the relatively small number of 

14 Allowing for those issues covered in the subsidiary tabulations, this shift in tendency probably occurs 
actually somewhat under the 5.000-share level. 



gg CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

large shareholdings and the relatively large number of shares included 
in these not too numerous holdings. This sixth section is specifically 
devoted to a discussion of the degree of concentration of ownership 
in the 200 corporations and of differences in concentration between 
different types of stocks and issuers. 

As in the preceding sections, the basic material consists of the data 
on the size distribution of shareholdings of each of the equity issues 
of the 200 corporations. Two distributions are available. In the 
first distribution the total number of shareholdings and shares out- 
standing are arranged in 7 groups on the basis of the number of shares 
in each individual holding. The second distribution, derived from 
the first as described in section 4, is based, on the other hand, on the 
estimated market value at the end of 1937 of each individual share- 
holding; it shows the number of shareholdings falling within 5 value 
classes, but not the number or the aggregate market value of the 
shares included in the holdings in each value class. 

It is important to remember that both distributions are based on 
record shareholdings as they appear on the books of the 200 corpora- 
tions with the result that shares owned by numerous individual stock- 
holders, generally in relatively small blocks, frequently appear as a 
smaller number of larger shareholdings registered in the names of 
nominees, mainly brokers and banks. 15 The available figures thus 
tend to exaggerate somewhat the degree of concentration existing 
among the beneficial owners of the stock of the 200 corporations. An 
attempt is made in section 7 to obtain a rough idea of the difference 
between the distribution of record shareholdings and beneficial share- 
holdings. While it is concluded that for all 200 corporations combined 
the distribution of ownership is only slightly less concentrated on the 
basis of beneficial ownership than on the basis of record ownership, 
the difference may be substantial in individual corporations and un- 
doubtedly is in a number of instances. Furthermore, it is possible 
that fairly sizable differences in this respect may even characterize 
whole groups of corporations but it has been attempted to make 
allowance for this factor in internreting the data. 

Ownership of an issue of stock may be regarded as equally distrib- 
uted if every shareholding is equally large or, in other words, if every 
stockholder owns the same proportion of stock outstanding. The 
more the actual distribution deviates from this perfectly equal distri- 
bution, tne more concentrated the ownership. 16 This concept of con- 
centration of ownership has been utilized to construct graphs, generally 

1J On the other hand, there are a number of instances in which several record shareholdings in the same 
stock are owned beneficially by the same person through nominees. These are considered, however, to 
have only a relatively small effect on the results. 

18 In this section, the term "concentration of ownership" in an individual corporation will refer to the 
extent of the inequality of the distribution of ownership among the stockholders of that corporation. More 
specifically, the concentration of ownership in one corporation will be said to be greater than the concentra- 
tion of ownership in another corporation when it takes on the average a smaller proportion of the sharehold- 
ings in the first corporation to account for a designated proportion of the shares. The particular measure of 
concentration which will be used in this section is the area between the Lorenz curve and the line of equal 
distribution. 

This concept of concentration of ownership is quite unambiguous. There are, however, other aspects of 
concentration of ownership of a corporation which are not covered in this concept. Possibly the most im- 
portant limitation of the concept used here is the fact that it relates to the distribution of ownership of some 
corporation or issue among a group of stockholders without regard to their number. Thus, a corporation 
might be closely held and yet not at all concentrated in its ownership according to this concept, viz, if each 
of the few stockholders owned the same amount of stock— even though its ownership is unquestionably 
concentrated from the point of view of the general population or of all stockholders. For some purposes, 
therefore, concentration might be measured by a second and entirely independent figure, the reciprocal of 
the number of shareholdings, a figure which may be used in conjunction with the measure derived from the 
Lorenz curve. This second measure will not be used in the present section, but comparison of the degree 
of concentration among individual issues or groups will be limited to issues or groups with a considerable 
number of shareholdings. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 39 

known as Lorenz curves, which indicate visually the degree of concen- 
tration of record ownership existing in any stock issue. The Lorenz 
curves are constructed by connecting a number of points derived from 
the distribution data, each of these points indicating the percentage 
of the total issue outstanding which is included in a certain percentage 
of the shareholdings cumulated from the largest shareholding down- 
ward. By such linking a broken line is obtained, which will ordinarily 
approximate a smooth curve more and more closely as the number of 
points increases. 17 The limited number of points available for this 
study does not permit drawing a smooth curve. Thus all the charts 
show the broken line obtained by linking the actual points as derived 
from the data for each issue (see sees. II and III of appendix III) . 
The size of the area between the broken line and the line of equal 
distribution indicates the degree of concentration; the larger this 
area, the higher the concentration. 18 

The concept and measure of concentration of ownership, as de- 
scribed above, are readily applicable to an individual corporation or, 
rather, to an individual issue of stock. Certain difficulties arise, 
however, when it is attempted to characterize a group of corporations 
or stock issues in a similar manner, that is, to measure the average 
degree of concentration of ownership prevailing in the group. An 
obvious solution to this problem is to use the median area under the 
Lorenz curve, together with some measure of its representativeness. 
Such a measure is based on an entire issue as a unit and each share- 
holding receives a weight based on its size relative to all shareholdings 
of the same issue only. Another measure which can be utilized is the 
area under the Lorenz curve obtained by combining all the share- 
holdings of the issues covered by the report or of some smaller group 
of issues. This aggregate measure is based on the shareholding as a 
unit and each shareholding receives a weight based on its size relative 
to all the shareholdings of the issues included in the group. In such 
an approach, the shareholdings in a number of corporations are grouped 
together and treated as if they all formed part of one large issue. 
Since the data for the aggregate Lorenz curves have already been 
obtained as a basis for the discussion of the value and share distri- 
bution of individual shareholdings (sees. 4 and 5), these are used instead 
of the median Lorenz curves in the graphic presentation of concen- 
tration of ownership of the various groups of corporations. 19 In the 
textual discussion, however, any important differences between the 
aggregate and median measures will be pointed out. 

Two measures of aggregate concentration of ownership in a group of 
corporations have actually been used, one based on the value distribu- 
tion of shareholdings in all corporations in the group, the other based 

17 There are only 8 points available on the basis of size of shareholdings (viz. the point representing the 
percentage of all shareholdings constituted by those of more than 5,000 shares and the proportion of all shares 
outstanding included in these holdings, and so on downward) and only 6 points where the distribution by 
value groups of holdings is utilized. In the latter case the proportion of the total value of the issue repre- 
sented by shareholdings in a certain value group must be estimated, generally by multiplication of the 
number of shareholdings by an estimated average value. 

18 The area between the broken line and the line of equal distribution will always be smaller than the area 
between the line of equal distribution and the curve which would be obtained if all points were available. 
Consequently, the estimated degree of concentration will always be smaller than the actual degree of con- 
centration. The size of this error, although relatively small, is not constant, being larger for issues with a 
relatively low degree of concentration of ownership than for issues with high concentration. This factor, 
however, has been taken into consideration in comparing various groups of issues with respect to significant 
differences in the distribution of their ownership. 

■ '• Another reason for the use of the aggregate measure of concentration of ownership was to make the treat- 
ment of the subject in this report comparable to that followed in a companion report on the size distribution 
of ownership of 1.710 corporations with securities listed on a national securities exchange. In the companion 
report it was not feasible to follow the median approach in view of the large number of issues involved for 
each of which the area under the Lorenz curve would have had to be determined separately. 



40 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

on the share distribution of holdings. For an individual corporation 
or rather an individual issue, both measures of concentration are 
identical. However, for a group of corporations this is no longer true 
because of the different weighting inherent in the two measures. Thus 
in the aggregate value distribution of shareholdings the same weight 
is given to shareholdings of equal value regardless of the number of 
shares in each holding. Conversely, in the share distribution the 
same weight is given to shareholdings comprising the same number of 
shares regardless of their value. The share distribution has the 
advantage of being derived directly from the original data while in the 
value distribution it was necessary to resort to interpolation with the 
attendant possibilities of error. The value distribution, on the other 
hand, has the advantage of putting issues of various prices on a com- 
parable basis; furthermore, the information it provides — viz, the 
number and relative importance of shareholdings of a certain value — 
is more interesting than that given by the share distribution. The 
relatively small differences between the concentration of ownership 
indicated by the value and share distributions are probably due mainly 
to the different weights given to the same issue by the two approaches. 
However, they also reflect to some extent errors in the interpolation 
used to derive tne value distribution of the shareholdings in individual 
corporations from the share distributions. 

The procedure described above makes it possible to depict by a 
single curve the distribution of ownership of all the 200 corporations or 
large segments thereof. The composite nature of such aggregates of 
concentration must, however, be borne in mind in their interpretation. 

B. RESULTS 

Chart V shows the Lorenz curves for the aggregate of all stock issues 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, based on the estimated 
distribution by the end-of-1937 value of all 8,500,000 individual share- 
holdings. One curve is based on the aggregate for all 208 common 
stock issues and the other on that for all 196 preferred stock issues 
of the 200 corporations. As the Lorenz curve for preferred stocks is 
nearer to the line of equal distribution than that for common stocks, 
it is apparent that the degree of concentration of ownership was 
smaller among the preferred stock issues of these 200 corporations 
than among their common stock issues. 20 It took less than the largest 
3 percent of common shareholdings — i. e., less than about 200,000 out 
of 7,027,000 — to account for one-half of the total value of shares out- 
standing, and le3s than 15 percent of all shareholdings was necessary 
to account for four-fifths of their aggregate value. For preferred 
stocks, on the other hand, nearly the largest 5 percent of sharehold- 
ings was required to account for one-half ofthe total value of the issues, 
and it took about 23 percent of all shareholdings to account for four- 
fifths of the value. Looking at these curves from a slightly different 
point of view, it is seen that the largest 10 percent of shareholdings 
accounted for approximately 75 percent of the total value of all 
common stock issues, but for only about 65 percent of that of all pre- 
ferred stock issues of the 200 corporations. These figures indicate 
that, while the degree of concentration was somewhat smaller among 

20 This mav be attributable in small part to the greater importance of nominee shareholdings in the com- 
mon than in* the preferred stock. Another and more important factor lies in the fact that large corporate 
holdings are more usually lound in common than in preferred stock. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



41 



preferred than among common stock issues, it was very large in both 
cases. This is shown in chart V by the smailness of the area under the 
Lorenz curves. 21 

Chart VI indicates the degree of concentration for the preferred 
and common stock issues of the three major industrial groups. 22 
Apparently, ownership of the common stock is more concentrated 
than that of the preferred stock in both manufacturing and electric, 

Chart V. — Concentration of ownership of stock in 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 



100 






















00 


































































_3 70 

o 

£T 














V 






\\ 
























o 












y 










2 










V 












_3 

g 40 

O 








y 










)\ 


















> 
/ 


' J 


£_, _ 
















/ 




E 
u 










Preferre 


d Stock Issues 


/ / 




20 










1 1 ^ 


/ / 












1 I \ 


f / 














Common Stock Issues .' 






10 
















^^v, 










__ — 


.. ^ 






*> 
^ 
^ 


















20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

PERCENT OF TOTAL VALUE*0F SHARES OUTSTANDING 
Based on market prices on or about Dec. 31, 1937 



Ds-ieu 



gas, and water utility corporations. In the relatively few railroad cor- 
porations included in the study, concentration appears slightly higher 
among the preferred stocks, but the difference is so small that no 
significance can be attached to it, and the relationship is actually 

" The median areas under the Lorenz curves show slightly less concentration for both common and pre- 
ferred stock than the aggregate areas, but the difference between the measures of concentration of owner- 
ship in common and preferred stock is in the same direction and is even slightly more pronounced for the 
median areas. 

21 This chart, as well as all the following charts, has been based on the size distribution by number of shares 
held and not, like chart V, on the distribution of shareholdings by value, because there are 8 points available 
for this size distribution compared to only 6 points for the value distribution, and because no estimates are 
necessary to determine the proportion of the total number of shares represented by each group of holdings. 
These data, however, are available in comparable form for only 351 of the 404 issues. 



42 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



reversed when the median measures of concentration of the two 
groups (i. e., the median areas under the Lorenz curves for the com- 
mon and preferred stock) are compared. Chart VI also indicates 
that the ownership of .common stock is slightly more concentrated 
among the utility corporations than among the manufacturing and 
railroad corporations included in the group. 23 The concentration of 



Chart VI. 



-Concentration of ownership in 351 stock issues of 170 large 
nonfinancial corporations 

Classified by Industry 



ALL NON-FINANCIAL CORPS. 



- 








- 








- 








- 






1 


. 






// - 


- 




Preferr 
(176 Issu 


ed ji 


/ 


Common 


/ I 
/ / 


/ 


(175 Issues)-^/ 






ir L.~--;> 





MANUFACTURING CORPS. 


• 






/ 
/ 1 


" 






1 

11 
If 
'/" 

if 










' 




Preferred !/ ' 
(67 IssuesLj/ [ 


/ 


Common / / 


/ 


(86 Issues Ls 


y 


/ 







ELEC. POWER, GAS & WATER CORPS 



- 




/ 


- 




/ \ 








/ 1 








1 








1 1- 


- 




Preferrred / / " 






(75 Issues )y^f J 








/ 


/ Common 


/' 1 

/ 1 


/ (43 Issues )~y( 




/ l.--''^ 







RAILROAD COR PS . 




- 






/ 


■ 








- 








- 






1 


. 






/'■ 


■ 




Common JJ ■ 


- 




(22 Issues)-^/i ' 


~ 






7/ 


/ 


Preferred 
( 17 Issues L 


ft 
// 
// 


/ 




2/ 



50 75 100 S5 50 
FERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



ownership of preferred stock appears to be considerably higher for 
railroad corporations than for either manufacturing or "utility com- 
panies, which do not show much of a difference from this point of view. 
The degree of concentration is shown by chart VII to be slightly 
higher among the very large corporations (assets over $200,000,000) 
than among those of more moderate size (assets $60,000,000 to 
$200,000,000). Though the same relationship is obtained -when the 
median measures of concentration of the two groups are compared, 

« One important factor contributing to this result is found in the large holdings of utility holding com- 
panies in other utility issues, apart from wholly-owned issues which were excluded. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



43 



Chart VII.— Concentration of ownership in 351 stock issues of 170 large 
nonfinancial corporations 
Classified by* Size of Assets 



COMMON STOCK 




100 



75 



50 



25 



100 



75 



50 



25 



25 50 75 100 

PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



LS-1536 



44 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

analysis shows that this results from the relatively large weight given 
to the utility companies among the very large corporations, and that 
size in itself does not appear to introduce any significant differences in 
the degree of concentration of ownership among these* large corpora- 
tions. Concentration is smaller in both cases for the preferred stock 
issues than for the common stock issues. 24 

While the degree of concentration of ownership varies, of course, 
quite considerably among the 404 issues of the 200 largest corporations, 
the distribution is in almost all cases very far away from the line' of 
equal distribution. 25 Sections II and lit of appendix III permit an 
approximate evaluation of the degree of concentration in each of the 
404 issues. 26 It appears from these data that in about one-half of the 
common stock issues only approximately 1% percent of the book 
shareholdings is necessary to constitute a majority of the total stock 
outstanding, while for one-half of the preferred stock issues less than 
the largest 3 percent of shareholdings is required to account for 50 
percent of the shares. There are only very few common stock issues 
in which it takes more than 5 percent of the shareholdings to account 
for a majority of the issue. In not more than a quarter of the issues 
is it necessary to combine more than the largest 2% percent of the 
shareholdings in order to attain 50 percent of the number of shares 
outstanding. On the other hand, over 5 percent of the shareholdings 
is required in about one-third of the preferred stock issues to account 
for 50 percent of the issue. 27 

Charts VIII to X show concentration of ownership as reflected in 
the Lorenz curves for the common stock issues of a number of repre- 
sentative companies in the major industries, and charts XI and XII 
present the same picture for preferred stocks. The issues have been 
chosen mainly to illustrate cases of different degrees of concentration. 
The selection was influenced also by the desire to have the more 
important corporations in each industry represented and to include 
only, so far as possible, issues of substantial size for which the dis- 
tribution data were available in at least the detail requested in the 
questionnaire. 

In most industries covered by the charts there is a considerable 
difference in the degree of concentration among the issues selected. 
Among the three steel companies, for instance, ownership of the com- 
mon stock is considerably more concentrated in the Inland Steel Co. 
than in the United States Steel 'Corporation and the Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, both of which present a practically identical picture. In 
the motor industry, the ownership of the General Motors Corporation 
is somewhat more concentrated than that of the Chrysler Corporation. 
Among the large tire and rubber companies ownership is most con- 
centrated in the United States Rubber Co. and least in the B. F. Good- 

2 < The results discussed above have all been checked by a partial analysis based on median measures of 
concentration (together with measures of representativeness) of the various subgroups of companies referred 
to. Whenever one of the three factors (industry, size of corporation, and type of stock) was considered, the 
other two were kept constant. Price of issue also was introduced into the analysis, but differences in price 
did not appear to be associated with differences in the degree of concentration of ownership. 

2S For almost all subgroups of companies considered there is a rather marked clustering of measures of 
concentration of ownership in individual corporations (i. e. the areas under the Lorenz curves for individual 
corporations) about the median for the group (i. e. the median area under the Lorenz curve). In other 
words, there is a rather high degree of similarity among the patterns of distribution of ownership in different 
corporations in the group. 

29 For each issue the proportion of shareholdings necessary to account for 50 percent of the shares, as well as 
the area under the Lorenz curves has been computed. These figures, however, are not presented in ap- 
pendix III. 

27 All these figures are based on record shareholdings. The proportion of holdings required to account for a 
majority of the shares outstanding wculd be somewhat higher if the calculations were based on beneficial 
shareholdings. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



45 



Chart VIII. — Concentration of ownership in the common stock issues of 17 large 
steel, automobile, nonferrous metal, tire and rubber, chemical, and machinery 
nonfinancial corporations. 




NON-FERROUS METAL 





















/i 
/i 










It 
\i 

It 

lc~ 


■ 








It 


. 










. 




Kennecott- 






/ 


A 


naconda—^ 




■ 


■ / Amer. Smelting ^iC 
./ & Refining ~^^' 







AUTOMOBILE 



■ 














[ 


- 






/■ 


- 






/ 


- 




Chrysler— ~1 
If 


■ / 


General 


Motors-^* 


It 

li 
J i 

y i 
i 





TIRE AN1 


RUBBER 








/U.S. 


Rubber — w 


■ 




Goodr 


l\: 

if; - 

ich —-i/i ' 
'/.•■ 


- 






'A - 
























/ 


Goodyear^^ / 
















. / 


A^P 


• 


/ . . . . 


i . . , 





CHEMICAL 










/ 














du Pon 


4 


' / All 


Ur.io 
ied Cnezic 


1 ' 1 : 
n Carbide «~/ / : 

al-^A/J - 



MACHINERY 











- 














•■/' 








;/l 






/ Hestinghouse—'l i 






i //; 


. 


/Int. Business 
/ 1 Mach. 


■•/ ' 
.'/ 1 " 




Singer Mfi.^.--'' 


/ ' 
^/ 1 


■/ 


^fs^ 


€3- 


/ 



.50 75 100 25 50 
PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



46 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart IX. — Concentration of ownership in the common stock issues of 16 large 
tobacco, meat packing, container, food, retail trade, and communication non- 
financial corporations 







TOBACCO 














75 

50 
















it 

V 

// : 
'/ • 




/R.J. 


Reynolds, 


7 ■■ 

"A"—-Jh~\\ 


25 




/ 


// 


/Aier 


Ligget & 
• 
Tobacco 


Heuers, 







" / 





HEAT PACKING 



CONTAINER 



. 








- 






















j 








ii - 


■ 








- 


/ Co 


nt inental 


Can-**'] ' 
/ / 


: / 


\erican Co 


* 
/ 

n- — . „-* / 


/ / 










RETA II 


TRADE 




100 










/ i 


75 










/ i 










li 

i\ 


5.0 










i\~ 
it- 
i[ 












25 








1 G'. : ; 6,V.t7 

Haru 


/ J- 


















Hooluorth — 


~/~~v • 





■/ 


Sec 


1 / 

rs RoeouCh. — ^><SC> 


' 



COMHTN IC AT I OK 









/ 1 


- 






/ : 


- 


/Amen 


zan fel. 4 


Tel/ \ 


- / 






■ 



50 75 100 25 50 

■PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHA?IS OUTSTANDIN 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



47 



Chart X. — Concentration of ownership in the common Btock issues of 18 large 
oil, railroad, electric power, gas and water holding and operating nonfinancial 
corporations 





OIL I 












■ 






J 


J 


Stand 
/ 
.andard Oi 


ird OU (I 
I of Calif 


id., hi' 


■ A 

Standard Oil (S.J.) 









R A ILROAB T 




»e 






















Vl 


lion Pacif 




f>0 






f 




/ 

Grea 


Sortherr.^^ /I; 


SB 


■ 






' 7 ■■' 

' / :' 


Horf 
■ / 


ilk A Hest 


/ 
/ 
/ 


/ 










1EC. PR., GAS * WATER - OPER 





PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



268445 — 41— No. 29 5 



48 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

rich Co., with the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. holding an interme- 
diate position. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. shows the highest 
degree of concentration of ownership among the three large chemical 
companies, with Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation not very far 
behind, and the curve for Union Carbide & Carbon Corporation con- 
siderably nearer to the line of equal distribution. Among the large 
machinery companies, concentration is by far the highest in Singer 
Manufacturing Co. and the smallest in Westinghouse Electric & 
Manufacturing Co., with International Business Machines Corpora- 
tion holding an intermediate position, much nearer, however, to 
Westinghouse than to Singer. 

Of the 3 large Standard Oil companies, the New Jersey company 
shows the highest degree of concentration, that in the Indiana and 
California companies being considerably smaller. A very high degree 
of concentration of ownership is shown for 3 other oil companies, 
Gulf Oil Corporation, Shell Union Oil Corporation, and Sun Oil Co. 
Of the 3 large tobacco companies (taking, in each case, the voting 
common stock) concentration is highest for the R. J. Reynolds 
Tobacco Co., lowest for the American Tobacco Co., with Liggett & 
Myers Tobacco Co. in an intermediate position. Of the 4 large meat 
packers, Armour & Co. (Illinois) exhibits the smallest and Cudahy 
Packing Co. the highest degree of concentration. An example of a 
company with a relatively low degree of concentration is the American 
Telephone & Telegraph Co. As a matter of fact, there are only a few 
issues among the common stocks of the 200 largest nonfinancial cor- 
porations in which concentration of ownership, as measured by the 
Lorenz curve, is smaller. 

Of the six railroad companies for which Lorenz curves are shown, 
concentration of ownership is highest for the Norfolk & Western Rail- 
way Co. and the New York Central Railroad Co. and lowest for the 
Union Pacific Railroad Co. and the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. The 
three operating electric power companies have been selected so as to 
include a company with a very high degree of concentration of owner- 
ship — Duke Power Co. — and one with a relatively moderate degree of 
concentration — Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. Of the 
three electric power holding companies among which concentration of 
ownership is generally high, American Gas & Electric Co. shows less 
concentration than either the North American Co. or the United Gas 
Improvement Co. 

Considerable variation in the degree of concentration is also evident 
for the selected preferred stock issues shown in charts XI and XII. 
Among the industrial preferred stocks, for which the Lorenz curves 
are shown, concentration is high for those of Aluminum Co. of America, 
Shell Union Oil Corporation, International Harvester Co., apd Jones 
& Laughlin Steel Corporation. Examples of issues with a low degree 
of concentration are provided by the Pure Oil Co., Westinghouse 
Electric & Manufacturing Co., and the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 
The picture is similar for selected issues of preferred stock of railroads 
and electric utilities shown on chart XII. Examples of issues with 
relatively high concentration are provided by Norfolk & Western Rail- 
way Co., the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., and Niagara Hudson 
Power Corporation (5-percent first preferred), while the degree of con- 
centration is relatively low for the preferred stocks of the Cincinnati 
Gas & Electric Co., Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (6 percent), American 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



49 



Chart XI. — Concentration of ownership in the preferred stock issues of 18 large 
steel, nonferrous metal, tire and rubber, machinery, oil, and meat packing non- 
financial corporations 







STIII 






75 










- 










50 
25 








/U.S. 


Steel /}■ 








/ •" 

/.■ i 

■ J > ' 
./ i 


Jcr.es 4 laugtilin ( 


~ r ^ > 


y / 




- /Bethlehem (7K J— ■». 




K„> 





...^-4 < - 







NON-FERROUS METAL 




TIRE AMi RUBBER 






MACHINERY 




- 






/ \ 








/ i 
/ i 


■ 






9 /■" 




Ir.l. 
/ 


Harvester 


(w /~U' 


" 


/ Deert , 1 — 


1 1 1 








h'estinghouse / 
t-lec. Mfg. (7%)^+.,' 




- / \ / 









MEAT PACKING 




FF.RCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



50 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XII. — Concentration of ownership in the preferred stock issues of 18 large 
railroad, and electric power operating and holding nonfinancial corporations 



RAILROAD I 




I1ICTIIC POWIB - OPBBATING I 



O 



- 






/ I ' 


■ 






/ I 


. 






/ • ' 


• 


Phila. ilectric ($5),^J'r\ 


- 






fi- 


■ 






ll - 


-_ 


/ Consol. 


Edison 


yf 


/ 


of H.T. ($5)^ 


/ 1 
t / 


. /Cincinnati 
./ Gas (5%)Z^- 


tt 





BAILtOAD II 




ILICTIIC POWSR - B0LH.IHG I 



' 








' 








• 






i 


■ 


Public i 


Service of 


n.j.-tJI . 


■ 


/kmerx. 
/i Elec 


can Gas 
trie ($6)~ 




\ /col 


/ 

a&lq Gas --^''••^/ 





KLICT1IC POWER - HOLDING II 


" 






/ It 
/ '/: 


- 


Co 


nsumers Po 
($4.50) 


' /■' 

oer ' /•- 


- 


/ United Gas 
/ Improvement 
/ ($5) 
/ 1 


/ / 

' n 
/ /■ 


" . (5% 


r 1 ,J 

aiara Hudson ■~^~' . 
1st Pfd.) ^^ > S<' 


.J 



60 76 100 25 60 
PERCENT OP TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 51 

Gas & Electric Co., and Consumers Power Co. ($4.50 cumulative 
preferred). 

7. SOURCE AND NATURE OF DATA 

Most of the basic data utilized in this chapter were collected through 
a questionnaire M sent early in 1938 to all corporations with securities 
listed on a national securities exchange. 29 The replies received from 
about 150 corporations included among the group of 200 which had 
some issue of equity securities listed on a national securities exchange 
were made available, with the permission of the companies, to the 
Temporary National Economic Committee. Comparable data for 
the 15 companies which did not have any issues of securities listed on a 
national securities exchange and for about 35 additional registered 
corporations from which no information had been collected in 1938, 
or for which the information then collected was inadequate in detail 
for this study, were obtained directly by the Temporary National 
Economic Committee, using the questionnaire form originally em- 
ployed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 30 

The original questionnaire of the Securities and Exchange Commis- 
sion stipulated that all data refer to some date between November 
30, 1937, and June 1, 1938. This requirement necessarily had to be 
relaxed with respect to the companies from which the information was 
directly collected by the Temporary National Economic Committee. 
While some of the material thus refers to periods as late as the spring 
of 1940, the predominance of the earlier data is such that all of the 
material can be regarded foremost purposes as reflecting the situation 
prevailing around the end of 1937. 

The original data submitted by the 200 corporations were expressed 
throughout in terms of number of shares. It was found necessary,, 
however, for the purposes of this study, to compute the value of entire 
issues and of certain groups of shareholdings. To this end all issues 
were uniformly priced as of December 31, 1937. In the handful of 
cases where a market price was unobtainable, book value was accepted 
as a substitute if reasonable; where book value was unusable a some- 
what arbitrary value was assigned on the basis of the price of similar 
securities and of earnings. 31 

As the original data were expressed in terms of number of shares, no 
adjustments were necessary for the tables showing aggregate number 
of shares by size of shareholdings (appendix IV, tables 22 through 33 
and 46 through 69). The distributions of shareholdings by value, 
on the other hand (appendix IV, tables 34 through 45), were derived 
on the basis of the price per share at the end of 1937, from the dis- 

> 8 The questionnaire is reproduced in appendix XIII. 

" For some preliminary summaries of the replies see "Selected Statistics on Securities and on Exchange 
Markets" (August 1939), pp. 22-26. (Report to the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Research, 
and Statistics Section of the Trading and Exchange Division.) 

10 Except for a very few issues remaining outstanding in small amounts as a result of incomplete exchanges, 
information has been obtained on all common and preferred stock issues of the 200 corporations. The study 
thus covers 208 issues of common stock and 196 issues of preferred stock. Lack of a 1 to 1 correspondence, 
between corporations and issues, either of preferred or common stock, is explained by the fact that 8 of the 
corporations had 2 common stocks outstanding — 1 voting and the other nonvoting — and by the fact that 
only 131 of the 200 companies had any preferred stock outstanding, the number of preferred stock issues rang- 
ing from 1 In 89 companies to 5 in a single company. Of the 208 common stock issues, 14 were wholly owned 
by a parent corporation, all but 1 of which were included in the group of the 200 largest nonflnancial corpora- 
tions. Of the preferred stock issues only 4 were wholly owned, all by parent corporations included In' the 
study. 

" Treasury stock was uniformly eliminated before calculation, except where held as an investment or 
reserved for a definite corporate purpose. 



52 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

tribution by size of shareholdings measured by number of shares. 32 
The procedure followed in this transformation of the original data is 
explained in section 4. 

All shareholdings data utilized in this chapter include, without 
distinction, holdings of individual stockholders, as well as those of 
corporations, unincorporated businesses, trusts, estates, and non- 
profit organizations: They also do not distinguish between holdings 
registered in the names of residents of the United States and of foreign 
countries. 33 

All of the material on the number of shareholdings and shares 
included in certain groups of shareholdings is based on the records 
of the corporations or their transfer agents, which reflect book share- 
holdings and not beneficial shareholdings. In many instances one 
record shareholding actually represents a large number of beneficial 
shareholdings, while the reverse is true in other instances. Thus, a 
book stockholder such as a broker, a bank or trust company, or a 
bank nominee, who is included on the books of a corporation as a 
single holder, may, and usually does, represent a considerable number 
of beneficial owners, with the result that the number of record share- 
holdings tends to be smaller than the number of beneficial share- 
holdings. On the other hand, there are some instances of holdings, 
e. g., holdings through nominees, where several record shareholdings 
are owned beneficially by the same person. Such cases tend to inflate 
the number of shareholdings but are believed to be much less important 
in their effect on the number of shareholdings than the understatement 
of beneficial shareholdings. Consequently, the number of record 
shareholdings in corporations tends to be somewhat less than the 
number of beneficial shareholdings. It is estimated that the number 
of beneficial shareholdings in the 200 largest companies is about one- 
eighth higher than the number of record shareholdings, 34 i. e., about 
9,500,000 rather than around 8,500,000. 

More important than the understatement of the total number of 
beneficial shareholdings is the fact that the available data on record 
shareholdings tend to overstate somewhat the degree of concentration 
of ownership existing among the beneficial owners of the stock of the 
200 corporations. This results primarily from the fact that the shares 
owned, generally in relatively small blocks, by numerous individual 
stockholders appear as a smaller number of large shareholdings in the 
names of such nominees as brokers and banks. For a group of 10 
widely held corporations, 35 it was possible, on the basis of material 
supplied by them to the Temporary National Economic Committee, 
to eliminate the record shareholdings of brokers and banks and their 
nominees from the distribution by size of total shareholdings. This 
elimination might be expected to understate somewhat the actual 
degree of concentration of ownership since the average size of bene- 
ficial shareholdings of stock held in the names of brokers and banks 

" It should be noted that prices of December 31, 1937, were applied to distributions which did not, in all 
cases, refer to exactly that date. This procedure was regarded as justified by the fact that the number of 
shares outstanding, and particularly the size distribution, change but slowly. 

M For data on foreign shareholdings, see ch. VIII. 

3< Cf. appendix I, sec. III. 

a« American Can Co., American Gas & Electric Co., the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., General Electric 
Co., National Distillers Products Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Northern 
Pacific Ry. Co., International Harvester Co., United States Rubber Co., and United States Steel 
Corporation. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 53 

and their nominees seems to be larger than the average size of total 
beneficial shareholdings of individuals. 36 

The degree of concentration of ownership indicated by the revised 
distribution of market value of shareholdings (excluding those of 
brokers and banks) is generally not much different from the unad- 
justed distribution. The difference is, of course, most noticeable in 
the highest size group. Whereas unadjusted record shareholdings of 
over 5,000 shares each comprised 0.22 percent of all record share- 
holdings in the common stocks of these 10 corporations at the end of 
1937 and accounted for 36.1 percent of the outstanding shares, the 
proportions declined to 0.12 percent of shareholdings and to 23.5 
percent of the outstanding shares upon the exclusion of holdings 
registered in the names of brokers and banks and their nominees. On 
the other hand, the proportion of record holdings with 1 to 10 shares 
rises only from 36.9 to 37.3 percent of total shareholdings, and from 
2.2 to 2.8 percent of all common shares outstanding in these corpora- 
tions when stock held in the names of brokers and banks and their 
nominees is excluded. That the degree of concentration is not much 
changed by the exclusion of shareholdings of brokers and banks is 
shown in chart XIII where the two Lorenz curves are presented. 
The adjusted and unadjusted distributions reflect about the same 
marked concentration of ownership in the hands of a few stockholders. 
For preferred stock, 37 the difference between the unadjusted and 
revised distributions is even less. 

Though for all 200 corporations taken together, the distribution of 
ownership probably is only slightly less concentrated on the basis of 
beneficial ownership than on the basis of record ownership used in 
this chapter, the difference may be quite considerable in individual 
issues. 



39 Appendix I, p. 171, footnote 64. Instances in which several record shareholdings in the same 
stock are owned beneficially by the same person through nominees are not eliminated by this procedure. 
This also tends to understate the actual degree of concentration of ownership, but is probably of small 
importance for the results. 

■> American Can Co., American Gas & Electric Co., the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., the Balti- 
more & Ohio R. R. Co.. International Harvester Co., United States Rubber Co., and United States Steel 
Corporation. 



54 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chabt XIII. — Concentration of ownership of stock in 10 selected corporations 
including and excluding certain nominee holdings 



100 



COMMON STOCK 

T 



CO 
C3 
25 
t— I 
Q 
-3 
O 

CO 

o 



o 

cc 

a, 




100 



75 



50 



25 



100 



75 



50 



25 



PREFERRED STOCK 



- 








- 








- 






j- 


- 






II 


- 






— 1 — 1 — i — I — 






/ / 

i i i i 


• 

1 1 1 1 



100 



75 



50 



25 



25 50 75 100 

PERCENT OF SHARES 



DS-1552 



CHAPTER IV 

THE HOLDINGS OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS IN THE 
STOCKS OF THE 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL CORPO- 
RATIONS 

1. SCOPE OF CHAPTER 

The problem of the divorcement of ownership and management, 
much discussed for the modern large corporation, has two aspects: 
(1) How large is the ownership interest of management, i. e., of 
officers and directors? (2) What are the means, through which manage- 
ment is able to control the afTairs of a large corporation when its 
ownership of voting stock alone is in no way sufficient for the purpose? 
Only the first of these two aspects is studied in this chapter. 1 In other 
words, this chapter deals with the number and value of shares of 
stock in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations owned by their 
officers and directors and studies the proportion of equity securities 
that is owned by management, particularly in relation to the type 
of issue, and the industry and size of the corporation. 

Section I of appendix VII consists of a list of about 3,500 individual 
holdings of officers and directors in the stock issues of the 200 corpora- 
tions covered by this study. The list is alphabetically arranged by 
companies, the size rank of each company indicated next to its name 
representing its position based on consolidated total assets. Within 
each issue the reporting persons have been classified according to their 
relationship to the issuer into the categories of officers, officer-directors, 
and directors. Officers and directors owning no equity securities are 
listed at the beginning of the enumeration for each company under the 
"No shareholdings" category. In addition to the reported number of 
shares held and the calculated value of each position the relative 
holdings of management are indicated by showing for each holding 
listed the percentage of the issue which each position represents. 
An alphabetical list of the 367 individuals with holdings in more than 
one company is given as section II of appendix VII. The lists show 
for each individual the holdings in every company among the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations of which he was an officer or direc- 
tor, and the percentage of the respective issues which these holdings 
represented. 

Material on the ownership of stock of the 200 corporations by the 
so-called principal stockholders, i. e., individuals (not officers and 
directors) and corporations owning more than 10 percent of any issue 
of stock of the 200 corporations is presented in appendix VIII. 

1 As a corporation which is the holder of a large block of voting securities cannot itself be a member of the 
management, the figures presented in this chapter do not reflect the fact that large corporate stockholders 
are nevertheless often represented in the management of the corporations in which they are heavily inter- 
ested as stockholders in the persons of either their own officers and directors or of some of their own large 
stockholders. 

It also must be taken into account that an officer or director who is the representative of one or more large 
stockholders may himself own only relatively small amounts of stock, while the large stockholders them- 
selves do not choose, for one reason or another, to become officers or directors. 

55 



56 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

2. AGGREGATE HOLDINGS OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 

A. AGGREGATE VALUE OF HOLDINGS 

On September 30, 1939, total holdings by officers and directors in 
the common and preferred stock of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations amounted to over 38,300,000 shares with a market value 
of about $2,163,000,000. 

It is shown in table 73 (appendix VI) that these holdings consisted 
preponderantly of common stock. Officers' and directors' holdings of 
preferred stock amounted to only a little over 1,800,000 shares with 
a value of approximately $120,000,000, or 4.7 percent of the total 
number of shares and 5.5 percent of the total market value of all 
shares in these 200 corporations held by their officers and directors. 
Thus common stock constituted about 95 percent of officers' and 
directors' holdings. In view of this complete preponderance of com- 
mon stock no distinction will be made in the discussion, with few 
exceptions, between the two types of securities. 

Of the $2,044,000,000 of common stock of the 200 corporations held 
by their officers and directors, 73 percent was in voting common stock 
issues and 27 percent in nonvoting common stock issues. The rela- 
tively large holdings of nonvoting stocks by officers and directors, 
however, were concentrated in a very few issues and were accounted 
for mainly by holdings in the nonvoting common stock of the Ford 
Motor Co. and The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America. 
As most of the officers and directors who owned these nonvoting 
common stocks also had considerable holdings of voting common 
stock in the same corporations, the distinction between the two types 
is of much less importance than the figures might indicate. The 
small preferred shareholdings of officers and directors were divided 
about equally between holdings of voting and contingent voting 
preferred stocks, investments in nonvoting preferred stocks being 
practically negligible. 

Over four-fifths of the total value of holdings of officers and directors 
in the 200 corporations were in the manufacturing industries (table 
74, appendix VI). Holdings of the stocks of merchandising corpora- 
tions by their officers and directors accounted for about 13 percent 
of the total for all companies included. The holdings of officers and 
directors in railroads, communication, and electric, gas, and water 
utility companies were small in absolute amounts, aggregating only a 
little over $65,000,000, or less than 3 percent of the holdings of all 
officers and directors in the 200 corporations. Among manufactur- 
ing industries the automobile industry led by a wide margin, a result 
chiefly of large holdings of two officers and directors in the Ford 
Motor Co. and a group of officers in the General Motors Corporation. 
Officers' and directors' holdings were also very substantial in absolute 
amounts in the chemical, petroleum refining, and nonferrous metal 
industries, due partly to considerable holdings of members of the 
du Pont family who were officers or directors in E. I. du Pont de 
Nemours & Co. and of members of the Mellon family in Gulf Oil 
Corporation and Aluminum Co. of America. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



57- 



B. PROPORTION OF STOCK OUTSTANDING HELD BY OFFICERS AND 

DIRECTORS 

Of equal interest to the figures indicating the value of the shares of 
the 200 corporations held by their officers and directors is the relation 
of management holdings to the value of all shares outstanding in 
these issues. The $2,163,000,000 of stock of the 200 corporations 
held by their officers and directors represented about 5.5 percent of 
the total value of the common and preferred stock issues of these 
corporations. Of this total the holdings of directors amounted to 3.5 
percent of total stock outstanding, those of officer-directors to 1.9 
percent, and those of officers to only 0.1 percent. 

The percentage of management holdings to the total issue was 
considerably higher among common stocks (6 percent) than among 
preferred stocks where it amounted to only 2.2 percent (table 73). 
The essential data concerning the proportion of management holdings 
in the different types of stocks of the 200 corporations are summarized 
in table 1 below. The explanation for the much higher proportion 
of ownership by officers and directors in nonvoting than in voting 
common stock has already been given. The higher proportion of 
ownership by officers and directors in securities (other than nonvoting 
preferred stocks) not listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges 
only as compared to fully listed stocks is due mainly to the large 
holdings of members of the Mellon family and a few other officer- 
directors in Gulf Oil Corporation, Aluminum Co. of America, and 
Koppers United Co., and to those of members of the Ford family in 
the Ford Motor Co. 



Table 1. — Value of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations as a percentage of value of stock outstanding 



Type of stock and listing status 


Officers 


Officer- 
directors 


Directors 


Total 


Voting common: 

Fully listed » . - 


0.1 
.3 
.3 


1.4 
1.3 
4.7 


2.3 
16.8 
6.5 


3.8 




18.4 




11.5 








.1 


1.5 


3.0 


4.6 






Nonvoting common: 

Fully listed "... 






.3 
10.8 
37.8. 


.7 
9.4 
51.3 


1.0 




20.2 




89.1 













15.7 


20.8 


36.5 






Voting preferred: 

Fully listed ° 







.4 
.1 
2.1 


.8 

.1 

9.9 


1.0 




.2 




11.9 











.5 


1.2 


1.7 






See footnotes at end of table. 











58 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Table 1. — Value of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations as a percentage of value of stock outstanding — Continued 



Type of stock and listing status 



Officers 



Officer- 
directors 



Directors 



Total 



Nonvoting preferred: 

Fully listed « 

Unlisted trading '. 
Unlisted 



All nonvoting preferred. 

'Contingent voting preferred: 

Fully listed « 

Unlisted trading » 

Unlisted 



.5 
5.0 
1.7 



13.8 
.6 



1.4 
18.9 
2.3 



All contingent voting preferred. 



3.3 



All issues: 

Fully listed « 

Unlisted trading <>. 
Unlisted 



1.2 
2.5 
14.5 



2.1 
14.2 
20.6 



3.4 
16.9 
35.3 



All issues_ 



1.9 



3.5 



5.5 



a On a national securities exchange. 

* Adm'tted to unlisted trading privileges on a national securities exchange. 

The management holdings are classified by industries in table 74. 
The proportion of holdings of officers and directors was highest in 
the 12 merchandising corporations with 14.2 percent of the value of 
all outstanding stock and in the 97 manufacturing companies with 
7.0 percent. In contrast, officers and directors accounted for only 
1.2 percent of the value of the stock of the 31 transportation companies 
and 1.0 percent of that of the companies in the extractive industries. 
The proportions were lowest among the 44 electric, gas, and water 
utilities with 0.6 percent and the 6 communication companies with 
0.1 percent, the latter ratio due chiefly to the extremely small holdings 
of officers and directors in the capital stock of American Telephone 
& Telegraph Co. Whatever the reasons, the financial stake of officers 
and directors was apparently nearly negligible in railroad and utility 
corporations. 

Tables 75 and 76 (appendix VI) indicate that no consistent 
relationship existed between the proportion of the value of total stock 
outstanding in the hands of officers and directors and either the assets 
•of the issuer or the value of the issue. However, if the stock of the 
Ford Motor Co. (falling into the asset class of $500,000,000 to 
$999,000,000) 89 percent of which is owned by officers and directors 
were excluded, it would appear that the proportion of officers' and 
directors' holdings was largest in corporations with assets of between 
$75,000,000 and $100,000,000 and generally declined thereafter as the 
company increased in size. 2 

* Table 75 shows that, measured by the dollar value of holdings, most management holdings were in cor- 
porations with assets of over $500,000,000. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 59 

3. THE SIZE OF INDIVIDUAL HOLDINGS OF OFFICERS 

AND DIRECTORS 

The officers and directors of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
as of September 30, 1939, reported 3,511 holdings of common and 
preferred stock in those corporations in which they were officers or 
directors or both. The number of persons reporting holdings was 
only about 2,500, since some individuals were officers or directors in 
more than one of the 200 corporations, and many held both common 
and preferred stock in a corporation. 

Of these 2,500 persons 367 individuals (listed in section II of appen- 
dix VII) were officers or directors in more than one of the 200 corpora- 
tions. Together they held 853 positions as officer, officer-director, or 
director. Most of these individuals — viz, 283 — were represented 
twice among the officers or directors of the 200 corporations. How- 
ever, 65 individuals were thus represented in the management of 
three of the corporations, 10 in 4 corporations, 5 in 5 corporations, 2. 
in 6 corporations, 1 in 7, and 1 in 8 of the 200 corporations. 

In addition to these officers and directors owning stock in their 
corporations, there were over 500 officers, directors, and officer-directors 
without any financial stake in their corporations. Thus about one 
out of six officers and directors had no investment in the stock of his 
corporation. 

On the average over 17 stock positions were reported per corpora- 
tion and nearly 9 such positions per issue. The number of positions 
reported per corporation, however, varied considerably from a mini- 
mum of 4 (Ford Motor Co.) to a maximum of 52 (E. I. du Pont de 
Nemours & Co.). Approximately 35 percent of the reported positions 
were in issues for which 5 positions or less were reported. 

Of the 3,511 positions reported by officers and directors, about 20 
percent were owned by individuals who were officers but not directors 
in at least 1 of the 200 corporations, slightly over 28 percent were 
accounted for by individuals combining the offices of officer and di- 
rector, and the remaining 52 percent were held by directors who were 
not officers. 

A. VALUE OF HOLDINGS 

The mean value of stock per reported position amounted to about 
$616,000 for all officers and directors, a figure not representative of the 
distribution, the median value being about $20,000. Table 2 below 
shows figures of about $50,000 (mean) and $9,000 (median) per posi- 
tion of the officers, slightly over $760,000 (mean) and $33,000 (median) 
for officer-directors and slightly over $750,000 (mean) and $21,000 
(median) for directors. Though owning 20 percent of the reported 
positions individuals who were officers only accounted for no more 
than 1.6 percent of the total value of the itock held by all officers and 
directors. Officer-directors, on the oilier hand, with over one- 
quarter of all reported positions, owned fully one-third of all stock 
held by management, and individuals who were directors only, with 
slightly over one-half of reported positions, accounted for nearly 
two-thirds of all stocks held bv officers and directors. Table 7*7 



60 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



(appendix VI) shows that the proportion of officers was much greater 
among small than among the large holdings, and that no holding by 
a person who was an officer but not also a director had a value of 
over $5,000,000. 

Table 2. — Number and value of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest 

nonfinancial corporations 





Positions reported 


Value of stock 


Average value of 
position 


Percent 


Relationship 


Number 


Percent 
of total 


Total 


Percent 
of total 


Mean 
(arith- 
metic 
average) 


Median 


of total 
value of 
all issues 


Officers ..- 


699 

987 

1,825 


19.9 
28.1 
52.0 


$35, 260, 000 

753, 435, 000 

1, 374, 454, 000 


1.6 
34.8 
63.6 


$50,400 
763,400 
753, 100 


$9,300 
33,400 
21,000 


0.1 




1.9 




3.5 






Total 


3,511 


100.0 


2, 163, 149, 000 


100.0 


» 616, 100 


20,000 


5.5 



" Excluding officers and directors of the Ford Motor Co. the average declines to $462,000. 

The figures for the value of the mean holdings of the various classes 
■of holders suggest that the aggregate is made up of individual holdings 
varying greatly in size. This impression is confirmed by table 77 and 
by chart XIV, classifying the 3,511 reported positions by the value of 
each individual position. Not less than 556 positions, or about 16 
percent of the total number, had a value of less than $1,000, 3 and one- 
half of all positions were worth less than about $20,000. However, the 
value of the one-half of all reported holdings each of which had a value 
of less than $20,000 amounted only to about $10,000,000, or less than 
one-half of 1 percent of the value of all holdings of officers and directors. 
There were only 245 positions, or 7 percent of the total, which had 
a value of $1,000,000 or more each. These 245 holdings with a value 
of $1,000,000 or more each, on the other hand, although represent- 
ing only 7 percent of all reported positions, together accounted for 
$1,892,000,000, or 87 percent of the value of all management holdings. 
Finally, the 40 holdings with a value of $10,000,000 or more each had 
anr+aggregate value of $1,312,000,000, or slightly over 60 percent of 
tnefipjtal, though they represented only 1 percent of the number of re- 
PpxtecL^positions. How pronounced the concentration is among the 
r^pxvr.tecUopsitions of officers and directors will be seen in chart XV 
showing (km Ix>renz curve for the holdings of 3,51 1 officers and directors 
iii^eSSo'ciiiypprations, compared with all record shareholdings in these 
car^jorkuona. [^.appears from that chart that concentration is even 
mjstrkcxllyr^ig^yij ajnong holdings of officers and directors taken by 
t&ejnsc^y,ViS : t^^iLan^ojng all shareholdings (including those of officers 
ap^^irj^jCt^r^j.pfjlb.e.^O corporations. 

^j^e./jrvera^jj^^ holding showed great differences in size 

afl^flg '.f$^ [^Jjifli^u^^n^fries. Considering only major industry 
ggtoup^qhc ^$fy^\hofc$pg>.w%s highest ($1,336,000) in merchandis- 
ing companies and lowest ($56,000) in the electric, gas, and water 
companies. Among industry subgroups, particularly high values were 

3 Included in this grouping are many positions representing holdings solely comprised of director's qualify- 
ing sharos. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



61 



Chart XIV. — Number and value of holdings of officers and directors in the 
stocks of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations as of September 30, 1939 



NUM1I1 OF HOLDINGS 




in too oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo Qo 

C} NO iQO OlA 



VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL POSITION (DOLLARS THOUSANDS) 






62 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



shown for the automobile industry ($9,558,000— influenced by large 
holdings in Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corporation), the 
chemical industry ($1,901,000), and chain stores ($2,256,000); on the 
other extreme there were the extractive industries ($3*5,000) and the 
electric-power operating companies ($23,000). 

Chart XV. — Concentration of ownership of stock in 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations held by officers and directors and by all stockholder 



40 



30 



20 





























































































\7 

%/ 
7 


















V 
7 




All St 


lareholQ 


infn^ 


\ | 














J 1 
/ 1 
/ / 












Holding 
and 


s of 
Diret 


icers 
s "^ 




/ 

/ 
/ 














/ 
















^i^ 


• 





50 



10 

DS-1612 



20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

PERCENT OF TOTAL VALUE OF SHAREHOLDINGS 



B. RELATIONSHIP OF HOLDINGS TO TOTAL STOCK OUTSTANDING 

The 3,511 positions of officers and directors have been arranged in 
tables 78 through 81 (appendix VI) on the basis of their relative size 
(i. e., expressed as a percentage of the total issue), rather than, as in 
table 77, in accordance with their dollar value. Some salient figures 
from these tabulations are summarized in table 3 below. It is found 
that 932 positions, or slightly over one-quarter of the total number, 
comprised each less than 0.01 percent of the respective issues. About 
43 percent of all positions amounted individually to between 0.01 and 
0.1 percent of the issue outstanding, while another 22 percent included 
between 0.1 and 1 percent of the total amount of the issue out- 
standing. These figures indicate that one-half of all positions repre- 
sented less than about one-half of 1 percent of the issue outstanding. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



63 



There were only 286 positions each of which constituted 1 percent 
or more of the total number of shares outstanding of the issue. These 
positions, while numbering only 8 percent of the total, however, ac- 
counted for about three-quarters of the value of all shares of the 200 
corporations held by officers and directors. There were only 5 posi- 
tions which represented, in themselves, 50 percent or more of an 
issue, 4 but their total value aggregated $332,000,000, or slightly over 
15 percent of the value of all 3,511 positions. 

Table 3. — Relative size of holdings of officers and directors of the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations 



Percentage of issue 



Less than 0.01 percent, 
0.01 to 0.09 percent ..._ 

0.1 to 0.9 percent 

1 to 9.9 percent 

10 to 24.9 percent 

25 to 49.9 percent 

50 to 74.9 percent 

75 to 99.9 percent 

100 percent 



Total . 



Number 
of posi- 
tions 



932 
1,534 

759 

243 

31 

7 

4 



Percentage 
of total 
positions 



26.5 
43.7 
21.6 



Value of posi- 
tions 



$4, 281, 000 
92,916,000 
452, 633, 000 
667, 420, 000 
348, 796, 000 
264, 802, 000 
330, 301, 000 



2,000,000 



2, 163, 149, 000 



Percentage 

of total 

value 



0.2 
4.3 
20.9 
30.9 
16.1 
12.2 
15.3 



.1 
100.0 



The holdings of officers and directors are cross-classified in table 
79 by their proportionate size and by the industry of the issuer. 
While the number of all holdings, each of which represented 1 per- 
cent or more of their issues, amounted to about 8 percent of all posi- 
tions of officers and directors, the proportion was more than 24 per- 
cent for merchandising corporations, but as low as between 3 and 4 
percent in the electric, gas, and water utility companies, in railroads, 
and in communication companies, the proportion for the manufac- 
turing industries as a whole being near the over-all average. 

Inspection of table 80 (appendix VI), in which the reported hold- 
ings of officers and directors are cross-classified by their proportionate 
size and by the assets of the issuers, indicates that the proportion of 
individual holdings constituting over 1 percent of an issue declined 
with increasing size of the issuer, falling from somewhat over 12 per- 
cent of all management holdings of issues of companies with assets of 
less than $150,000,000 to under 3 percent in issues of companies with 
assets of over $500,000,000. 

4. PROPORTION OF INDIVIDUAL ISSUES REPRESENTED 
BY COMBINED HOLDINGS OF OFFICERS AND DI- 
RECTORS 

The proportions held by all officers and directors on September 30, 
1939, in each of the 209 common and 194 preferred stock issues of the 
200 corporations are shown in table 82 (appendix VI) and illustrated 
in chart XVI. 



4 Such positions existed in the Ford Motor Co. (two issues of common stock), Hearst Consolidated Pub- 
lications, Inc. (common), Western Pacific R. R. Corporation (common), and Marshall Field & Co. 
(preferred). 

268445— 41— No. 29 6 



64 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

There were 14 common stock issues in which officers and directors 
had no holdings whatsoever. Among the remaining 195 issues, the 
proportion of the total issue held by officers and directors most 

Chart XVI. — Percentage of issue owned by officers and directors in the stock 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations as of September 30, 1939 




104 rBEFEKRSD STOCK ISSUES 




^T^^Mmm^ w?m 



fTT7% wZ/A7TTr% 



T 7 t 



CD 0> O 

C- CO O 



U-o-i-J 



PERCENT OP TSSUE OWNEE BY OFFICERS AND . D IRECTORS 



commonly lay between 0.1 and 1 percent. Table 82 shows that 
in 77 issues officers and ' directors held some stock but less than 1 
percent of the total amount outstanding, compared to 38 issues m 
which they held between 1 and 3 percent and 22 issues in which their 
holdings amounted to between 3 and 5 percent. Officers and directors 



CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER (J5 

held 5 percent or more of the issues in 58 cases, or slightly more than 
one-quarter of all issues, and owned 10 or more percent in only 38 
cases, or less than one-fifth of the total. There were only 7 common 
stock issues more than 50 percent of which was owned by officers and 
directors. 

As a rule the proportion of common stock owned by all officers and 
directors was considerably higher among manufacturing companies 
than among railroads and utilities included in the study. While the 
median percentage of ownership by officers and directors was around 
1% percent for all common stock issues, it amounted to about 3 per- 
cent for eommon stocks of manufacturing corporations, but only to 
about three-fourths of 1 percent for those of railroads, and to about 
one-fourth of 1 percent for those of electric, gas, and water utilities. 

The frequency distribution of the proportion of preferred stock 
issues of the 200 corporations held by officers and directors show, 
throughout, relatively smaller holdings than among common stock 
issues. Officers and directors reported no holdings whatsoever in no 
less than 33 out of the 194 preferred stock issues. They owned less 
than 1 percent of the amount oustanding in 101 of the 161 issues 
showing any holdings by officers and directors. There were only 35 
preferred stock issues in which officers and directors owned between 
1 and 5 percent of the amount outstanding, 12 issues in which they 
held between 5 and 10 percent, and not more than 13 issues in which 
their holdings accounted for 10 percent or over of the number of 
shares outstanding. Thus, officers and directors owned 10 percent or 
more of the issue in less than 7 percent of all preferred stock issues 
of the 200 corporations, compared to a proportion of 18 percent among 
the common stock issues of the same corporations. In only 2 pre- 
ferred stock issues did officers and directors together own the majoritv 
of the issue. 

Differences among the major industry groups in the proportions of 
issues held by officers and directors showed the same pattern for pre- 
ferred stocks as they did for common stocks. The median value of 
officers' and directors' holdings was about one-half of 1 percent for all 
preferred stock issues, but around three-fourths of 1 percent for those 
of manufacturing corporations and less than one-tenth of 1 percent 
for the issues of railroads and public utility companies. 

5. SOURCE AND CHARACTER OF DATA 

The main sources of information on the financial stake of manage- 
ment in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations are the reports filed 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission by officers, directors, 
and principal stockholders pursuant to section 16 (a) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 and its counterpart, section 17 (a) of the Public 
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. 5 Reports under section 16 (a) 
were available for 185 of the 200 companies included in this study. 
Comparable information for the remaining 15 companies was acquired 
by questionnaires sent to the companies and their officers and directors. 
All holdings reflect the status as of September 30, 1939. 

As the purpose of this phase of the study was to determine the 
actual stake of the management in the equity capital of the 200 
companies, it was necessary to arrive at the exact amount of shares 
beneficially owned by officers and directors, irrespective of the legal 

* Mention of sec. 16 (a) should be taken to includ^sec. 17 (a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. 



65 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

form of ownership and the number and type of intermediaries. So 
far as direct holdings were concerned, no adjustments of the reports 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission were necessary. 
In the case of indirect holdings, some adjustments were made sir>ce 
the concept of beneficial ownership used in connection with reports 
to the Securities and Exchange Commission differs somewhat from 
that employed in this study. The concept of indirect beneficial 
ownership, for purposes of reports under section 16 (a) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 and under section 17 (a) of the Public Utility 
Holding Company Act of 1935, includes the power to buy and sell 
and the right to share in the income, distribution upon liquidation, 
and proceeds of sale. For the purposes of this study, however, the 
concept of beneficial interest was defined as the right to share in the 
income. 

The procedure employed in determining beneficial holdings from 
the reports made under section 16 (a) was relatively simple. In this 
determination the material contained in the ownership reports was 
supplemented, where necessary, by correspondence with the indi- 
viduals making the reports. Where only a direct holding was reported, 
no problem presented itself, the entire holding being taken to represent 
the beneficial interest. Where an indirect holding was reported by 
indicating the proportionate interest, that figure was accepted. On 
the other hand, where a report gave only the entire holding of an 
intermediary, further investigation was necessary to determine the 
proportion to be considered as beneficially owned by the person under 
consideration. Thus, the specific interest through a trust was deter- 
mined by applying to the total holding of the trust the percentage of 
total income received by a beneficiary without consideration of 
contingent beneficiaries in the determination of the percentage. In 
the case of a holding company, the calculation of the indirect beneficial 
holding was based on the percentage of ownership in the holding 
company as reported by the individual. The same procedure was 
adopted in segregating partnership holdings which were reported in 
total. As a result of these adjustments only a single figure appears 
for each individual, regardless of the number of intermediaries used 
in any given case. This figure represents the total beneficial interest 
of the individual based on direct holdings and his interest in indirect 
holdings. 6 

While the advisability of thus reapportioning indirect holdings 
might be subject to question in a study of control, an adequate picture 
of ownership could be obtained only by the procedure adopted. 
In addition to making possible a simpler presentation, statistical 
duplication was eliminated. Thus a given holding no longer was 
included — as is often the case in unadjusted reports under section 
16 (a) — first in the figures reported by a principal stockholder (such 

• Strict application of the readjustment of indirect holdings to a basis of strict beneficial ownership resulted , 
in some instances, in the elimination in appendix VIII of corporate or trust intermediaries regularly regarded 
as principal stockholders under sec. 16 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act. This resulted from a transfer of 
the proportionate interest held through the intermediary to the officer, director, or individual principal 
stockholder having a reportable interest. When such an adjustment reduced an intermediary's holding 
below 10 percent, it was dropped from this study. Listed below are the principal stockholders thereby 
deprived of that status together with the corporations in which they had holdings: Curtiss Southwestern 
Corporation in Western Pacific R. R. Corporation; trust under the will of Charles H. Deere in Deere & 
Co.; Harbel Corporation in the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. 

The following intermediaries will show reduced holdings when compared with their reports as of Sep- 
tember 30, 1939, due to the same readjustment procedure, but still retained more than a 10-percent interest 
in a given issue: Christiana Securities Co. in R. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Delaware Realty & Invest- 
ment Co. in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; New York Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., in The 
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America (Maryland); Taykair Corporation in the Virginia Ry. Co. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER QJ 

as a personal holding company) and then again by a reporting person 
having an interest in the intermediary. 

Certain other adjustments, though minor in nature, appear worth 
mentioning. Holdings of members of a family were not combined. 
Thus, for example, a wife's holdings were not included with the hus- 
band's even though he might report the existence of holdings through 
his wife. Community and joint interests were included only to the 
extent of that portion from which the respondent derived income. All 
holdings of less than 100 shares, where the exact nature of ownership 
was not clearly indicated, were considered beneficially owned to reduce 
the number of inquiries made. For holdings of 100 shares or more, 
letters were written when the ownership reports lacked information 
as to the nature of ownership or the extent of the reporter's interest 
in specified indirect holdings. When correspondence indicated a 
situation where the true nature of ownership could not be readily or 
accurately determined, as for example an unsettled estate, the hold- 
ings were regarded as not owned by an officer or director and therefore 
eliminated from consideration in this study. 

After deriving in this manner the number of shares beneficially 
owned, the percentage of the total issue was determined, as well as 
the value of each holding, on the basis of the market price as of Septem- 
ber 30, 1939. For the small number of issues not having a quotation 
as of this date, prices of slightly different dates were used, and in a 
few cases, book or other partly arbitrary values were utilized. 7 

7 The figure which served as the basis of percentage calculations for each issue represents the number of 
shares outstanding as of September 30, 1939, exclusive of treasury stock where it was known to exist. Stock 
held for the purpose of con version or exchange "was also excluded in arriving at the base figure, but no adjust- 
ment was made for intrasystem holdings. 



CHAPTER V 

THE HOLDINGS OF PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS 
(20 LARGEST RECORD HOLDINGS) 

1. SCOPE OF CHAPTER 

Previous chapters have dealt with the distribution of all stockhold- 
ings by their size and with the stake of the management in the stock 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. These chapters indicated 
that ownership of both the common and preferred stocks of these 200 
corporations was in most cases concentrated to a fairly high degree. 
The purpose of this chapter is to test, on the basis of an analysis of 
the 20 largest holdings of record in each issue, the validity of con- 
clusions made on the basis of data on all stockholdings and to show to 
what extent the apparent concentration demonstrated by the statis- 
tical data on record holdings is supported by an analysis of the actual 
beneficial owners of the 20 largest record holdings. 

While the general picture of concentration of ownership, on the one 
hand, and of widespread investment by large numbers of individuals 
in large nonfinancial corporations, on the other, is a matter of public 
knowledge, not much information has been available on the distribu- 
tion of stock ownership in individual corporations. Family or interest 
groups have been associated with the ownership of particular corpora- 
tions, but little has been known about the patterns of such ownership 
and the mechanisms employed for maintaining and perpetuating it, 
except in those relatively rare cases where systematic congressional 
investigations or other special studies have been undertaken. An 
attempt will, therefore, be made in this chapter to show who are the 
largest stockholders in our 200 largest nonfinancial corporations and 
what instrumentalities they employ to maintain and perpetuate their 
ownership. 

The analysis of the data on the 20 largest holdings of record has 
been directed primarily toward the legal instruments of ownership 
and only secondarily toward the identification of the ultimate bene- 
ficial holders. To this end the legal and beneficial holders have been 
classified by types such as (a) individuals, personal and family holding 
companies, trusts and estates, (6) parent, subsidiary and other cor- 
porations, (c) insurance companies, investment trusts and companies, 
banks, brokers, and investment bankers, where these are beneficial 
holders, (d) family-endowed foundations, employees' welfare and pen- 
sion plans, and other eleemosynary and educational institutions, such 
as universities and hospitals. 

No attempt has been made in this chapter to arrange the legal- and 
beneficial holders by family or other interest groups, although this 
will be done in chapters VI and VII. 

69 



JO CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

2. EXTENT OF THE 20 LARGEST SHAREHOLDINGS 

A. THE OVER-ALL PICTURE 

At the end of 1937 1 the 20 largest record shareholdings in each of 
the 404 issues of equity securities of the 200 largest nonfinancial cor- 
porations had an aggregate value of about $10,500,000,000, equivalent 
to nearly 31 percent of the total market value of the 404 issues. Of 
this total nearly $9,000,000,000 was represented by 3,861 holdings in 
the 208 issues of common stock, amounting to nearly 32 percent of the 
total value of these issues. The aggregate value of the 3,847 record 
shareholdings in the 196 issues of preferred stock totaled nearly 
$1,600,000,000 and represented somewhat over 30 percent of their 
total value. The value per holding thus averaged slightly over 
$2,300,000 for common stocks and a little over $400,000 for preferred 
stocks. 

Both the figures for the aggregate value of the 20 largest record 
shareholdings and those for the total value of all shares outstanding 
utilized in the preceding paragraph are affected by duplications in 
that they include blocks of stock of one of the 200 corporations 
owned by another corporation in the group. Such intergroup hold- 
ings as appeared among the 20 largest shareholdings totaled about 
$2,100,000,000, of which $1,800,000,000 was in common and 
$300,000,000 in preferred stock. It is likely that additional inter- 
group holdings existed which were not large enough to show up among 
the 20 largest shareholdings, but how numerous they were or what 
their total amount may have been is not known. Adjusting only for 
the known intergroup holdings, the proportion of the aggregate value 
of the 404 stock issues of the 200 corporations outstanding which was 
represented by the 20 largest record shareholdings in each issue would 
decline to 25 percent (against the unadjusted ratio of 31 percent). 
The adjusted ratio is 25 percent for both common and preferred stock 
issues (as compared with the unadjusted ratios of 32 percent for com- 
mon and 30 percent for preferred). Adjustment for the unknown 
smaller intergroup holdings would probably result in a slight. further 
reduction of these percentages. Throughout the rest of this chapter 
all ratios of principal shareholdings to total stock outstanding will be 
given unadjusted, as adjustment would be very laborious and not 
feasible for certain types of break-down and as the difference between 
the adjusted and the unadjusted ratio is not very large. 

Variations in the proportion of individual issues represented by the 
20 largest record shareholdings were, of course, very great. They 
were also relatively large if issues oi different major industry groups 
are compared, as is indicated for common stocks by table 93 (appen- 
dix IX) and for preferred stocks by table 94 (appendix IX), the salient 
figures from both tables being illustrated in chart XVII. Compared 
to 32 percent for the aggregate of all 208 common stock issues, the 20 
largest shareholdings represented over 49 percent of the combined 
value for the 47 common stocks of electric, gas, and water utilities. 
On the other hand, the ratio was only slightly above 20 percent for 
the group of 31 issues of "other" industries which is dominated by 
the stocks of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and two of its 
subsidiaries. The percentages for both the manufacturing and rail- 
road companies were very near the over-all average. Considerable 
differences are shown again for the 1 1 subgroups of the manufacturing 

1 For detail on dates of reports see ch. Ill, pp. 51-2. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



71 



industry (table 95, appendix IX). The highest percentage of total 
value of issues represented by the 20 largest record shareholdings (54 
percent) occurred in the automobile industry, due largely to the close 
ownership of the entire stock of the Ford Motor Co. Other industries 
with a high percentage of total issues represented by the 20 largest 



Chart XVII. 



-Value* of 20 largest shareholdings in stock issues of 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations 




CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS 
VALUE OF HOLDINOS 



rilHIin STOCK ISSUES 



H ess 
i^il cso §ssi rasa ^ 



PERCENT OF ACCREOATE VALUE OF ISSUES 



'. OMMON STOCK ISSUES 



FIinillD STOCK ISSUES 



m Wi B H H 



Mr Z. RAILROADS UTILITIES OTHER ALL 

,'liOUj \l33\Jt3) \issuul IissuesJ \issutsJ 



MFG. RAILROADS UTILITIES OTHER ALL 

( 76 ) I l ' \ I " ) f " 1 ( 1M 1 
\103UESJ \IS3UE3J USSOES/ WSSUE3J llSSUES/ 



Based on market prices on or otnut Dec. 31, 1937 



shareholdings were lumber and paper, building equipment, chemical, 
petroleum refining, rubber, and leather. The lowest ratios of the 20 
largest shareholdings (20 percent) appeared in the machinery and the 
miscellaneous manufacturing industries. Percentages below the aver- 
age were also shown by the iron and steel, 2 nonferrous metal and food 
industries. 



> The relatively low over-all ratio for the steel industry is due to low percentages for United States Steel 
Corporation and Bethlehem Steel Corporation; the remaining seven companies showed an average ratio of 
35 percent. 



72 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Although the over-all percentage represented by the 20 largest share- 
holdings was almost equal for the common and preferred stock issues 
of the 200 corporations, the figures reveal a much wider variation if 
broken down by industry of the issuer. Among major groups by far 
the highest percentage for the 20 largest holdings was shown (table 94) 
by the preferred stocks, the figure for "other" industries being over 
65 percent, followed by railroads with 41 percent. Electric, gas, and 
water utilities and manufacturing industries, on the other hand, were 
slightly below the average of 30 percent, 27 percent of the total value 
of the preferred issues outstanding being accounted for by the 20 
largest shareholdings in both cases. Looking at subgroups of the 
manufacturing industries (tables 95 and 96, appendix IX), it appears 
that the percentage of the total value of the issues represented by the 
20 largest record shareholdings was considerably larger for preferred 
stocks than for common stock only in the nonferrous metals, machin- 
ery and tool, and petroleum-refining industries; while it was consider- 
ably smaller in the food, tobacco, beverage, lumber and paper, rubber, 
leather, iron and steel, and automobile industries. Some of the rea- 
sons for these differences will become evident in section 3 where the 
total for all the 20 largest shareholdings is broken down by types of 
holdings. 

The over-all figures cited hitherto include nearly 3,000 holdings 
(1,530 of common stock; 1,331 of preferred stock) of banks and brokers 
the beneficial owners of which were not ascertained. While these 
holdings represented, in a number of cases, ,a few relatively large 
holdings, it seems safe to assume that the great majority reflected 
the holdings of a fairly large number of clients of banks and brokerage 
houses, with most of the individual holdings of small or moderate size. 
The elimination of unidentified holdings standing in the names of 
banks and brokers does not constitute too serious a limitation, there- 
fore, if attention is concentrated on large holdings and, in particular, 
on problems of control through ownership. Elimination of these 
holdings, however, results in an understatement of the proportion of 
stock actually owned in large blocks to the extent that the unidentified 
holdings of banks and brokers undoubtedly include some large holdings. 

The unidentified holdings of banks and brokers accounted for 4.6 
percent of the value of the common stock and for 6.8 percent of that 
of the preferred stock of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 
The proportion, while varying fairly considerably from issue to issue, 
seems to differ less among industries than the over-all proportion of 
shares included in the 20 largest record shareholdings. Thus, among 
common stocks the proportion was highest (considering only major 
industry groups), for railroads (5.7 percent) and lowest for "other" 
industries (3.3 percent). Among subgroups of the manufacturing 
industry, however, the range was between 2 percent for lumber and 
paper companies and 10 percent for nonferrous metal companies. 
The variation among major groups was considerably smaller still for 
preferred stocks, manufacturing companies with 7.3 percent, showing 
the highest and "other" industries, with 5.3 percent, the lowest pro- 
portion of total stock included in unidentified holdings of banks and 
brokers. However, differences were large among subgroups of the 
manufacturing industry, ranging from about 3 percent for machinery 
and nonferrous metals to 19 percent for the petroleum-refining 
industry. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



73 



After exclusion of the unidentified holdings of banks and brokers 
the proportion of the 20 largest identified shareholdings (more exactly, 
the identified holdings among the 20 largest record shareholdings) is 
reduced to over 26 percent for an equity securities, 27 percent for all 
common stock issues and slightly under 24 percent for all preferred 
stock issues. 

The 4,847 identified holdings among the 20 largest shareholdings 
of each issue had an aggregate value at the end of 1937 of about 
$8,800,000,000, of which $7,600,000,000 was represented by 2,331 
holdings of common stock and $1,200,000,000 by 2,516 holdings of pre- 
ferred stock. The average value per holding thus amounted to about 
$3,200,000 for common stocks and to nearly $500,000 for preferred 
stock issues. The average value of common stock holdings was 
highest for the manufacturing industries, with about $4,000,000, and 
lowest for railroads, with less than $1 ,600,000. Differences were much 
smaller among preferred stock, ranging from an average of $566,000 
for railroads to $379,000 for electric, gas, and water utilities. 



B. HOLDINGS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF OWNERS 

(1) Over-all Picture: 

In tables 4 and 5 the number and value of the aggregate holdings as 
well as their proportion to the total value of issues are shown separately 
for 12 groups of identified holdings and for the unidentified holdings of 
brokers and banks. The identified holdings are summarized in table 
4, which distinguishes only three major groups, (1) individuals (in- 
cluding personal and family holding companies and trusts and estates) , 

(2) corporations, and (3) other holders. 

Table 4. — Identified holdings of main classes of principal stockholders ° (20 largest 
record holdings) in stock of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 





Value of holding ($000,000) 


Percent of value of issues 


Type of holder 


Total 


Manu- 
factur- 
ing 


Rail- 
roads 


Elec- 
tric, 
gas, 
and 
water 
utili- 
ties 


Other 


Total 


Manu- 
factur- 
ing 


Rail- 
roads 


Elec- 
tric, 
gas, 
and 
water 
utili- 
ties 


Other 


- 


208 common stock issues 


Individuals k 


3,796 

3,324 

501 


3,211 

1,330 

384 


32 

369 

6 


109 

1,279 

49 


444 
346 
62 


13.5 

11.8 

1.7 


17.4 
7.2 
2.1 


1.9 

22.6 

.4 


.3.4 

40.3 

1.6 


9.0 


Corporations « 


7.0 


Other holders 


1.3 


Total (identified)"'... 


7,621 


4,925 


407 


1,437 


852 


27.0 


26.7 


24.9 


45.3 


17.3 




196 preferred stock issues 


Individuals * 


371 
726 
125 


206 
243 

78 


19 

90 

7 


57 

299 

24 


89 
94 
16 


7.2 
14.1 
2.4 


7.8 
9.1 
2.9 


5.6 

26.4 

2.5 


3.1 

16.3 

1.3 


27.0 


Corporations c 


28.5 


Other holders 


4.8 






Total (identified)"*... 


1,222 


527 


116 


380 


199 


23.7 


19.8 


34.5 


20.7 


60.3 



• Limited to principal stockholders identified from list of 20 largest record shareholdings. 
6 Includes personal and family holding companies, and trusts and estates. 
' Excludes personal holding companies, but includes Dutch "administration offices." 
i Excludes holdings of banks, brokers, etc., where beneficiary not disclosed. 



74 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEK 

Individuals accounted for about $4,200,000,000 or 47 percent of 
all identified holdings among the 20 largest shareholdings, equivalent 
to about 12^ percent of the total value of the 404 issues. In other 
words, the 3,062 individual holdings out of over 8,400,000 sharehold- 
ings — less than one-twentieth of 1 percent — accounted for about one- 
eighth of the total value of the equity securities of the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations. Individual holdings of common stock alone 
aggregated nearly $3,800,000,000 representing one-half of all identified 
holdings of common stock and 13K percent of the total value of the 208 
common stock issues. Preferred stockholdings of individuals totaled 
only about $370,000,000, slightly less than one-third of all identified 
holdings, and not much over 7 percent of the value of the issues. 
This indicates a marked preference of individual large investors for 
those issues which generally participate fully in profits and give a pos- 
sibility of voting control. 

The holdings of corporations (other than personal and family 
holding companies) had an aggregate value of about $4,050,000,000, 
of which over $3,320,000,000 was in common, and $726,000,000 in 
preferred stocks. These holdings represented about 12 percent of the 
value of all common stocks and about 14 percent of all preferred 
stocks of the 200 corporations. Thus, the holdings of other corpora- 
tions in the equity securities of the 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions were nearly as important as those of individuals for common stocks 
and considerably larger than those of individuals for preferred stocks. 
Holdings by other types of holders among the 20 largest identified 
record shareholdings were relatively small, aggregating not much 
over $626,000,000 of which $501,000,000 were in common and $125,- 
000,000 in preferred stock. They represented less than 2 percent of 
the value of common stock issues and slightly over 2 percent of that 
of preferred stock issues. 

A further breakdown of the holdings of these three main groups of 
holders, presented in tables 4 and 5 and illustrated in charts XVIII 
and XIX, shows a number of interesting facts. Of the $4,200,000,000 
of stock held by individuals, personal and family holding companies, 
and trusts and estates, only $2,500,000,000, or not more than 60 
percent, was owned directly by individuals, the proportion being 
almost identical for common and preferred stocks. Personal and 
family holding companies were credited with holdings of $857,000,000, 
while trusts and estates appeared as owners of stock worth 
$810,000,000. Each of these two instrumentalities of consolidating 
or perpetuating the influence of individual stockholders accounted 
for about 2% percent of the total value of the outstanding stock of the 
200 corporations. It is interesting to notice that the holdings of 
personal and family holding companies consisted almost exclusively 
(96 percent) of common stock, while the holdings of trusts and estates 
included a considerable proportion (15 percent) of preferred stock, as 
compared with a smaller proportion of preferred stock (9 percent) 
among the direct holdings of individuals. 

Among the holdings of corporations, those of parents (and the much 
less important subsidiaries) aggregated over $1,760,000,000 or fully 
one-fifthrof all identified holdings among the 20 largest record share 
holdings and about 5 percent of the value of the issues outstanding, . 
the proportion being only slightly higher for common than for pre- 
ferred stocks. Other nonfinancial corporations accounted for nearly 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



75 



Chart XVIII.— Value* of 20 largest record shareholdings in stock issues of 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations 



AGGREGATE VALUE 




Hanks a Brokers as Nominees 

Other Identified <* Unidentified 
Insurance Cos. Iloldei 

nuestment Cos. 

Cther Corrorat io.-:s 

I vent i Subsidiary Corps. 



Individuals t 




PERCENT OF TOTAL VALUE OF HOLDINGS 




208 COMMON 196 PREFERRED 404 

STOCK ISSUES STOCK ISSUES STOCK ISSUES 

* Based on aarkel prices on or about Dec. 31, 1937 
t. Including pergonal holding companies, trusts, and estates. 



76 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XIX. — Distribution by type of owner of value* of identified holdings 
among 20 largest record shareholdings of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 



tot COMMON STOCK ISSUIS 




2 00 

CORPS. 



* Based on market prices on or about Dec. 31, 1937 

t Including personal holding companies, trusts, and estates 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 77 

$1,000,000,000 in holdings. J These holdings were considerably more 
important, with 3.2 percent, among common than among preferred 
stock, with 1.9 percent. The holdings of insurance companies, with 
an aggregate value of $476,000,000, were much larger among preferred 
stocks, where they amounted to 6.4 percent of the amount outstanding, 
than among common stocks, where they represented only 0.5 percent. 
The holdings of investment trusts and companies (a category including 
the Dutch "administration offices") aggregated $818,000,000, mostly 
in common stocks, where they represented 2.7 percent of the aggregate 
value of the outstanding amounts. 4 The holdings of "other" groups 
of holders consisted mainly of those of foundations which amounted 
to $317,000,000 representing 0.9 percent of all common stock and 1.3 
percent of all preferred stock issues of the 200 corporations. 

Large differences also existed in the average value per holding of 
the main groups of large stockholders. Against an over-all average 
value of about $1,500,000, the 2,116 direct holdings of individuals 
showed an average of only about $1,200,000 and the 730 holdings of 
trust funds one of only about $1,100,000, while the 216 holdings of 
personal and family holding companies averaged about $4,000,000 
each. The highest average for any group was shown by the 93 hold- 
ings of parent (and subsidiary) corporations, with about $20,000,000 
each. 6 The 661 holdings of insurance companies — mainly in pre- 
ferred stock — had an average value of about $700,000, and the 407 
holdings of investment companies (including those of the Dutch 
"administration offices") one of about $2,000,000. Finally, the 282 
holdings of foundations and eleemosynary institutions averaged about 
$1,400,000. For all the identified holdings the average value per 
holding amounted to about $1,800,000. 

In contrast, the 2,861 unidentified holdings of brokers and banks 
(mainly stock held by their customers) had an average value of only 
about $600,000, this average, of course, generally representing a con- 
siderable number of individual beneficial holdings. 

(2) Differences Among Industries. 

The distribution of the identified holdings among the 20 largest 
record shareholdings, by types of owners, shows considerable differ- 
ences between industries. 

Considering first the 4 major industrial groups and common stocks 
only, there appears a striking difference — evident from inspection of 
chart XX — in the percentage of stock held by individuals (including 
personal and family holding companies and trusts and estates). 
Shareholdings of individuals (including personal and family holding 
companies, trusts, and estates) accounted for over 17 percent of the 
value of the common stock issues of manufacturing companies, com- 
pared to less than 3% percent of 47 electric, gas, and water utilities 
and 2 percent of 29 railroad common stock issues. This difference, 
of course, is mainly a reflection of the methods of growth of enter- 
prises in these industries. In manufacturing, many of the large 

3 The classification "parent corporation" covered for electric, gas, and water utilities, in accordance with 
sees. 2 (a) (71 and 2 (a) (8) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, all cases of ownership of 10 
percent or more of the outstanding votinp securities. For other industries, however, one corporation was 
regarded ;is a parent of another onlj if it owned 50 percent or more of the latter's voting stock. 

1 Of this total the Dutch "administration offices" accounted for $207,000,000, made up of $185,000,000 hold- 
ings of common stock and $22,000,000 of preferred stock issues. 

s This average is influenced b> the definition of parent corporations, discussed above. Itis also influenced, 
and reduced somewhat in reliability, by the fact that stock issues fully owned by a parent corporation had 
to bo included at an assigned value, generally their book value, whereas other issues were given market 
valuation. (See ch. Ill, pp. 5]-3.i 



78 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XX. — Proportion of stock issues of 200 largest nonfiiiancial corporations 
included in Jentified holdings among 20 largest record holdings 



CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS 
•08 COMMON STOCK ISSUES 




45 PUBLIC 29 
UTILITIES RAILROADS 



30 
OTHER 



200 
CORPS. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 7Q 

concerns now in existence are the outgrowth of originally small private 
enterprises and have made few if any offerings of equity securities, 
particularly common stock, to ihe investing public. Railroads and 
electric, gas, and water utilities, on the other hand, as a general rule 
were publicly financed from the beginning and continued to appeal 
to the open capital market as they grew. 

Similarly striking differences appear in the proportion of the issues 
held by other types of owners. Parent (and subsidiary) corporations 
accounted for 31 percent of the common stock of electric, gas, and 
wrier utilities compared to a ratio of only 2.2 percent among railroads 
and one of 1.3 percent among manufacturing companies; " the rela- 
tively high ratio of 5.3 percent among "other" industries was mainly 
due to the holdings of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. in 2 
of its subsidiaires. Nonfinancial corporations (other than parents and 
subsidiaries) were relatively most important among railroads, where 
they accounted for nearly 12 percent of the total common stock issues 
of the 29 corporations included in the study. 7 They were also fairly 
important among the 47 electric, gas, and water utilities, with 5 
percent, but accounted for only 2.8 percent of the common stock of 
the 96 manufacturing companies and 0.8 percent of that of the 30 
companies in other industries. Investment companies accounted for 
a substantial part of the holdings in the railroad companies, 7.3 percent 
of the stock outstanding, compared to ratios of 3.1 percent for utilities 
and 2.8 percent for manufacturing companies. 

Differences in the distribution of holdings, by type of owners, were 
almost equally pronounced among the subgroups of the manufacturing 
industries (tables 95 and 96, appendix IX). The proportion of 
common stock held by individuals (including personal and family 
holding companies and trusts and estates), which averaged 17 percent 
for all manufacturing companies, was highest, wi£h 36 percent among 
the 3 lumber and paper companies, 30 percent among the 3 automobile 
companies, and 29 percent among the 4 building equipment companies. 
It was also considerably above the average in chemical companies (26 ■ 
percent) and rubber and leather producers (24 percent). Holdings of 
individuals included in the 20 largest record shareholdings, on the 
other hand, were relatively small among iron and steel companies (7 
percent), machinery and tool companies (10 percent), miscellaneous 
manufacturing companies (11 percent), and nonferrous metal pro- 
ducers (12 percent). In practically all manufacturing industries, in- 
dividual holdings were considerably larger than all other identified 
holdings taken together. Holdings of nonfinancial corporations were 
of large importance only in the automobile industry (representing the 
holdings of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in General Motors Corpo- 
ration), where they accounted for over 14 percent of the total value of 
the issues, and in the petroleum refining and iron and steel industries, 
whore thev aggregated 2.5 and 5.1 percent, respectively. Investment 
company holdings were largest in the food industries (8 percent) and 
the iron and steel industry (3.7 percent). 

The distribution of preferred stocks, by types of holders and major 
industry groups, showed some similarity with the picture just de- 

8 This difference is explained partly, though not wholly, by the discrepancy between the definition of 
"parents" for e'ectric. gas, and water utilities and for all other corporations. (See note 3, above.) 

' These holdings were mainly in the hands of other railroads, which, however, were not classified as par- 
ents, as their holdings amounted to less than 50 percent of the issues. 

268445— 41— No. 29 7 



80 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

scribed for common stocks. Holdings by individuals were relatively 
most important in manufacturing companies, where they amounted 
to 8 percent. Nonfinancial corporations (other than parents or sub- 
sidiaries) were relatively important holders in "other" industries and 
railroads. The similarity with the common stock picture was less 
pronounced among the subgroups of the manufacturing industries. 
The importance of individuals' holdings was highest, with over 21 
percent among the eight issues of machinery and tool companies and 
with 18.3 percent among the six issues of nonferrous metal producers, 
and lowest (apart from the ratio of 1.8 percent for the one preferred 
stock issue of automobile companies), with between 4 and 5 percent, 
among the preferred stock issues of food and tobacco companies, rub- 
ber and leather producers, iron and steel companies, and petroleum 
refining companies. Insurance companies as holders bulked relatively 
largest among chemical and drug companies, with 16.2 percent, and 
miscellaneous manufacturing companies, with 10.9 percent; their 
holdings were particularly low or entirely absent among the preferred 
stocks of lumber and paper companies, rubber and leather producers, 
and building-equipment companies. 

3. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RATIOS OF HOLDINGS 
BY 20 LARGEST OWNERS 

A. COMMON STOCKS 

The discussion has been confined up to this point to aggregates for 
more or less comprehensive groups of corporations among the 200 
companies covered by the study. A more detailed and, in some 
respects, more realistic picture is obtained by utilizing the data for 
each company. 

Table 97 (appendix IX) shows a distribution of issues, classified by 
industry and by the percentage of the total value of the common stock 
issues, of the 200 largest corporations, which is accounted for by the 
20 largest record shareholdings; figures are presented both including 
and excluding unidentified holdings of banks and brokers. A similar 
picture for preferred stock issues is sHown in table 98 (appendix IX) . 
Table 5 below summarizes these figures. The main data contained 
in these tables are illustrated in charts XXI and XXII, showing figures 
for all common and preferred stock issues included in the study, both 
including and excluding unidentified holdings of banks and brokers, 
and in charts XXIII and XXIV, picturing the distribution of iden- 
tified holdings of common and preferred stock issues, respectively, for 
each of the 4 major industry groups. 

In 57, or over one-fourth, of the 208 common stock issues, the 20 
largest shareholdings comprised the majority of the entire issue. 8 In 
other words, the owners of the 20 largest shareholdings, if acting in 
unison, had control of the common stock issues of over 1 in every 4 of 
the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 9 The shares comprised 
within the 20 largest record holdings constituted 30 to 50 percent of 
the value of the issues in- 17 percent of the cases and 10 to 30 percent 
in one-third of the issues. There were only 5 of the 208 issues in 

8 Fourteen of these 57 issues were wholly owned by a parent corporation. 

9 It does not make much difference in this connection whether the unidentified holdings of banks and 
brokers are included or excluded. If they are included, the 20 largest recofd shareholdings constituted 50 
percent or more of the total issue in 68 cases; if they are excluded, the identified holdings among the 20 largest 
shareholdings aggregated 50 percent or more in 57 cases. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



81 



which the 20 largest record shareholdings together aggregated less 
than 10 percent of the issue, if the unidentified holdings of banks and 
brokers are included. If they are excluded the number of issues in 
which the identified holdings among the 20 largest record sharehold- ' 
ings added up to less than 10 percent of the issue rises to 46, or 22 
percent of all common stock issues of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations. 

Table .5. — Relative importance of identified largest shareholdings among stock issues 
of the WO largest nonfinancial corporations 

NUMBER OF ISSUES 



Percentage of shares 
outstanding repre- 
sented by identi- 
fied holdings among 
20 largest record 
shareholdings 




Common stock 






Preferred stock 




All 
indus- 
tries 


Manu- 
factur- 
ing 


Electric. 

gas, and 

water 

utilities 


Rail- 
roads 


Other 


All 
indus- 
tries 


, Manu- 
factur- 
ing 


Electric, 

gas, and 

water 

utilities 


Rail- 
roads 


Other 




46 
69 
36 
57 


26 
41 
19 
15 


3 

12 

7 

25 


9 
6 
6 
8 


8 
10 
4 
9 


50 
82 
32 
32 


21 
32 
15 

7 


23 
36 
12 
10 


3 

6 
3 

7 




10 to 30 




30 to 50 


2 




g 






Total 


208 


101 


47 


29 


31 


196 


75 


81 


19 













PERCENT 


OF ALL ISSUES 










Less than 10 

10 to 30 


22 

33 
17 
28 


26 
40 
19 
15 


6 
26 
15 
53 


31 
21 
21 
27 


26 
32 
13 
29 


26 
42 
16 
16 


28 
43 
20 
9 


28 
45 
15 
12 


16 
31 
16 
37 


11 
30 


30 to 50 


7 


50 and over 


30 


Total 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 



The distribution of the ratios of the 20 largest holdings (expressed as 
a percentage of the aggregate value of the issue), varied considerably 
among industries (see table 5). While the identified' holdings among 
the 20 largest record shareholdings accounted for 50 percent or more 
of the issue in only 15 percent of the common stock issues of manu- 
facturing industries, they did so in 27 percent of the railroad issues, 

29 percent of the issues of "other" industries, and in 53 percent of 
the electric, gas, and water utility issues. The proportion of issues 

30 to 50 percent of which were included in the identified holdings 
among the 20 largest record shareholdings, however, did not vary 
a great deal among the four major industry groups. Issues with 10 
to 30 percent held by identified holders among the 20 largest record 
shareholdings, however, were relatively much more numerous in 
manufacturing industries where they constituted 41 percent of all 
cases, compared to between 21 and 32 percent for the three other 
major industry groups. On the other band, issues with less than 10 
percent in the hands of such holders numbered 26 percent of all 
manufacturing issues and "other" industries, and 31 percent of rail- 
road issues, but only 6 percent of all electric, gas, and water utility 
common stock issues. It is evident from these figures that the degree 
of concentration was highest among the common stocks of utility 



82 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XXI. — Proportion of common stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings 

OP ISSUES *■ INCLUDING UN IDE NT I F I B D HOLDINGS OP BANKS, BROKEES, ETC. QP ISSUES 




reOPORTION INCLUDED IN SO LARGEST RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



83 



Chart XXII. — Proportion of preferred stock issues of 200 largest uonfinancial 
corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings 



NUMBER 
OP ISSUES 



NUMBER 
A. INCLUDING UNIDKNTIFIID HOLDINGS OF BANKS, BROKERS, STC. op issues 

40 




lOOiOOlOOtOOlOOiOOlGO-: o 



«H r4 a 



co co ^* 



iO lO CD CD O C^ CC 



c o- 5 



I i i i I 



OlOOtoOloOlOO IO O m O IO O 4ft O tO O 1C1 



T-t tH W 



5T 10 lO CC CD t^ C- C 



reOPCRTIOM INCLUDED IN 20 LARGEST RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS 



84 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chabt XXIII. — Proportion of common stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings! 



CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS 



ad- 




I1IC. PH.. GAS t 











■.L 



it 



O lO O ID O 



O IO O \Q O iq o 




OTHBR CORPS. (31 !••«•■) 



O 10 O lO O 



O ID OlOOioOloOipOiQOlOO 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lit 

lOOioOicOioo&OiooioOiQ 



PROPORTION (PERCENT) 
Mother thai unidentified holdings of tanks, brokers, etc. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



85 



Chart XXIV. — Proportion of preferred stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdingsf 




CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS 

BAItBOADS In It 




OTUSB CORPS . 




lOOtoOioOirtOioOmOiflO 

OioOioomoioOioOiooia 
PROPORTION (PERCENT) 
Mother man unidentified holdings of oanAs, brokers, etc. 



86 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

companies while statistical evidences of concentrated ownersnip were 
less pronounced among manufacturing and railroad issues. 

B. PREFERRED STOCKS 

That the proportion of an issue represented by identified holdings 
among the 20 largest shareholdings had a slight tendency to be lower 
among preferred stocks than among common stocks is indicated by 
table 5. 10 Thus, 32 of the 196 preferred stock issues of the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations were held to the extent of 50 percent or 
over by the identified owners among the 20 largest record share- 
holdings, a proportion of 16 percent comparing with one of 28 percent 
among common stocks. Identified holdings among the 20 largest 
record shareholdings amounted to between 30 and 50 percent in one- 
sixth of both the common and preferred stock issues, but to between 
10 and 30 percent in 43 percent of the preferred stock issues against 
a ratio of only 33 percent of the common stocks. The proportion of 
issues in which identified owners among the 20 largest record share- 
holdings accounted for less than 10 percent was only slightly higher 
among preferred stocks (26 percent) than among common stocks (22 
percent). 

The proportion of preferred stock issues, the majority of which was 
held by identified owners among the 20 largest record shareholdings, 
was relatively high among railroads and "other" industries (37 per- 
cent and 30 percent, respectively) and low among the issues of the 
two most numerous groups — manufacturing industries and electric, 
gas and water utilities (9 percent and 12 percent, respectively). Con- 
versely, issues with less than 10 percent of the amount outstanding 
in the hands of the identified owners among the 20 largest record 
shareholdings were relatively most common among utilities and 
manufacturing industries with 28 percent in both cases. 

Froiil the pomt of view of possible control, it is necessary to divide 
preferred stock issues inito issues with full voting rights, with con- 
tingent voting rights, and without voting rights, as is done in table 
9D (appendix IX). No similar breakdown is required for common 
stock, as only 8 of the 208 issues were without voting rights. 

Compared to an 18-percent median ratio of shares held by identified 
holders among the 20 largest record shareholdings for the entire group 
of 196 preferred stock issues, the 111 issues with full voting rights 
showed a median ratio of 15 percent, the 68 issues with contingent 
voting rights 1 of nearly 23 percent and the 17 issues without voting 
rights 1 of slightly over 29 percent. These figure's do not indicate a 
general preference of large investors, as represented in the 20 largest 
record shareholdings, for voting preferred stock issues. Inspection of 
the frequency distribution shown in table 99 likewise fails to indicate 
any definite preference of this nature. Issues with 50 percent or 
more in the hands of identified owners among the 20 largest record 
shareholdings, for example, numbered slightly under one-sixth of all 
issues of preferred stock with full or contingent voting rights but 
nearly 30 percent of nonvoting preferred stock issues. 

i" This difference would, however, disappear if issues wholly owned by another corporation were elimi- 
nated from consideration. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 87 

C. STOCK ISSUES AND ISSUERS OF DIFFERENT SIZE 

Is there any tendency for the proportion of the total issue repre- 
sented by the identified holdings among the 20 largest record share- 
holdings to increase or decrease with the size of the company or the 
total value of the issue? In other words, are the 20 largest holdings 
relatively more or less important in issues of large companies and 
with large investor interest than among smaller issues? Tables show- 
ing frequency distributions of the ratios of the identified holdings 
among the 20 largest record shareholdings to the total issue, classified 
by the size of the issuer as measured by total assets (tables 100 and 
101, appendix IX) and by the value of the issue (tables 102 and 103, 
appendix IX), provide the material for answering this question. 

It appears that there was no systematic association between the 
proportion of an issue included in the identified holdings among the 
20 largest record shareholdings and the size of the issuer. There was, 
however, a tendency for the ratio to be lower for the stock issues, both 
common and preferred, of the largest companies in the group of 200 
than for the issues of companies of the smallest or intermediate size. 
This is shown by the fact that the median ratio stood at 25 percent 
for the 111 common stock issues of companies with assets under 
$200,000,000, compared to ratios of 35 percent for the 84 issues of 
companies with assets between $200,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 and 
8)2 percent for the 13 issues of companies with over $1,000,000,000 of 
assets (mainly telephone, electric utility, and railroad companies). 
The differences were smaller — but pointed in the direction of a de- 
crease in the ratio as the size of the issuers increases — among pre- 
ferred stock issues, the median ratio being 20 percent for the 92 
issues of companies with assets of less than $200,000,000, about 17 
percent for the 94 issues of companies with assets of $200,000,000 to 
$1,000,000,000, and less than 15 percent for the 10 issues of the largest 
corporations. 

The picture was slightly more definite with respect to the relation- . 
ship between the ratio of the identified holdings among the 20 largest 
record shareholdings and the value of the issue. Although here too 
no systematic relationship appeared between the ratio and the size 
of the issue, a tendency existed — and can be observed in chart 
XXV — for the ratio to be lower for the issues of higher aggregate 
value. Thus the median ratio for the 112 common stock issues with 
an aggregate value of less than $70,000,000 each was 33 percent, 
against a ratio of only 20 percent for the 96 issues each of which had 
an aggregate value at the end of 1937 of over $70,000,000. The 
same tendency could be observed in each of the major industry groups. 
Thus the median ratio for the 36 common stock issues of manufactur- 
ing companies with a value of less than $70,000,000 was 22 percent 
against one of 18 percent for the 65 issues exceeding that size. The 
differences were greater for railroad and electric gas and water utility 
issues, but there was a relatively small number of issues in each of 
these groups. The same tendency for a higher ratio of holdings 
among issues of lower aggregate market value also appeared, though 
less distinctly, among preferred stock issues. The median ratio for 
the 113 issues with an aggregate value of less than $20,000,000 



88 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XXV.— Proportion of common and preferred stock issues of 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations included in 20 largest record shareholdings! 



CLASSIFIED BY VALUE* OF ISSUE 

Hi COMMON STOCI ISSUJ3 




PROPORTION (PERCENT) 

* Based on market prices on or about Dec. 31,1937 

t Other than unidentified holdings of banks, brokers, etc. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 89 . 

amounted to slightly over 20 percent, compared to a ratio of about 
15 percent for the 83 issues each of which had an aggregate value of 
over $20,000,000. 

D. individuals' holdings 

From several points of view particular interest attaches to the hold- 
ings of individuals (including those of personal and family holding 
companies, and trusts and estates) among the 20 largest record hold- 
ings. Table 104 (appendix IX) therefore presents a frequency dis- 
tribution of the ratio of individual holdings among the 20 largest record 
shareholdings for the common and preferred stock of the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations classified by major industrial groups, and 
chart XXVI illustrates the relative importance of these holdings in all 
common and preferred stock issues. 

(1) Common stock issues. 

Of the 208 common stock issues there were only 25 in which indi- 
viduals were not represented among the 20 largest record shareholders. 
These were mainly issues in which all the 20 largest shareholdings 
were in the names of brokers or banks acting as nominees for undis- 
closed beneficiaries or all the stock of which was held by a parent 
corporation. Issues with no individuals represented among the 20 
largest shareholdings were by far most important among the common 
stock of electric, gas, and water utilities, representing 16 of the 47 
issues in that group. They were almost insignificant in each of the 
other major industrial groups. 

Table 104 shows that individuals among the 20 largest record 
shareholders accounted for 50 percent or more of the issue in 17 
common stocks, or somewhat over 8 percent of all common stock 
issues included in the study. Individuals held between 30 and 50 
percent of the issue in 15 cases and between 10 and 30 percent in 43 
cases. In one-half of the cases, however, the aggregate holdings of 
individuals among the 20 largest record shareholdings amounted to 
less than 5 percent of the issue. The holdings of individuals among 
the 20 largest shareholdings were much more important in the com- 
mon stocks of manufacturing companies than in those of railroads 
and utilities. The median rato of individuals' holdings amounted to 
about 10% percent for manufacturing companies against only slightly 
over 3 percent for railroads and not more than 2 percent for public 
utilities. 

(2) Preferred stock issws. 

Individuals' holdings among the 20 largest record shareholdings 
were only slightly lower among preferred stocks than among common 
stocks, the median proportion for preferred stocks amounting to 4.6 
percent, compared to about 4.9 percent for common stocks. How- 
ever, there were only 16 of the 196 preferred stock issues in which no 
individual appeared among the owners of the 20 largest record share- 
holdings, a proportion of 8 percent compared with one of over 12 
percent for common stocks. Similar to the situation for common 
stocks, most of the issues without individuals' holdings were found 
among electric, gas, and water utility stocks. Individuals among 
the owners of the 20 largest record shareholdings were credited with 
50 percent or more of the entire issue in 11 cases, with 30 to 50 per- 
cent in 16 cases and with 10 to 30 percent in 35 cases. Thus, individ- 



90 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XXVI. — Proportion of stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
included in holdings of individuals, personal holding companies, and estates 
among 20 largest record shareholdings 



NUMBER 

OF ISSUES 

100 




PROPORTION (PERCENT) 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 91 

uals held more than 1 percent of the issue in 3 1 percent of the prefer- 
red stock issues and 36 percent of the common stock issues of the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations. 

E. THE LARGEST SINGLE RECORD SHAREHOLDING 

There is also interest, for some purposes, in the relative size of the 
largest single record shareholding expressed as a percentage of total 
amount of the issue. Tables 105 and 106 (appendix IX) and chart 
XXVII, therefore, show a frequency distribution of the percentage of 
the common stock outstanding which is accounted for by the largest 
record shareholding (including banks, brokers, etc. where beneficiaries 
were not disclosed), classified (in tables 105 and 106 and in chart 
XXVII) by major industries and subclassified (in the tables though not 
in chart XXVII) by the chief types of persons credited with the largest 
shareholding. It must be emphasized that the figures are based 
exclusively on the largest shareholding which appears on the right- 
hand side of the lists in appendix X. No account is taken of the 
additional blocks of the same issue which the owner of the largest 
record shareholding may hold through unresolved nominees, trust 
funds, personal holding companies, or other corporations under the 
control of or under common control with the owner. Nor is account 
taken of holdings of other family members of the owner of the largest 
record shareholding. The figures presented in tables 105 and 106, 
on which this subsection is based, therefore, have to be regarded only 
as the minimum amount held beneficially by the largest single stock- 
holder. The actual concentration of stock in the hands of the largest 
stockholder is undoubtedly considerably larger than indicated by 
these tables. 

(1) Common stock issues. 

Among the 208 common stock issues the proportion of the total 
issue represented by the largest single record shareholding had a 
median value of 9 percent. In other words, in one-half of the issues 
the largest single holding amounted to at least 9 percent of the total 
number of common shares outstanding. If additional stock held by 
the owner of the largest shareholding were included, the median would 
most likely exceed 10 percent. There were only 3 issues in which the 
largest single holding was smaller than 1 percent and 71 issues in 
which it was between 1 and 5 percent. The largest holding amount- 
ed to between 5 and 10 percent of the issue in 36 cases, to between 10 
and 15 percent in 20 cases, and to between 15 and 20 percent in 10 
cases. It accounted for between 20 and 30 percent in 17 cases, for 
between 30 and 40 percent in 13 cases, and for between 40/ and 50 
percent in 6 cases. The largest single holding comprised over half of 
the issue in 32 cases, in 13 of which it constituted between 95 and 
100 percent of the issue. 

Differences in the median size and the distribution of the largest 
shareholding between major industries were considerable. The 
largest single shareholding was most important, relatively speaking, 
among electric, gas, and water utilities, where it had a value of 32% 
percent, and smallest among manufacturing companies where it was 
somewhat under 6 percent, railroads (13% percent) and other corpora- 
tions (10% percent) occupying an intermediate position. 



92 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XXVII. — Proportion of largest record shareholding in common stock 
issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 



NUMBER 
OP ISSUES MAHU'ACTU.INC |i>i Isaacs) 



CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS 

NUMBER 
8AILP.OACS Ijj laaaa-a) OF BSUES 



^JpJl^Egi 



PUBLIC UTILITIES (47 Issues) 



OTBBF (31 Is. us. ) 




PROPORTION INCLUDED IN LARGEST RECORD SHAREHOLDING 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 93 

There were also considerable differences in the median value of the 
largest holding depending upon the type of stockholder. The 68 
largest single shareholdings in the hands of individuals showed a 
median value of less than 7 percent of the issue u and the 27 largest 
single shareholdings in the hands of investment companies (including 
Dutch "administration offices") one of 8% percent. The 63 largest 
single shareholdings held by nonfinancial corporations (including 
parent and subsidiary corporations), however, had a median value of 
nearly 40 percent. In contrast, the median value of the largest single 
holding was slightly below 2 percent in the 26 issues where it was in 
the hands of brokers and banks not disclosing the beneficial ownership, 
i. e., where it represented in most cases an aggregate of relatively 
small holdings of customers. 

(2) Preferred stock issues. 

Among preferred stocks the size of the largest single holding was 
generally considerably smaller than among common stocks. The 
median of the largest single holding in all 196 preferred stock issues, 
for instance, amounted to only 5.7 percent compared with 9.0 percent 
for the 208 common stocks. As among common stocks, the median 
value of the largest single holding was by far highest where it was in 
the hands of nonfinancial corporations (20 percent) and smallest 
where it was held by banks and brokers without identification of 
beneficial ownership (3.7 percent). However, the median value of 
the largest single holding in the hands of individuals was practically 
as large among preferred stock (6.4 percent), as among common 
stock (6.7 percent). 

Some differences appear in a comparison of the median values (see 
chart XXVIII) and the distributions of the largest single shareholding 
among issues of the four major industries for preferred and for com- 
mon stocks. The value was highest among preferred stocks for rail- 
roads (14% percent — hardly differing from the 13% percent for railroad 
common stock) and lowest (4.9 percent), among electric, gas, and water 
utilities, the major industry group with the highest such value (32% 
percent) among common stock. For manufacturing companies the 
median value for preferred stocks of 4.8 percent was only slightly 
below the corresponding value of 5.7 percent for common stocks. 

4. NATURE, TREATMENT, AND LIMITATIONS OF DATA 

The major part of the material which forms the subject matter of 
this chapter was originally gathered in 1938 by the then Research 
Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These data 
were released to the Temporary National Economic Committee with 
the permission of the companies originally supplying the information. 
This material was supplemented by lists of the names and addresses 
of the 20 largest stockholders of record of about 50 corporations which 
either had not originally supplied the information or which, at that 
time, had not supplied it in sufficient detail for the purposes of this 
study. In this way a list was obtained of the 20 largest shareholdings 
of record for each of the more than 400 stock issues of the 200 largest 
nonnnancial corporations which have been the subject of this study. 

11 This value would be considerably higher if additional holdings through trusts, estates, and personal 
holding companies were included. 



94 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chart XXVIII. — Proportion of largest record shareholding in stock issues of 
200 largest nonfinancial corporations 




PROPORTION INCLUDED IN LARGEST RECORD SHAREHOLDING 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 95 

An attempt was then made to get behind the legal facade of owner- 
ship and to discover the beneficial owners of the shares appearing in 
the names of the 20 largest stockholders of record. This was done, 
first, by an analysis of material gathered by previous studies, such as 
the Splawn study on railroad holding companies 12 and pipe lines, 13 
the Wheeler railroad financial investigation, 14 the Securities and 
Exchange Commission's study of investment trusts and investment 
companies 15 and the study of the petroleum industry made by the 
Temporary National Economic Committee. 16 Extensive use was also 
made of information on stock ownership filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission by public utility holding companies on forms 
U5B and U5S under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. 
Available information was supplemented by approximately 500 
questionnaires addressed to the principal holders of record in an 
attempt to identify legal and beneficial holders. The more important 
trusts and personal holding companies were circularized in order to 
secure information on the beneficiaries of the trusts and the principal 
stockholders of personal or family holding companies. Certain other 
corporations, such as the Cliffs Corporation, United States Tobacco 
Co., and M. A. Hanna Corporation, which appeared repeatedly in the 
lists of the 20 largest record stockholdings, were also sent question- 
naires regarding their principal stockholders. 

The primary limitation of the study of principal holdings has been 
the fact that the list was restricted to 20 shareholdings which consti- 
tuted in some cases an inadequate basis for a study of the principal 
holders. However, lists of the 20 largest holdings of record had been 
supplied to the Trading and Exchange Division of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission before creation of the Temporary National 
Economic Committee by a substantial percentage of the corporations 
included in this study. It was therefore regarded as preferable to 
secure the release of this information which would not involve addi- 
tional expense to respondents and to limit the study to this material 
rather than to attempt to secure new and more comprehensive data 
by again approaching all of the corporations. The use of the data 
supplied to the Research Division has given rise to the further minor 
disadvantage that most of the material utilized referred to a date 
between November 1937 and June 1938 and not uniformly to a more 
recent date such as the end of 1939, as did much of the data collected 
especially for this study. 

Further limitations arise from the ways in which the questionnaires 
were used. Because of restrictions of time, questionnaires were sent 
only to holders of record credited with over 1 percent of an issue of 
stock except in those cases where holders of less than 1 percent seemed 
to be connected with holders of a larger percent of ownership. Ques- 
tionnaires furthermore were not sent to most banks and brokers, as it 
was not feasible to make the necessary inquiries in the very numerous 
cases involved and as the assumption seemed justified that these 

II Rept. No .2789, Regulation of Stock Ownership in Railroads, 1931, 71st Cong., 3d sess. 

> 3 H. Rept. No. 2192, Report on Pipe Lines, 1933, 72d Cong., 2d sess. 

w Hearings before the suhcomrrittee of the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate on the 
Investigation of Railroads, Holding Companies, Affiliated Companies, and Related Matters, 74th, 75th, 
and 76th Congs., 1937-4(1. 

15 Securities and Exchange Commission report on Investment Trusts and Investment Companies, Part 
Two, ch. V, Owners'iip and Control >f Investment Trusts and Investm°nt Companies. 1939. 

18 Hearings before the Temporary N'ational Economic Committee on the Investigation of Concentration 
of Economic Power, pt. 14A. Petroleum Industry, 76th Cong., 2d sess., 1939. 

268445— 41— No. 29 S 



9(3 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

holdings generally did not represent beneficial ownership by the banks 
or brokers themselves or by large stockholders. 17 Questionnaires were 
sent only to those stockholders of record about whose status there 
seemed to be some doubt. Possibly a number of individuals who were 
accepted as beneficial holders would have been revealed as nominees 
had questionnaires been sent to them. It is believed, however, that 
neither this nor the other limitations on the completeness of the pic- 
ture are sufficiently important to affect the validity of general conclu- 
sions based on the information concerning the 20 largest record 
shareholdings. 

The lists of 20 largest shareholdings submitted by the companies, 
together with the information secured from the questionnaires and 
from other sources, form the basis for the lists of principal share- 
holders of record which appears in appendix X. These lists show, 
separately for each issue of each company, on the left-hand side 
of the list, the names of the 20 largest holders of record ranked in 
order of the size of their holding, and, on the right-hand side, the 
beneficial owners of these record holdings. For both record and 
beneficial holdings, the lists also indicate the calculated market 
value of each holding at the end of 1937 and the percent of the total 
issue which each holding represented. The legal and beneficial holders 
are classified into about a dozen broad classes. Where information 
has been obtained on the beneficiaries of a trust or the stockholders of a 
personal holding company, this is given in a parenthetical statement 
below the name of the trust or company. In some instances, infor- 
mation was secured on beneficial holdings which were not held through 
any nominee appearing among the 20 largest holdings of record. 
These holdings were incorporated in the list of beneficial holders ap- 
pearing on the right-hand side of the tables; in order to bring the 
totals into agreement, the total legal and beneficial holdings which 
were not included in the record holdings also appear as a separate 
subtotal on the left-hand side of the list. Similarly, when part of the 
holding of a broker or other nominee who appeared as a record holder 
was identified and assigned to the proper legal and beneficial holder on 
the right, the remaining holdings in the name of the broker or other 
nominee were included on the same side in a subtotal which shows the 
amount of record holdings not included in the list of identified bene- 
ficial holders. Those nominees which have not been identified, bu 
which there is no reason to believe are the beneficial owners of stock 
standing in their names, appear on the right-hand side under the 
heading, "Banks, brokers, etc., beneficiaries not disclosed." 

While the analysis of the distribution of all shareholdings by their 
size, as presented in chapter III, gives an idea of the degree of con- 
centration of ownership existing among the 200 companies, this alone 
is not always indicative of the concrete situation in particular com- 
panies. The lower limit of the top class interval in these distributions 
(5,000 shares) is not quite satisfactory in companies with large stock 

»' In those cases where, for special reasons, questionnaires were sent to banks and brokers the replies 
indicated that they customarily acted as nominee for a large number of individuals, relatively few of which 
accounted for. any substantial percentage of the stock. Banks and brokers often were nominees for from- 
ten to several hundred stockholders, and in few cases did the largest of these stockholders account for more 
than 50 percent of the total holdings of the bank or broker acting as nominee. The principal large holders 
using banks and brokers as nominees were investment trusts and investment companies, usually those 
companies which had been sponsored by the nominee brokerage house. Published portfolios of invest- 
ment cortvpanies and material gathered by the investment trust study of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission have thrown considerable light on the holdings of these companies and made it possible to 
resolve some, unidentified brokers' holdings. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 97 

issues where holdings of 5,000 shares are common; in United States 
Steel Corporation, for example, 138 stockholdings included more than 
5,000 shares, in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 462, and in General 
Electric Co., 522. 18 More serious is the wide variation among issues 
in the total number of stockholders, which reduces the value of per- 
centage comparisons between companies or between issues of a par- 
ticular company. 19 

While the data on the distributions of all shareholdings utilized in 
previous chapters were based on record (or book) shareholdings, the 
statistics presented in this chapter generally reflect legal or beneficial 
ownership. However, as shown in chapter III, 20 the difference be- 
tween distributions based on record shareholdings, on the one band, 
and beneficial ownership, on the other, and hence the difference in the 
degree of concentration, is not likely to be great for all the 200 com- 
panies together or for large groups of them, although it may be con- 
siderable for individual corporations. In some cases the actual de 
gree of concentration will be greater than that appearing from record 
shareholdings since some of the individual record holders may simply 
be acting as nominees or trustees for one individual or group of indi- 
viduals. Also husband, wife, children, brother, or sister may appear 
as separate holders whereas actually the holdings may be voted as 
one block and in practically all respects behave as one holding. 
Finally, parent and subsidiary corporations may be recorded as 
separate holders although one is completely dominated by the other. 

An evaluation of the differences between the distribution picture 
shown by the over-all statistics of record shareholdings and by the 
detailed study of the beneficial holdings of the 20 largest stockholders 
leads to the conclusion that consideration of the 20 largest share- 
holdings may change the picture considerably for a number of com- 
panies. However, in the great majority of cases and for all major 
groups of companies the generalizations and conclusions arrived at on 
the basis of an analysis of the distribution of record shareholdings 
remain valid, though they are supplemented and made more concrete 
by the study of the 20 largest shareholdings. 

i 8 The price of the issue also affects the value of the size distribution as an indicator of concentration in 
that an issue having a relatively low market value will be more likely to show concentration of holdings in 
blocks of 5,000 shares or over than one with a high price. 

" Extreme cases are instances like Anderson, Clayton & Co., in which, although 10 percent of the stock- 
holders held over 5,000 shares each, the 10 percent actually represented only 3 stockholders. In the case of 
Cudahy Packing Co. 6-percent preferred, 36 percent of the stockholders had over 1,000 shares, but the 
total number of stockholders being only 19, the 36 percent represented but 7 stockholders. 

« Ch. Ill, pp. 51-2. 



CHAPTER VI 

TYPES OF OWNERSHIP CONTROL AMONG THE 200 LARGEST 
NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

1. SCOPE OF CHAPTER 

The data on the distribution of ownership of the 200 corporations 
presented in previous chapters have been based on aggregates for 
more or less comprehensive groups of corporations. Chapter V, in 
particular, has indicated the absolute and relative magnitude of the 
20 largest shareholdings for industrial and size groups among the 200 
corporations. With this chapter two further steps in the analysis are 
taken. 

First, the distribution of ownership in an individual corporation 
rather than that in a group of companies is made the subject of 
investigation. Chapter V indicated that the proportion of the total 
stock outstanding included in the 20 largest record shareholdings 
varied greatly between companies; it also showed that the impor- 
tance of certain types of holders differed considerably between in- 
dustries. The present chapter is devoted, among other things, to a 
further investigation of such variations. 

This chapter, however, differs from the rest of the report in still 
another respect. Up to this point the analysis has run almost ex- 
clusively in terms of ownership — record ownership in chapter III, 
beneficial ownership in chapters IV and V (as in the later chs. VII 
and VIII). No attempt has been made to proceed from the analysis 
of the distribution of ownership to the problems of dominance or 
control. In this chapter, on the other hand, some statements will be 
made about the apparent location of control in individual corpora- 
tions. These statements will, of course, be based primarily on the 
ownership data collected for this study. But these data will be sup- 
plemented by other evidence, mainly the affiliations of officers and 
directors. Lack of knowledge of all the connections of directors and 
officers of many of the companies included in the study has rendered 
it impossible to assert with confidence whether every substantial 
group of stockholders appearing among the 20 largest shareholdings, 
is or is not represented in the management. Howeveiy at least in- 
sofar as family groups are concerned, it is generally feasible to state 
whether members of the family are represented in the management 
and it is also possible to indicate whether such representation con- 
sists of the mere holding of a directorship or of the possession of an 
executive position. No account, however, will be taken in this chap- 
ter of control by bankers or control by officers and directors if it is 
not also reflected in stock ownership. 

It is realized that "control" is a very elusive concept. The term 
is used here to indicate the power of determining the broad policies 
guiding a corporation and not to describe the actual influence on the 

99 



100 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

day-to-day affairs of an enterprise. Existence or absence of control 
by a certain group of persons 4s, therefore, a question of fact. The 
legal prerogatives of officers, directors, and shareholders may have 
very little to do with the location of such control. It may not be 
dependent, moreover, on the ownership of a certain amount of stock 
such as the absolute majority of all voting stock. This, chapter, 
furthermore, is concerned only with the situation at the time of the 
inquiry (1937-39), and not with the future location of control, i. e., 
the problem of pennanent dominance, or of its past location. A 
history of the rise of the controlling block of stock in a certain cor- 
poration or an explanation of changes over time in the concentration 
in its ownership are, therefore, beyond the scope of this chapter, 
though these problems will occasionally be touched upon. 

As the ground work for this discussion of control, the 200 corpora- 
tions have been classified in appendix XI by the type of control through 
ownership (as defined below) in all cases where there was sufficient 
evidence available to indicate the likelihood of control by an identifi- 
able group of stockholders. This classification is primarily based on 
the proportion of voting stock held, but also takes other relevant 
factors into account, particularly distribution of the rest of the out- 
standing voting stock and representation in the management. Errors 
undoubtedly have been made in individual cases both in claiming the 
existence of a center of control or in determining its location. On 
the one hand, control functions may have been ascribed in a number 
of cases to small minority holdings and occasionally also to substantial 
minority holdings — but hardly to any predominant minority hold- 
ing—where the actual situation does not allow the owners of minority 
blocks to have much of an influence over the management of the cor- 
poration's affairs. On the other hand, a number of minority holdings 
large enough to permit a considerable degree of control probably have 
been overlopked because they were either entirely hidden among 
unidentified holdings of banks and brokers or were spread over so 
many separate record holdings that they did not show up in the list 
of the 20 largest shareholdings. It is very unlikely, however, that 
the correction of such errors would change the over-all picture to any 
substantial degree. 1 

2. INSTRUMENTALITIES AND TYPES OF OWNERSHIP 

CONTROL 

Before classifying the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations by type 
of control and discussing typical individual cases, it is necessary to set 
forth the basis for classifying the dominant stockholders, to describe 
briefly the instrumentalities of control, and to define the various 
types of control. 

1 See Berle and Means, Modern Corporation and Private Property, ch. V, pp. 95-114, for a similar classi- 
fication of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, presumably reflecting the situation around 1930. Of 
the 200 corporations included in this study, 138 are also on the list of Berle and Means. 

Berle and Means used a slightly different classification of control situations from that employed here. 
They distinguished two subgroups of what has been called here "majority ownership control," namely, 
almost complete control ("private ownership") and other majority control. On the other hand, they made 
no distinctions between degrees of minority ownership control — classified in this report into three groups— 
but separated "minority control" from "management control," the latter designation being applied where 
holdings of the apparently dominating group were very small, and control was based not on stock ownership 
but on possession of executive positions. 

Apart from these terminological differences, the two classifications also vary in a number of cases with 
respect to the allocation of individual companies to one or the other control type. These differences are due 
partly to changes in the control situation which have taken place over the last decade, partly to the fact 
that the information available for this study was generally more detailed and finally, to some degree, to 
differences of judgment in doubtful cases. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER |01 

A. TYPES OF DOMINANT STOCKHOLDERS 

The dominant position in a large corporation is but rarely embodied 
in a single block of stock owned directly by one individual or one 
corporation. As a rule there exist a number of separate holdings 
which are more or less closely connected and which actually vote and 
act in unison. They have been designated here as an "interest 
group." Holdings of an interest group may all be owned beneficially 
by the same person but held through separate instrumentalities, such 
as trust funds, estates, personal holding companies, or even held by 
endowed foundations and thus not owned beneficially. Usually; 
however, an interest group is made up of the shareholdings of a number 
of individuals or corporate entities and the holdings of each or of some 
members of the group may, in turn, be distributed over several in- 
strumentalities. 

Probably the commonest and most easily identified type of interest 
group of large stockholders is the family. Large family holdings in 
a corporation usually derive from a single original investment. The 
founder or dominant stockholder of a corporation will ordinarily seek 
to preserve his holdings as one block in order to perpetuate the control 
position of his holdings and will often use personal holding companies 
or trusts as the main instrumentalities for doing so. The trust 
enables him to segregate the prerogatives of ownership, the right to 
receive income and the power of control. The right to receive income 
may be divided among a number of beneficiaries, while the control 
rights, such as the right to sell, to exchange, or to vote securities held 
by the trust, may be vested/in the hands of trustees whose business 
attitudes concur with those of the founder of the trust. A similar 
division of function is attained through the organization of a personal 
holding company, the shares of which are distributed to the members 
of the family, probably not for direct ownership, but, in turn, under 
a trust instrument. The family holding company has the advantage 
of permanence over the trust. The ease of transfer of part interests 
may be regarded by the founder as another advantage or looked upon 
as a disadvantage of the family holding company. 

The existence of family holding companies and trusts as well as the 
division of an original block of stock among members and branches of 
the same family gives rise to the family interest group. The group 
properly includes relatives by marriage and legal or financial repre- 
sentatives of the family. It should be recognized, however, that 
members of the same family may not necessarily have common busi- 
ness interests, and that sometimes members of one branch of a family 
may oppose those of another. 2 Generally, however, the nature of the 
origin of family interests and the legal right of inheritance by blood 
relatives in default of other testamentary instructions justify the 
aggregation of all holdings of members of a family into one family 
interest group. 

Interest groups not based on family relationships are less easy to 
define. However, several families not necessarily related by blood 
or marriage, that participated jointly in the foundation of a company 
or later became associated through merger of corporations each con- 

2 It is reported for example, that members of the Florida branch of the du Pont family, headed by the 
late Alfred du Pont, had for some time been at odds with the branch headed by Pierre du Pont over control 
of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (See du Pont v. du Pont, U. S. District Court for Delaware, March 
1918, 251 Federal Reporter, p. 937). 



1Q2 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

trolled by one family may ordinarily be considered to have common 
interests. They form a sort of "multifamily" interest group, 
numerous instances of which aie found among the 200 corporations 
included in the study. 40 

A group of individuals unrelated by blood or marriage may likewise 
join together to dominate a particular company: Such "entrepre- 
neurial" interest groups, based on joint representation in the manage- 
ment, may be more or less stable than family interest groups depending 
on the outside ties of members of- the group. However, when such 
community of interest is based on joint dependence on each other's 
stock holdings as a means of maintaining a dominant position a sub- 
stantial degree of stability results. 

Finally, an interest group may consist of one or more corporations 
(other than personal and family holding companies) which are under 
joint control, together with the corporation or individuals controlling 
them or of several investment companies which are united through 
common management. 

B. INSTRUMENTALITIES OF CONTROL 

Only relatively rarely do we encounter the simple situation where 
one dominant shareholder, corporate or individual, holds all the 
shares which he controls outright in his own name, or even in the name 
of one or more nominees. It is more common to find part or all of the 
block of stock which one or a group of large shareholders control to be 
held through the instrumentality of trusts, estates, foundations, per- 
sonal holding companies, or other corporations. 

The extent to which individual big shareholders use trusts and per- 
sonal holding companies has already been indicated in chapter V. 
It was found there that of stock included in the 20 largest record 
shareholdings about as much was held by trusts, estates, and personal 
holding companies as was owned directly by individual stockholders. 3 
The most extreme case of the use of trusts among the 200 corporations 
was provided by the Singer Manufacturing Co., approximately 44 
percent of the total stock outstanding being held by about two dozen 
trusts established for the members of two families. 4 Family holding 
companies were found to be the largest stockholders of such important 
enterprises as E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the Firestone Tire & 
Rubber Co., and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. Part of the holdings of 
the Mellon family in Gulf Oil Corporation and Aluminum Co. of 
America were in the hands of Mellon Securities Corporation, an 
investment banking institution wholly controlled by the Mellon 
family. Corporations often have used subsidiaries and affiliated com- 
panies to hold important blocks of stock. For instance, the holdings 
of Koppers Co. in the Brooklyn Union Gas Co. were in the hands of 
two wholly owned investment companies. General Electric Corpora- 
tion used a wholly owned investment company, Electrical Securities 
Corporation, as a mechanism for holding its investments in nu- 
merous utility companies. 

> See tables 93 and 94, appendix IX. 

* The importance of trust funds was still larger in the Campbell Soup Co. (a company not included in the 
list of the 200 largest corporations, material on which was collected because its size very nearly brought it 
into the group): here 100 percent of the stock was held in trust for members of the Dorrance family. 

<» When such a grouping of families has been made in this study (see pp. 105-9) it should not be inferred 
fhat the unanimity of purpose is necessarily permanent or even complete at any given time or under all 
renditions, the grouping having rather been based upon the belief that, as of the particular period under 
review, the various families involved were generally working in accord. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 1Q3 

C. TYPES OF CONTROL 

The first distinction between types of control is obvious — that be- 
tween majority and minority control. It is important mainly because 
there can be no dispute about the existence of control where one 
interest group owns more than 50 percent of the voting stock of a 
corporation. In such cases control is, in effect, absolute, except for 
the limited rights afforded minority stockholders by law. 

Any distinction of types of minority control is, to a certain extent, 
arbitrary. It appears, however, that at least three types of minority 
control can profitably be distinguished. 

1. Control through a "predominant minority", i. e., 30 to 50 
percent of the voting stock. 5 For practical purposes this type of 
control is as effective as majority control, since the assembling of a 
large counter-block in big heavily capitalized corporations is almost 
out of the question. 

2. Control through "substantial minority"' holdings, i. e., between 
10 and 30 percent of the stock outstanding; and 

3. Control through a "small minority" holding of less than 10 
percent. 

Obviously, control through a substantial minority, and particularly 
through a small minority holding, depends, among other things, on 
the distribution of the remaining stock. In general, control through a 
small minority will be effective only if most of the stock is distributed 
in small lots, if no other large blocks exist, and if the chief officers of 
the corporation cooperate fully. Wide distribution of the remaining 
stock is less important once a large minority block is assembled, since 
it would be almost impossible in practice, save under very special cir- 
cumstances, to dispute the control over a large, heavily capitalized 
corporation, exercised by any interest group owning more than about 
one-quarter of the entire voting stock. 

3. OWNERSHIP CONTROL OVER THE 200 LARGEST NON- 
FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

A. THE OVER-ALL PICTURE 

An attempt to classify the 200 corporations according to the type 
of ownership control existing in 1937-39, in general on the basis of 
distribution of the common stock, yielded the following results: 

About 60, or less than one-third of the 200 corporations, were 
without a visible center of ownership control. This does not mean, 
however, that an actual center of control was lacking, but only indi- 
cates that a study of the 20 largest record holdings failed to dis- 
close such a center. In many of these corporations the chief officers, 
though owning but little stock, may well have been in a position 
of control, relying largely on the power of the proxy machinery. 6 In 

4 If another interest group has the majority, a minority block of even 49 percent, of course, is not classified 
as a controlling holding. 

• Control by officers without ownership is strengthened by the fact that a corporation owns, directly or 
indirectly, a considerable block of its own stock. The outstanding example of this practice among the 200 
corporations is provided by Consolidated Oil Corporation, which through its ownership of 39 percent of the 
stock of Petroleum Corporation of America actually controlled over 1 1 percent of its own common stock, the 
largest block in existence. (For details see the Securities and Exchange Commission report on Investment 
Trusts and Investment Companies, pt. three, ch. II, sec. VII.) 



104 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

others, investment bankers or trust companies (as the trustees for 
large blocks of stock) may have exercised considerable influence even 
though their own beneficial holdings were small or nonexistent. 7 

Companies without a. definite center of ownership control were rare 
among electric, gas, and water utilities, only 4 of 45 corporations falling 
into this group. Such companies represented, however, over one- third 
of the manufacturing companies included in the study (32 out of 96) 
and one-half of the railroad group (14 out of 29). The group of 
corporations without visible center of ownership control included some 
of the largest and most widely held of the 200 corporations, e. g., 
American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Anaconda Copper Mining 
Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Eastman Kodak Co., 
General Electric Co., The B. F. Goodrich Co., The Goodyear Tire & 
Rubber Co., Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Paramount Pictures 
Inc., Radio Corporation of America, United States Steel Corpora- 
tion, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation, Westinghouse Electric 
& Manufacturing Co., the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 
Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Southern, Pacific Co., Union Pacific 
Railroad Co., and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. 

In about 140 of the 200 corporations the blocks in the hands of one 
interest group were large enough to justify, together with other indica- 
tions such as representation in the management, the classification of 
these companies as more or less definitely under ownership control. 

About 40 companies, or one-fifth of all the corporations included in 
the study, were controlled by one-family interest groups. In only 8 
of these corporations, however, was the control absolute, being based 
on the ownership of the majority of the voting stock. In another 
dozen companies control was based on a predominant minority of 30 
to 50 percent of the voting stock, which for practical purposes is almost 
equivalent to absolute control. About as numerous were the cases 
in which control was based on ownership of a substantial minority 
(10 to 30 percent) of the voting stock. There were only 7 cases in 
which a corporation was classified as under one-family-ownership con- 
trol — mainly because of heavy representation of the family in the 
management — although the family holdings amounted to less than 10 
percent of the voting stock. These are almost the only cases in this 
group in which there is serious doubt about the existence of ownership 
control. 8 

Single-family-controlled corporations were most numerous among 
manufacturing and merchandising enterprises. In these two indus- 
tries they accounted for nearly one-third of the companies falling into 
those groups. Only three single-family-controlled corporations were 
found among the railroads and electric, gas, and water utilities. 
This contrast reflects, as already intimated, differences in the financial 
history of industrial corporations on the one hand and railroad and 
eleotric, gas, and water utility corporations on the other, chiefly the 
larger importance of public offerings of securities among the railroads 
and utilities. 

About 35 corporations were under ownership control by an interest 
group which consisted of several families or a group of business asso- 

7 In the 3 leased railroads included in the group (Boston & Albany R. R. Co.; Carolina, Clinchfleld 
& Ohio Ry.; Morris & Essex R. R. Co.) actual control, of course, rested with the lessee railroad, though 
it did not own any of the stock. 

8 There were also a number of cases, classified among corporations without a visible center of ownership 
control, in which such control may actually have existed although it was not detected in classifying the 200 
corporations for the purposes of this study. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 105. 

ciates. Control in most of these cases was based on minority holdings 
of less than 30 percent of the voting stock. Corporations under con- 
trol of such interest groups were relatively most numerous in manu- 
facturing and merchandising. However, there were also 4 electric 
utilities over which a group of several families or business associates 
appeared to exercise control. Only 1 of the 29 railroads included in 
the study was found in this category. 

Nearly 60 corporations were under the control of other corporations 
(excluding family holding companies) but about a dozen of the con- 
trolling corporations were in turn controlled by an interest group which 
consisted of one or several families or a number of business associates. 
If these corporations were included with the corporations under family 
control, that group would comprise over two-fifths of the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations. 

Corporations controlled by other corporations were about evenly 
divided between majority and minority controlled companies. 9 This 
indicates that majority control was relatively much more common here 
than among family-controlled corporations, the difference being due 
to the relatively large number of electric utilities majority-controlled 
by other corporations. Wherever control was based on a minority 
holding, such minority was generally large. Over one-half of all the 
corporations controlled by other corporations were in the electric, 
gas, and water utility industry, where they constituted three-quarters 
of the 45 companies included in the study. This situation is a reflec- 
tion of the large multi-tier holding corporation systems with complex 
capital structures which characterize the corporate organization of the 
utility industry. 

No case of control solely through a foundation or a similar institu- 
tion was found among the 200 corporations, though foundations played 
a very important role in a number of cases as instrumentalities of or 
adjuncts to control by a family interest group. 

In about a dozen corporations control apparently was of a mixed 
type, one or more families and one or more independent corporations 
together holding a controlling amount of stock. These corporations 
are difficult to classify and have been disregarded in the counts men- 
tioned in the preceding discussion. 

B. DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTROL 10 

(1) Family Control. 

(a) Majority. — One of the most distinct types of control is repre- 
sented by eight companies in which one family owned the majority 
of the voting stock. The best example among the 200 corporations of 
this type of control is provided by the -Ford Motor Co., the entire 
voting stock being owned directly by three closely related members of 
the family. 11 In The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America 100 
percent of the voting common stock was held by the New York Great 

8 This paragraph deals with all corporations controlled by other corporations, irrespective of whether the 
controlling corporation was in turn under the control of another interest gToup. 

10 To avoid overloading the text with figures reference is made, with few exceptions, only to the proportion 
of common stock held by an interest gToup. This proportion, of course, differs from the proportion of total 
voting power only where one or more voting preferred stock issues exist and the difference is of importance 
only if the preferred stock issues represent a considerable proportion of the total voting power of all stock 
issues. In most cases where such is the case the proportion of total voting power is indicated in the text. 

" Similarly complete control by one family is shown in the Campbell Soup Co., as 100 percent of the voting 
stock of this company was owned beneficially by members of the Dorrance family, but, in contrast to the 
situation in the Ford Motor Co., practically all holdings were in trust funds. 



106 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., a holding company for the Hartford 
family. An example of apparent control not merely by one family but 
by one individual was provided by Hearst Consolidated Publications, 
Inc., the entire voting stock of which was held by Hearst Corporation, 
a wholly owned subsidiary of American Newspapers, Inc., which, in 
turn, was wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by William Randolph 
Hearst. 12 

Control by one family, while not as complete as in these cases, was 
based on ownership of above 50 percent of the common stock in Gulf 
Oil Corporation, Koppers United Co., Sun Oil Co., S. H. Kress & Co., 
and Duke Power Co. These five companies, however, showed interest- 
ing differences in the instrumentalities used by the dominating stock- 
holders. Of the common stock of the Gulf Oil Corporation 52 percent 
was owned by members of the Mellon family directly, nearly 5 percent 
by trust funds for members of the family and 7% percent by the 
Mellon Securities Corporation, wholly owned by members of the Mel- 
lon family and the A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, 
which in its own right held 5 percent of Gulf Oil Corporation common 
stock. The Mellon family also had majority control of Koppers 
United Corporation (which owned 100 percent of the voting stock of 
Koppers Co.) through ownership of slightly over 52 percent of the 
common stock, about evenly divided between direct holdings and 
family trusts. 13 The holdings of the members of the Kress family 
and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation in S. H. Kress & Co., amounting 
to nearly 79 percent of the common stock, and those of the Pew family 
in Sun Oil Co., aggregating about 69 percent of the common stock, 
were practically all in direct form. 

Majority control by one family was also probable in the Duke Power 
Co, Members of the family beneficially owned 44 percent, mainly 
through trusts, and the holdings of the Duke Endowment (which 
according to its charter is not under family control, although the 
trustees appear to be closely associated with the main business inter- 
ests of the Duke family), amounting to over 38 percent of the common 
stock, were necessary to give the family absolute voting control 

Examples of the multifamily type of majority control are provided 
by Anderson, Clayton & Co., Singer Manufacturing Co., Long Island 
Lighting Co., and Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. In Anderson, 
Clayton & Co., 47 percent of the voting participating preferred stock 
(representing most of the equity capital and of the votes) was held 
by M. D. Anderson Foundation through bequest of one of the founders 
of the firm, an additional 47 percent being owned by members of the 
Clayton family, mainly through trusts; however, the common stock 
was owned, to the extent of 98 percent, by a dozen of the executives of 
the firm, 37 percent of this amount being owned directly by members 
of the Anderson and Clayton families. In the Singer Manufacturing 
Co., nearly 50 percent of the voting stock was owned beneficially by 
members of three families (Clarke, Bourne, and Singer) but was dis- 
tributed over nearly two dozen family trusts, one family holding com- 

12 Of the stock of Am;rican Newspapers, rnc. 13.61 percent was held by W. R. Hearst as trustee, while 
86.36 percent was held by Clarence J. Shearn as trustee under a voting trust, all certificates of which were 
owned bv W. R. Hearst. 

» The distribution of ownership of Koppers United Co. is interesting because, notwithstanding majority 
ownership by the Mellon family, there were other very substantial family blocks held by Charles D. Mar- 
shall (15.2 percent), the Rust family (14.8 percent), and the McClintic family (14.9 percent), each of which by 
itself represented a considerable minority and might suffice for control in the absence of other large blocks. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 107 

pany and several direct holdings of family members. 14 Majority 
control by three families associated in the management existed in the 
case of the Long Island Lighting H Co., if the assumption is made that 
the Phillips family (owning 17 percent, mainly through family holding 
companies) the Olmsted family (owning 15 percent, mainly in estates 
and family holding companies), and the Childs family (owning 15 per- 
cent, most of which was held directly) worked together. 15 The 
American Cyanamid Co also belongs in this group though the pattern 
of control was rather unusual. Most of the class A voting stock of the 
corporation was owned by eight senior officers of the corporation 
(almost 29 percent by W. B. Bell, president, alone), while the far 
greater part of the equity was represented by the class B nonvoting 
common stock. 

(b) Predominant minority. — Probably as important as the cases of 
majority control in the hands of one family are those in which one or 
a few families working together own a predominant minority of the 
voting stock, i. e., between 30 percent and 50 percent. In such a 
situation control by the dominating stockholder group is indisputable 
in the ordinary course of events and is practically equivalent to 
majority control. 

The most important example of predominant minority control by 
one family was provided by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., a case 
of particular interest because of pyramiding of control. 16 The total 
direct and indirect holdings of the various members of the du Pont 
family aggregated 44 percent of the common stock of the company. 
In view of the extremely large capitalization of the E. I. du Pont 
de Nemours & Co. and the wide distribution of its stock, it seems 
practically impossible for any other interest group to dispute control 
of the du Pont family, so long as its members act together. Through 
control of the du Pont company, members of the family also exer- 
cised a dominating influence in the General Motors Corporation, 
since E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. owned 10,000,000 of the 
43,500,000 common shares of General Motors Corporation, by far 
the largest block existent. 17 

The Aluminum Co. of America constitutes another important 
example of predominant minority control by one family. Members 
of the Mellon family owned 33 percent of the common stock, most of 
it directly, and Mellon Securities Corporation (controlled by the 
family) owned another 1:4 percent. While the holdings of Arthur 
V. Davis, chairman of the board, of 11.4 percent would be needed to 
bring the Mellon family holdings near to majority control, the large 
capitalization of the company would seem, to make the formation of 
any block outranking the holdings of the Mellon family extremely 
difficult, if not impossible. 

Other examples of companies, among the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations, with predominant minority control by one family, 
were provided by Cudahy Packing Co. (Cudahy family) ; Deere & 
Co. (Deere family); Pittsburgh Coal Co. (Mellon family); Pittsburgh 
Plate Glass Co. (Pitcairn family); R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (Straus 

H Holdings of family members not included or identified among the 20 largest record shareholdings prob- 
ably brought the total to over £0 percent. 

15 A groun of companies jointly controlled by the Phillips and Olmsted families owned an additional 12 
percent of the common stock. 

'* For details see ch. VII, pp. 119-21. 

" Cf. Report on Motor Vehicle Industiy (Federal Trade Commission, 1939), ch. XII, Sees. 1 and 4. 



108 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

family); S. S. Kresge Co. (Kresge family and Kresge Foundation); 
and Western Pacific Railroad Corporation (A. C. James family). 18 

Predominant minority control exercised by three , to five rather 
than one family was found in Marshall Field & Co. (Field, Simpson, 
and Shedd families); Schenley « Distillers Corporation (Rosenstiel, 
Jacobi, Wiehe, Schwarzhaupt, and Gerngross families) ; and Weyer- 
haeuser Timber Co. (Weyerhaeuser, Clapp, Bell, and McKnight 
families). 

(c) Substantial minority. — More numerous than majority or pre- 
dominant minority control are the cases — almost all in manufacturing 
or merchandising enterprises — in which one or several families own 
only a substantial minority of between 10 percent and 30 percent of 
the voting stock, but nevertheless seem to exercise control and to be 
in no danger of losing it, so long as cooperation exists between the 
dominant families and the current management. 

Important examples of this type of family control were furnished by 
the Crane Co. (Crane family); Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. (Colgate 
family) ; the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (members of the family of 
Harvey S. Firestone); Gimbel Bros., Inc. (Gimbel family); Interna- 
tional Harvester Co. (McCormick family); National Steel Corpora- 
tion (Hanna family); the New Jersey Zinc Co. (E. Z. Palmer and 
family); the Ohio Oil Co. (Rockefeller family); Owens-Illinois Glass 
Co. (Levis family); Pullman Inc. (Mellon family); Sears, Roebuck & 
Co. (Rosenwald family); Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., Standard Oil 
Co. of California, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), and Standard Oil Co. 
(New Jersey) (Rockefeller family) ; United States Gypsum Co. (Averv 
family); United States Rubber Co. (du Pont family). 

An example particularly interesting because of the complicated 
pyramid of corporations used to assure and perpetuate control with 
a relatively small original investment is presented by the North 
American Co., dominated by Harrison Williams. Mr. Williams 
owned practically no stock of the North American Co. directly but 
built up a system of personal holding companies and public invest- 
ment companies which together controlled the largest block of voting 
stock of the North American Co., a block probably sufficient for 
working control in view of the wide distribution of the remaining 
voting stock. 19 

Examples of substantial minority control exercised by several 
families or business associates apparently working together were found 
in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (Walters, Jenkins, and New- 
comer families) ; Engineers Public Service Co. (Stone and Webster 
families) ; General Foods Corporation (Davies, Woodward, and Igle- 
heart families) ; Inland Steel Co. (Block, Ryerson, and Jones families) ; 
International Shoe Co. (Rand, Watjuns, Johnson, arid Peters fami- 
lies); Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. (Widener, Elkins, Dula, and 
Ryan families) ; The National Supply Co. (Hillman, Shouvlin, and 
Chalfant families); Pacific Lighting Corporation (Miller, Volkmann 
and Schilling families) ; Phelps Dodge Corporation (James and Dodge 
families) ; The Procter & Gamble Co. (Procter, Gamble, and Cun- 
ningham families); Safeway Stores, Inc. (Merrill and Lynch families) ; 

18 Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. also belongs in this group, though only indirectly, as 34 percent of its comrrion 
stock was owned by the Gulf Oil Corporation, controlled by the Mellon family. 

" For a detailed description of the Harrison Williams group, see the report of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission on Investment Trusts and Investment Companies, pt. three, ch. V, pp. 1683-1707, particularly 
chart, p. 1(584. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 109 

and F. W. Woolworth Co. (Kirby, and Woolworth-Donahue-Mc- 
Cann families) . A similar situation appeared to prevail in the Amer- 
ican Metal Co., Ltd., and in Climax Molybdenum Co. Though 
Selection Trust, Ltd., a British finance company, owned nearly 24 
percent of the common stock of the American Metal Co., Ltd., mem- 
bers of the Hochschild, Sussman, and Loeb families, all represented 
in the management, apparently exercised working control based on 
holdings of about 14 percent. The Loeb, Hochschild and Sussman 
families also owned about 27 percent of the common stock of Climax 
Molybdenum Co., holdings of other business associates (Schott, 
Goldman, and Adler families) adding about 9 percent and the Ameri- 
can Metal Co., Ltd., another 9 percent. 

(d) Small minority. — More difficult ground is reached with the cor- 
porations — practically all in the manufacturing field — in which family 
holdings constitute only a small minority (less than 10 percent of the 
voting stock) but appear to carry with them a substantial amount of 
control evident as representation of the family in the management, 
partly because of the absence of any other large blocks of stock. 
Examples of companies, among the group of 200, which appeared to be 
controlled by one or two families through relatively small holdings were 
American Can Co. (Moore family) ; Crown Zellerbach Corporation 
(Zellerbach family) ; Lone Star Gas Corporation (Crawford family) ; 
National Biscuit Co. (Moore family) ; National Lead Co. (Cornish 
family) ; Phillips Petroleum Corporation (Phillips and du Pont 
families); Swift & Co. (Swift family); and Warner Bros. Pictures, 
Inc. (Warner family) . 

(2) Corporate Control. 

Of the about 140 corporations with a definite center of control, 
approximately 60 appear to be controlled by other corporations. This 
excludes, of course, cases in which the controlling stockholder is a 
family holding company. 

(a) Majority. — In one-half of the approximately 60 cases of control 
by corporations, the percentage of stock held by the dominant share- 
holder exceeded 50 percent. This was the case in Armour & Co., of 
Delaware, wholly owned subsidiary of Armour & Co. (Illinois) ; 
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. (wholly owned, subsidiary of Cities Service 
Co.); Shell Union Oil Corporation (64 percent of which was held by 
the Royal Dutch group of companies) ; the Pacific Telephone & Tele- 
graph Co. and the New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (both 
majority controlled by the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.); 
the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. (over 57 percent 
owned by the Chesapeake <fe Ohio Ry. Co.) ; the Central Railroad Co. 
of. New Jersey (55 percent owned by Reading Co.) ; Louisville & 
Nashville Railroad Co. (51 percent owned by. Atlantic Coast Line 
R. R. Co.); and over a dozen large electric, gas, and water utilities 
(Central & Southwest Utilities Co.; the Cincinnati Gas & Electric 
Co.; the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.; Consumers Power Co.; 
Duquesne Light Co.; Electric Power & Light Corporation; Interna- 
tional Hydro-Electric System; the Kansas City Power & Light Co.; 
New England Gas & Electric Association; New England Power 
Association; Northern States Power Co.; Philadelphia Co.; Phila- 
delphia Electric Co.; United Gas Corporation; and West Penn 
Electric Co.). 



HO CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Sometimes two or more corporations together commanded the 
absolute majority of the voting stock. Thus, the Baltimore & Ohio 
Railroad Co. owned nearly 43 percent of the Reading Co., while the 
New York Central Railroad Co. held nearly 19 percent. Likewise, 
the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. controlled 30 percent and the Wabash 
Railway Co. another 21 percent of the stock of the Lehigh Valley 
Railroad Co. 20 Of the common stock of the Niagara Hudson Power 
Co. nearly 25 percent was owned by the United Corporation, 8 percent 
by its subsidiary, United Gas Improvement Corporation, and 10 
percent each by Aluminum Co. of America and by Niagara Snares Cor- 
poration. In the United Light & Power Co. over 28 percent of the com- 
mon stock was in the hands of the Koppers Co. (indirectly controlled 
by the Mellon family) while 24 percent was owned by three affiliated 
investment companies, 15 percent by two other investment companies 
under common control and nearly 9 and 7 percent, respectively, by two 
other independent investment companies. 

(b) Predominant minority. — Control and ownership of a pre- 
dominating minority of between 30 and 50 percent by another 
corporation was present in a number of the most important public 
utility companies included in the study. To this group belonged the 
American Power & Light Co., the American & Foreign Power Co., 
Inc., and the National Power & Light Co. (all controlled by Electric 
Bond & Share Co.) ; the Northern States Power Co. (about 45 percent 
of voting power held by StamNrd Gas & Electric group); and the 
Public Service Corporation of N'evv Jersey (about 42 percent of voting 
power held by United Corporation and affiliated interests) . This form 
of control was also found in the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (31 
percent of the common stock held by Chesapeake Corporation) ; the 
Pere Marquette Railway Co. (about 49 percent of voting stock held by 
the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.) ; the Norfolk & Western Railway 
Co. (over 42 percent of the common stock held by the Pennsylvania 
R. R. Co.); and the Western Maryland Railway Co. (30 percent of 
common stock owned by the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co.), but was 
represented only in one instance among the industrial companies 
included in the study, the Richfield Oil Corporation (Cities Service 
Co. and Consolidated Oil Corporation each owning 17.7 percent of 
the common stock). 21 

In a few cases several corporations together owned a predominating 
minority interest sufficient for safe working control so long, as they 
cooperate. For instance, in the Detroit Edison Co., 20 percent of the 
common stock was owned by American Light & Traction Co. and 19 
percent by the North American Co. 

(c) Substantial and small minority. — In about a dozen cases control 
was apparently in the hands of other corporations through ownership 
of a substantial minority of 10 to 30 percent of the stock. This 

''0 Pennsylvania Railroad Co. owned the controlling interest in the Wabash Railway Co.; however, the 
Wabash Railway Co. being in receivership, its property was in the possession of the trustees. 

*' A particularly interesting case was presented by the Coca Cola Co. Nearly 40 percent of the company's 
common stock, the only voting issue, was held by Coca Cola International Corporation. The largest stock- 
holder of Coca Cola International Corporation in turn, was the Woodruff family, owning 15 percent of the 
common stock and 26 percent of the class A stock and also holding nearly 2 percent of the common stock 
of the Coca Cola Co. Other large stockholders of Coca Cola International Co. sitting on the board of the 
Coca Cola Co. were John P. Illges (related by marriage to the Woodruff family), Winship Nunnally, W. C. 
Bradlev, J. B. Campbell, and Thomas K. Glenn. The Candler family, members of which formerly headed 
the company, were represented on the board of the Coca Cola Co. by Charles II. Candler; they owned 1.2 
percent of the common stock of the Coca Cola International Corporation and 1.6 percent of the common 
stock of the Coca Cola Co. itself. Some other considerable blocks of stock of the Coca Cola Co. were held 
largely by families associated with regional bottling companies, such as the Whitehead family, which owned 
about 3 percent of the common stock. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER H\ 

situation was exemplified by General Motors Corporation (23 percent 
of common stock held by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.) ; Phila- 
delphia & Reading Coal & Iron Corporation (23 percent held by the 
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co.); Illinois Central Railroad Co. (26 per- 
cent of common stock held by Union Pacific R. R. Co.) ; American 
Gas & Electric Co. (19 percent of common held by Electric Bond & 
Share Co.) ; the Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (24 percent of common stock 
owned directly or indirectly by Koppers Co.) ; Columbia Gas & Elec- 
tric Corporation (20 percent of common stock owned by United 
Corporation); Commonwealth & Southern Corporation (11 percent 
owned by American Superpower Corporation and over 8 percent by 
the United Corporation directly or through a subsidiary); Pacific 
Gas & Electric Co. (33 percent of common but only about 18 percent 
of voting power held by the North American Co.) ; the United Gas 
Improvement Co. (26 percent of common stock held by the United 
Corporation) . 

No case has been found in which ownership of less than 10 percent 
of the voting stock by another corporation seemed to carry working 
control. 

4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OWNERSHIP AND 
MANAGEMENT 

Mere stock ownership is not, in itself, a measure of dominance, a 
fact stressed earlier in this chapter. It was, therefore, necessary also 
to consider representation in the management in deciding whether 
or not a particular interest group was dominant in any company. 
Examination of the data on the 200 companies covered in this study 
shows that representation in the management does not necessarily 
correspond with the size of the stock interest.. It was not possible, 
however, to analyze within this study the reasons for this difference 
between ownership and management, since this would require detailed 
case studies reaching far back into the individual corporation's 
history. 

A. IDENTITY OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 

Identity of ownership and management is relatively rare. It is to 
be found only in those cases where one interest group has majority 
control of a corporation, holds the key positions among the executive 
officers, and is also heavily represented on the board of directors. 
While this situation is common in small- and medium-sized business 
enterprises, it is only rarely found among the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations. Large corporations with identity of ownership and 
management are generally "first generation" enterprises in which the 
original founder, owning most of the stock, alone or with his family, 
is still the dominant figure in the management. 

The outstanding examples in this group were provided by the Ford 
Motor Co. and by Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc. The 
Ford family, which owned all the voting stock of the company, also 
supplied the president and the chairman of the board of directors. 
William Randolph Hearst, owning all the stock of American News- 
papers, Inc., was also president of Hearst Consolidated Publications, 
Inc., its operating subsidiary. There was, however, also a near iden- 



268445 — 41— No. 29- 



112 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

tity of ownership and management in the Great Atlantic & Pacific 
Tea Co. of America and in Ajaderson, Clayton & Co. 22 

B. REPRESENTATION IN MANAGEMENT LESS THAN OWNERSHIP INTEREST 

In many corporations representation of the dominant shareholders 
is apparently, smaller than would correspond to their ownership 
interest. This situation may, of course, easily arise when the heirs of 
the original dominant shareholders are prevented by youth, old age, 
sex, preoccupation with other financial or nonfinancial interests or 
other considerations, from taking an active part in the management. 

For instance, the Mellon family, though owning 35 percent of the 
voting stock of the Aluminum Co. of America, held only 2 of the 10 
directorships and none of the executive positions. 23 The Duke 
family, though owning 48 percent of the common stock of Duke Power 
Co., was not represented in the management or on the board of direc- 
tors. However, trustees of the Duke endowment, which held an 
additional 38 percent of the voting stock, filled 9 of the 11 places on 
the board of directors of the company. The Widener and Elkins 
families were the largest stockholders of the voting stock of the 
American Tobacco Co., and yet no member of either family was found 
on the board. No known representatives of the Gulf Oil Corporation 
and no members of the Mellon family, which controlled the company, 
appeared as executives in the administration of the affairs of Texas 
Gulf Sulphur Corporation, although Gulf Oil Corporation owned 34 
percent of the stock. 

Lack of representation in the management commensurate with stock 
ownership seems to characterize practically all the holdings of the 
Dutch administration offices. Such offices owned 14 percent of Mid- 
Continent Petroleum Corporation stock; 12 percent of the common 
stock and 18 percent of the preferred stock of Shell Union Oil Corpo- 
ration; 12 percent of the common stock of Wilson & Co.; 9 percent 
each of the common stock of American Car & Foundry Co., Republic 
Steel Corporation, and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.; 8 per- 
cent of that of Anaconda Copper Mining Co. ; and 25 percent of the 
first preferred stock of the Kansas City Southern Railway Co., but 
apparently were without any visible representation on the boards of 
directors or among the executive officers. On the other hand, a 
Dutch "administration office" holding 12% percent of the stock, had 
one representative on the 23-man board of directors of the Tidewater 
Associated Oil Co. 

It would also appear that two large blocks owned by foreign inter- 
ests — 24 percent of the common stock of the American Metal Co., 
Ltd., owned by Selection Trust, Ltd., of London, and 20 percent of 
the common stock of Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation owned by 
Solvay & Cie. of Belgium through the Solvay American Investment 
Corporation (now called Solvay American Corporation) — were with- 
out commensurate representation in the management. 

M Among corporations on which material was assembled, 'but which were excluded from the 200 companies 
because they. were just below the lower size limit of the group, near identity of ownership and management 
was found in the Campbell Soup Co. and the H. J. Hein? Co. Data for these companies are presented in 
section II of appendix X. 

» It should not be concluded from this, however, that active management and majority stock ownership 
were necessarily divorced in this company. Arthur V. Davis, chairman of the board, was the largest sinele 
stockholder, with 11 percent of the voting stock, and Roy A. Hunt, the president, and his family held 
5 percent. Both officers apparently closely cooperated with the Mellon family controlling the largest block 
of stock. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER H3 

C. REPRESENTATION IN MANAGEMENT EXCEEDING OWNERSHIP 

INTEREST 

Much more common, however, than undei -representation of large 
stockholders is the opposite case, in which holders of a relatively 
small amount of stock are heavily represented on the board of directors 
or hold key positions in the management. This situation may be due 
to two entirely different developments. In some cases the propor- 
tionate ownership of originally dominant interest groups has been 
much reduced without commensurate reduction in their representa- 
tion in the management, reflecting the advantage of original entrench- 
ment and the inertia of the mass of new stockholders. In other cases 
the overrepresentation in the management is the result of the fact 
that the key executives, who often have reached their positions and 
achieved their controlling influence without the help of stock owner- 
ship, have, in the course of time, acquired considerable blocks of stock 
in their corporations. 

A striking example in which proportionately small family holdings, 
going back over several generations, were still coupled with heavy 
representation in the management was provided by Swift & Co.; 6 
of the 9 directorships of the company were held by members of the 
Swift family, although the family owned only 5 percent of the voting 
stock, the remainder of the stock being distributed mainly in holdings 
of 100 to 500 shares each. The situation was similar, though the dis- 
crepancy between stock ownership and representation in management 
was less pronounced, in the Crown Zellcrbach Corporation, the Zeller- 
bach family owning %% percent of the common stock but furnishing 
the president, a vice president, and 3 directors (including the 2 
officers) out of a board of 13. 

Examples in which present or former key executives appeared to be 
in control, although their stock holdings represented only a small 
minority of the outstanding common stock, were provided by Allied 
Chemical & Dye Corporation, where former President Orlando Weber 
held 2.5 percent of the stock; American Cyanamid Co., 74 percent of 
the voting stock being held by members of the management, although 
most of the equity capital was nonvoting stock; and Cities Service 
Co., the Doherty group, which appeared to control the company, 
holding only 5 percent of the stock. 

5. CONCLUSIONS 

Earlier chapters have shown a high degree of concentration of stock 
ownership in a substantial percentage of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations. The previous analysis was in terms of aggregates and, 
therefore, showed concentration, so to speak, in the abstract. The 
analysis in this chapter, proceeding from company to company, has 
demonstrated that the largest blocks of stock are in most cases in the 
hands of a rather small group having a community of interest based 
either on family relationship, on corporate ties, or on long-standing 
business connections. An analysis of the holdings of these interest 
groups in comparison to the distribution holdings for all stockholders 
shows that in particular companies a small percentage of ownership 
in a large issue may be sufficient to give dominance when the remainder 
of the stock is widely dispersed among disconnected holdings, each 
representing but a fraction of the size of those in the hands of the 



114 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

dominant group. A study of the officers and the boards of directors 
of these companies also indicates that dominant stock ownership, 
whether based on a minority or a majority holding, is in most cases 
coupled with active participation in the management, or at least with 
representation on the board of directors. 

The ownership patterns of individual companies thus demonstrate 
that the effective concentration of stock ownership in the 200 largest 
honfinancial corporations is even higher than that indicated in chapter 
V on the statistical analysis of the percentage of stock included in the 
20 largest holdings. 

An important problem arises in this connection. Trusts, and to a 
certain extent personal holding companies, tend to give rise to the 
separation of ownership and management (i. e., separate the right to 
receive income from the control prerogatives of ownership), even 
where high concentration of ownership exists. 24 Both the trust and 
the personal holding company tend to perpetuate and to centralize 
control in even fewer hands than the size of the interest group itself 
would indicate, since the dominant stock interest in a personal holding 
company will control the vote of the entire block of stock owned by 
such holding company and the two or three trustees of a trust will 
together vote stock which may be held for many beneficiaries. 25 

The stock of family holding companies, in turn, has in many cases 
been trusteed, as is the case with a large part of the stock of the 
Christiana Securities Corporation, which unifies most of the du Pont 
interests in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 26 Trusteeing the stock 
of family holding companies, of course, further accentuates, the tend- 
ency to centralize the dominance or control exercised by the interest 
group in fewer ha.nds which is inherent in placing the holdings of large- 
interest groups in personal holding companies and trusts. 

The earlier sections of tins chapter, together with chapters IV and 
V, should have indicated the predominance of interest groups, and 
particularly of family-interest groups, among the stockholders of the 
200 largest nonfinancial corporations included in this study. No 
attention has been paid in this analysis to the relative importance, 
measured either by the value of their holdings or by the size of the 
controlled corporation, of different interest groups which dominate 
the various corporations. In the next chapter, however, an attempt 
will be made to describe the importance of a few of the largest interest 
groups, and to show the extent to which these interest groups have 
spread out from the corporations on which their wealth was founded 
into other corporations included in the group of the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations. 

" The trustees of a family trust are not exclusively members of a family and only a few of the beneficiaries 
of the trust customarily serve as trustees. 

» In one extreme case cited previously, that of Singer Manufacturing Co., several trusts had been set up 
for members of the Clark family, all of which bad the same two trustees, Sir Douglas Alexander and Stephen 
Carlton Clark, these two men together voting the holdings of some six or eight individuals. Arthur K. 
Bourne and Clayton Mayo were trustees for a series of trusts for about feven members of the Bourne fam- 
ily. These four trustees obviously dominated the affairs of the company, controlling about 44 percent cf 
the voting power, a situation reflected in the fact that Sir Douglas Alexander was president. 

»• For some details see ch. VII, pp. 119-21. 



CHAPTER VII 

FAMILY SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AMONG THE 200 LARGEST 
NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

1. SCOPE OF CHAPTER 

In chapter VI an attempt has been made to determine the owner- 
sliip-control situation in each of the 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions and thus give a more concrete meaning to the statistical data on 
the distribution of ownership presented in chapter III. In this chap- 
ter a further necessary step will be taken — the determination and 
description of the spheres of influence formed by those of the 200 
corporations which are under the control or influence of one interest 
group. 

In general, the interest group controlling one of the 200 corporations 
is not represented by substantial blocks among the 20 largest record 
stockholders of any other of these corporations. This is particularly 
true of interest groups which exercise control through a small or a 
substantial minority and in cases, not specifically studied, where the 
management seems to be in control through the proxy machinery but 
does not have a large ownership interest. There are, however, a 
number of instances in which one interest group has large shareholdings 
and apparently exercises a controlling influence in more than 1 of the 
200 corporations. Among these cases three interest groups, all of the 
one-family type, stand out — the du Pont, Mellon, and Rockefeller 
groups. The corporations under the ownership control of these three 
families so far exceed in size and importance the sphere of influence, 
among the 200 corporations, of any other interest group (other than 
that of top holding companies like Electric Bond & Share Corporation 
and United Corporation) .that discussion can be restricted to them. 1 

All three groups represent large fortunes, as measured by the market 
value of the stock held, as well as huge aggregations of economic power 
resting upon control of large industrial corporations. It must not be 
forgotten, of course, that some of the family holdings concentrated in 
one single corporation also represent very considerable amounts of 
wealth; for instance, the holdings of the Ford, Hartford, Pew, and 
Duke families. Table 6, listing the value of the shareholdings in the 
200 corporations in the hands of the 13 largest family-interest groups, 
as measured by their market or Calculated value at the end of 1937, 
shows that with the exception of the Ford family 2 they are not of the 
same magnitude as those of the du Pont, Mellon, and Rockefeller 
families. 



1 No attention is paid, of course, in this report to groups of corporations which may be controlled by one 
interest group by means other than ownership. 

1 The market value of the holdings of the Ford family in the Ford Motor Co. is, of course, a matter of 
conjecture, as the stock is not traded. There are reasons to assume that the market value would more likely 
be below rather than above the book value which had to be used in the table. 

115 



116 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Table 6. — Identified stockholdings in 200 largest nonfinancial corporations of 13 
family-interest groups with holdings of over $50,000,000 





[Value of holdings 


<• in thousands of dollars] 


Family 


Total 


Common 
stock 


Preferred 
stock 


Corporations in. which main holdings are — 


1. Ford... _. 


<> 624, 975 
573,690 

<■ 396, 583 

" 390, 943 

111,102 
105, 702 

« 104, 891 

1 89, 459 

75,628 
65,576 
57,215 
54,766 
« 50, 044 


624, 975 
562, 650 

371, 777 

350,801 

84, 854 
86,331 

100, 054 

77,465 

75, 555 
64,981 
57, 215 
54,766 
43,098 




Ford Motor Co. 


2. du Pont 


11,040 
24,806 

40,142 

26,248 
19, 371 

4,837 

11,994 

73 
595 




3. Rockefeller 


States Rubber Co. 
Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), Standard 


4. Mellon 


Oil Co. (Indiana), and Standard Oil Co. 

of California; Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 

Inc. 
Gulf Oil Corporation; Aluminum Co. of 

America; Koppers United Co. 
International Harvester Co. 
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of 


5. McCortnick... 

6. Hartford 


7. Harkness... 


America. 
Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), Standard 
Oil Co. (Indiana), and Standard Oil Co. 
of California; Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 
Inc. 


8. Duke 


9. Pew 


ica; Liggett' & Myers Tobacco Co. 
Sun Oil Co 


10. Pitcairn 


Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 

Singer Mfg. Co. 

R. J. Reynolds Tobaoco Co. 


11. Clark 


12. Reynolds 




13. Kress 


6,946 






Total ... 


2, 700, 574 


2, 554, 522 


146,052 





* Includes only holdings of family members and family-endowed foundations in stock of 200 largest non- 
financial corporations insofar as they were identified among 20 largest record shareholdings. Values repre- 
sent in most cases market values as at Dec. 31, 1937; otherwise (particularly for Ford) book values. 

* Includes $45,250 of common stock held by family-endowed foundations. 

* Includes $93,768 of common stock and $18,697 of preferred stock held by family-endowed foundations. 
d Includes $26,114 of common stock and $11,900 of preferred stock held by family-endowed foundations. 
' Includes $8,779 of common stock and $4,087 of preferred stock held by family-endowed foundations. 
/Includes $31,773 of common stock and $10,915 of preferred stock held by family-endowed foundations. 

» Includes $3,477 of common stock and $595 of preferred stock held by family-endowed foundations. 

The holdings of the three families — as well as those of any other 
interest groups covered by the study ^-of course represented only part 
of the total wealth of those groups. Many members of these groups 
undoubtedly had stock investments in one or more of the 200 corpora- 
tions which did not appear among the 20 largest record shareholdings, 
either because they were too small or because they were not identified. 
Many also had investments in other corporations, particularly in 
large financial corporations which are not covered by the study, and 
investments in other forms such as corporate bonds, tax-exempt 
securities, real estate, and bank deposits. It is quite possible that 
for some groups these outside investments had a larger aggregate 
value than their identified stockholdings in the 200 largest corpora- 
tions. Furthermore, it is not known definitely how many other 
similar large aggregations of wealth and stock ownership exist but 
have left no trace whatever among the 20 largest record shareholdings 
of the 200 corporations. It is not very likely, however, that many 
aggregations of equity securities of the order of magnitude of the first 
dozen covered in the study exist in other fields, as the presence of such 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



117 



vast interest groups controlling large financial corporations and non- 
financial corporations below the level of the 200 largest ones, could 
hardly have remained hidden over a long period of time. The study, 
however, certainly misses those large, fortunes which do not primarily 
consist of concentrated blocks of corporate stocks, and, therefore, do 
not give rise to industrial spheres of influence, but are made up either 
of diversified common stocks, fixed interest-bearing securities, or 
real estate. One of the largest family fortunes invested in diversified 
common stocks, that of the Harkness family, has been found repre- 
sented among the 20 largest shareholdings in 24 of the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations, the holdings aggregating about $105,000,000. 3 

Table 7. — Holdings of Harkness family appearing among 20 largest shareholdings 
in stock of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 



Name of corporation 



American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 
common 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 
5-percent preferred voting 

Carolina, Clinchfleld & Ohio Ry., common- 
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., The, $4 pre- 
ferred voting 

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 
Inc., 5-percent preferred voting 

Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power 
Co. of Baltimore, common 

Consolidated Oil Corporation, common. 

Consumers Power Co., $4.50 preferred 
voting 

Continental Can Co., Inc., $4.50 preferred 
contingent voting.. _ 

Detroit Edison Co., The, capital 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., $4.50 
preferred contingen t voting 

Duqiresne Light Co., 5-percent preferred 
contingent voting 

Illinois Central R. R. Co.: 

Common 

6-percent preferred A voting 

Louisville <fe Nashville R. R. Co., common. 

New York Central R. R. Co., common 

Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 4-percent pre- 
ferred voting 

Ohio Oil Co., The, 6-percent preferred non- 
voting 

Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., capital 

Southern Pacific Co., common. 

Standard Oil Co. of California, common. .. 

Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), common 

Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), common.. 

Union Pacific R. R. Co.: 

Common 

4- percent preferred voting 

Virginian Ry. Co., The, 6-percent preferred 
voting 



Total. 



Members of 
Harkness family 



Value 



$S,-065, 000 



820,000 



79,000 
11,000 



859,000 



419,000 
4, 905, 000 

623,000 
11,566,000 
14, 783, 000 
51, 760, 000 

815,000 
320,000 



92, 025, 000 



Per- 
cent of 
issue 



.79 



.70 
1.05 

.90 
3.04 
2.92 
4.30 

.45 
.40 



Family endowed 
foundations 



Value 



$490,000 
510,000 

269,000 

965,000 

325,000 



124,000 

139,000 
280,000 

220,000 

282,000 



136,000 



5, 070, 000 
1,509,000 



856,000 
840,000 



621,000 



12, 865, 000 



Per- 
cent of 
issue 



.58 
2.40 

1.97 

.46 

.43 



27 



.40 
.91 



.39 



.57 



.40 



.47 
1.05 



1.97 



Total 



Value ' 



$5, 065, 000 

490,000 
510,000 

269,000 

965,000 

325,000 
820,000 

124,000 

139,000 
280,000 

220,000 

282,000 

79,000 

11,000 

229,000 

859,000 

136,000 

419,000 

9, 975, 000 

623,000 

13, 075, 000 

14, 783, 000 

51,760,000 

1,671,000 
1, 160, 000 

621,000 



104, 890, 000 



Per- 
cent of 
issue 



0.19 

.58 
2.40 

1.97 

.46 

.43 

.66 

.27 

.66 
.23 

.40 

.91 

.63 
.33 
.39 
.79 

.57 

.70 
2.13 

.90 
3.44 
2.92 
4.30 

.92 
1.45 

1.97 



• At market price of Dec. 31, 1937. 



1 For details of the holdings of the Harkness family, see table 7. 



118 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

In this chapter a brief description will be presented of the three 
largest spheres of influence based on ownership control which have 
appeared in the study of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — 
those of the du Pont, Mellon, and Rockefeller families. In each 
case an idea will first be given of the size of the interest group, as. 
measured by the value of its identified holdings in the 200 corpora- 
tions and the assets of the corporations they controlled around the 
end of 1937. After this the sphere of control of each of the three 
groups will be described and an attempt will be made to determine 
whether the controlled corporations are industrially related or un- 
connected. Finally, the methods (instrumentalities) of the ownership 
of each of the interest groups will be analyzed ; in connection therewith 
it will be determined whether the total holdings of the family group 
are concentrated among a few individuals or distributed among 
numerous family members. It was found that the three big groups 
differed somewhat on practically all of these points. 

Such differences are visible, first, with respect to the sphere of 
control. The du Pont sphere of influence consists mainly of two 
giant corporations, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and General 
Motors Corporation, with the United States Rubber Corporation as 
a minor adjunct. While these two corporations do not operate in the 
same fields, important industrial connections exist between them. 
The Mellon sphere of influence extends over more than "half a dozen 
very large, but not giant corporations, which from an industrial point 
of view are partly related and partly unrelated. The Rockefeller 
sphere of influence is restricted to one industry — oil — and practically 
all present holdings stem from the original family investment in the 
old Standard Oil Co. 

Differences are marked also with respect to the extent of control 
exercised by each of the three families over the corporations which 
make up their sphere of influence. The du Pont family has prac- 
tically undisputable control "of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 
though it does not own the absolute majority of the voting stock. 
E. I. du Pont de Nemours. & Co., in turn, owns by far the largest 
block of General Motors Corporation in existence and exercises safe 
working control. The Mellon family has majority control of two of 
the three main sections of its sphere of influence, the Gulf Oil Corpora- 
tion and the Koppers United Co. Its control over the Aluminum 
Co. of America, though based on ownership of not much over 
one-third of the stock, is practically quite secure. The holdings of 
the Rockefeller family constitute in all cases only relatively small 
minorities of between 10 percent and 20 percent of the voting stock. 
As a result, however, of wide distribution of the remainder of the 
stock the family still seems to be in effective working control of at 
least the Socony Vacuum Oil Co., the Ohio Oil Co., and the Standard 
Oil Cos. of New Jersey, Indiana, and California. However, of all 
the three spheres of influence, that of the Rockefeller family appears 
to be least firmly based on ownership control. 

Finally, there are considerable differences with respect to the 
method and instrumentalities employed in holding the securities 
owned by each family. The du Pont interests have built up a 
complicated many-tiered pyramid with family holding companies 
at strategic points. In this way they have succeeded in concentrating 
control, although the number of individuals participating in the 
beneficial ownership of the family block is very large and some of them 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



119 



are only distantly related. The Mellon holdings, on the other hand, 
are owned for the most part directly by four grandchildren of the 
founder of the family fortune, and family holding companies are of 
negligible importance. The Rockefeller family holdings are concen- 
trated to a larger degree than either of the two other cases in the 
hands of the present head of the family, but a considerably larger 
proportion of the family holdings is owned by foundations which, al- 
though organized and endowed by the family, are not under its full 
control. 

2. THE DU PONT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (see chart XXIX) 4 

The total value of the identified holdings of members of the du Pont 
family in the 200 corporations aggregated about $565,000,000, of 
which $553,000,000 was represented by holdings in E. I. du Pont de 
Nemours & Co. (direct family holdings and proportionate interest 
through Christiana Securities Co.), $8,000,000. by holdings in United 
States Rubber Co., and about $4,000,000 by holdings in Phillips 
Petroleum Co. This entire vast amount was in cemnion stocks with 
the exception only of $9,000,000 of 6 percent debenture stock of E. I. 
du Pont de Nemours & Co. and $2,000,000 of preferred stock of United 
States Rubber Corporation. The du Pont holdings represent the 
largest aggregation of wealth encountered in the study of the owner- 
ship of the 200 corporations. 6 Their market value amounted to about 
2 percent of that of all stock outstanding of the 200 corporations 6 and 
to over 6 percent of the value of the stock included in the 20 largest 
shareholdings. The total assets of the three corporations under con- 
trol of the du Pont family (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. ; General 
Motors Corporation; United Stages Rubber Co.) aggregated about 
$2,100,000,000 and represented 3. percent of the aggregate assets of the 
200 corporations and nearly 1% percent of those of all nonfinancial 
corporations. 7 

Holdings of the du Pont family in equity securities of the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 

[Percent of total stock outstanding] 



Company 


Indi- 
viduals 


Trusts 
and 
estates 


Personal 

and 
family 

holding 
com- 
panies 


du Pont 
domi- 
nated 

corpora- 
tions 


Total 


American Sugar Refining Co., The 


0.19 

3.76 

.01 








0.19 


E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co 


3.96 
.29 


30.76 
.23 
.46 
.93 




38.48 


Genera] Motors Corporation 


19.78 


20.31 


Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation 


.46 


Phillips Petroleum Co 


1.25 

.27 

7.52 






2.18 


United Fruit Co 






.27 


United States Rubber Co 




3.99 




11.51 











' This chart, and also charts XXX and XXXI indicate, for each corporation, the proportion of the total 
market value of all common and preferred stock issues owned by the interest group. The text, however, 
in the interest of greater simplicity, Generally, reports the proportion of common stock held by the interest 
group. The two measures differ only to the extent that preferred stock exists in which the proportionate 
holdings of the interest group are smaller or larger than in the common stock. 

• The holdings of the Ford family, however, have a higher value if taken at their book values. 

9 In calculating the relationship between the market value of the holdings of 1 interest group and all stock 
outstanding in the 200 corporations, the holdings of 1 corporation in another within the group of 200 have 
been eliminated. 

' The figures for aggregate assets contain considerible duplications in the case of the 200 corporations and 
all nonfinancial corporations. Duplications also exist when 1 company belonging to an interest group owns 
stock of another company included in the group. 



120 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



From the point of view of control the du Pont empire centers in 
the E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Members of the du Pont 
family owned directly or indirectly 43.9 percent of the voting stock of 
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. This block, if acting in unison, 
represents unassailable control, since it would be practically impos- 
sible for any other interest group to acquire a larger block in a corpora- 
tion so heavily capitalized. Family control goes back to the founda- 
tion in 1802 of the direct predecessors of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & 

Chart XXIX. — Holdings of the Du Pont family in the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations* 



* Percent of equity capital held 
compomes where the duPont 
holdings appear among the' 
largest record shareholdings 




Co. The company, however, began to expand on a large scale only 
after 1914, and at that time the now dominant branch of the family 
acquired control from Coleman du Pont, then the largest shareholder. 
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., in tiirn, owned 23 percent of the 
common stock of General Motors Corporation, acquired shortly after 
its formation. This was by far the largest block, in existence, the 
next largest being one of 6 percent held by the officers of the corpora- 
tion through the General Motors Management Corporation and the 
General Motors Securities Corporation, class A stock. In view of the 
very heavy capitalization of the company and the wide diffusion of 
its stock, this block appears to carry safe working control. (Members 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 121 

of the du Pont family owned another 0.62 percent of the common 
stock of General Motors Corporation.) 

The du Pont family owned 15.7 percent of the common and 6.5 
percent of the preferred stock (both voting issues) of United States 
Rubber Co., the largest block known to exist. As the remainder of 
the stock is widely distributed, United States Rubber Co. may be 
regarded as being under working control by the du Pont family. 

Holdings of the du Pont family in Phillips Petroleum Co. amounted 
to 2.2 percent of the common stock, with a market value of less than 
$4,000,000. This was not the largest known block in existence and 
apparently did not carry a decisive influence on the management. 

Originally no close industrial relationship appears to have existed 
between E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and General Motors Cor- 
poration. The acquisition by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 
rather seems to have been the result of the desire for profitable invest- 
ment of the large undistributed profits which E. I. du Pont de Nemours 
& Co. had accumulated during the World War. The control over 
United States Rubber Co., one of the largest tire producers, on the 
other hand, might be regarded as industrially related to the indirect 
control of the du Pont family over General Motors Corporation. 
The holdings of the du Pont family in Phillips Petroleum Co. appear 
to be incidental and do not carry control. 

The instrumentalities used by the du Pont family in controlling 
its sphere of influence are of considerable interest because of the great 
number of the individuals participating in the ownership of the family 
block and the complex machinery built up to keep control concen- 
trated, notwithstanding the diffusion of ownership. All in all, about 
75 family members of 3 generations own beneficially some of the 
family holdings. There are probably other family members who 
owned stock in the family-controlled corporations but did not show up 
in the study, and some family members most likely owned more stock 
in one or more of the family enterprises than they were credited with 
on the record. So far as the records go, no single individual owned 
directly more than 0.70 percent of the common stock of E. I. du Pont 
de Nemours & Co. or not much over 1% percent of the total family 
holdings. 

The cornerstone in the sphere of influence of the Delaware branch 
of the du Pont family is the Christiana Securities Co., 8 originally a 
family holding company and now a public investment company though 
still safely controlled by the family through majority ownership. 9 
Christiana Securities Co. alone owned 27.6 percent of the common 
stock of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., practically all of which it has 
held since 1915. This is the largest single block in existence and alone 
would probably suffice for working control of the corporation. In 
addition, individual members of the Delaware branch owned about 4 
percent of the stock of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. directly, 4 
percent through trust funds and 2% percent through a family holding 
company. This brought the total holdings of the Delaware branch to 
37 percent of the stock of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., undoubtedly 

1 In discussion of the instrumentalities of control it is necessary to distinguish between two groups of the 
du Pont family— one headed by Pierre S. du Pont (the Delaware branch) and the other by the late Alfred 
du Pont (the Florida branch)— which reportedly had been at odds at some time in the past over their in- 
fluence over E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. The Delaware branch, however, now owns most of the 
aggregate family holdings and could control the corporation without, and even against, the Florida branch. 

• Members of the du Pont family (Delaware branch) directly or indirectly owned 74 percent of the com- 
mon and 59 percent of the preferred stock of Christiana Securities Co. 



122 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

sufficient for safe control of the corporation. Interestingly enough, 
the dominating position in the key corporation — Christiana Securities 
Co. — is not scattered among individual owners, but occupied by a 
family holding company. (Delaware Realty & Investment Co.) which 
owned 32.7 percent of the common and 29.3 percent of the preferred 
stock of Christiana Securities Co. The stock of the Delaware Realty 
& Investment Co., finally, was held mainly by about a dozen nephews 
and nieces of Pierre S. du Pont and their children, to a considerable 
part not directly but through trust funds. Other members of the 
Delaware branch (including Pierre S. du Pont himself) owned some- 
what over 40 percent of the common stock and 29 percent of the 
preferred stock of Christiana Securities Co. — of which 8 percent of 
the common and 10 percent of the preferred stock were held through 
family trust funds. 

The Florida branch of the du Pont family held about 5 percent of 
the stock of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., mostly through Almours 
Securities, Inc., dissolved after the death of Alfred du Font. At 
that time the holdings of Almours Securities, Inc. were distributed 
to the descendants of Alfred du Pont, over three-fourths of the total 
going into one family trust fund. 

The same tendency to put a large proportion of the family block 
in holding companies and trust funds is evident in the du Pont hold- 
ings of United States Rubber Co. and Phillips Petroleum Co. stock. 
About 5 percent of the common stock and 2 percent of the preferred 
stock of United States Rubber Corporation .was held by Rubber 
Securities Co. (of which Lammot du Pont owned 73.3 percent and 
Irenee S. du Pont, 24.5 percent), but about 10% percent of the common 
and another 4 percent of the preferred stock was owned directly by 
other members of the Delaware branch of the du Pont family. Of 
the family holdings in Phillips Petroleum Co. about one-half was 
owned. by Christiana Realty & Investment Co., a family holding 
company, 88 percent of whose stock was in the hands of family trust 
funds, and the other half directly, mostly by Lammot and Irenee du 
Pont. 

3. THE MELLON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (see chart XXX.) 

The aggregate value of the identified direct and indirect stock- 
holdings of the members of the Mellon family in the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations amounted to about $391,000,000. Most of 
this investment was in common stock, preferred stockholdings ac- 
counting for only about $40,000,000. The market value of these 
holdings was equivalent to nearly 1% percent of that of all common 
and preferred stock outstanding of the 200 corporations and to nearly 
5 percent of that of the shares included in the 20 largest record share- 
holdings. The assets of the 7 companies 10 among the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations directly or indirectly controlled by the 
Mellon family aggregated $1,608,000,000, or 2% percent of the total 

" Gulf Oil Corporation, Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., Aluminum Co. of America, Koppers United Co., The 
Brooklyn Union Gas Co., Pittsburgh Coal Co., The Virginian Ry. Co. , 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



123 



assets of the 200 corporations, and about 1 percent of all nonfinancial 
corporations. 

Industrially the Mellon sphere of influence is the most diversified 
and farthest reaching of all those covered by the study. The family 
was found to have considerable shareholdings in 17 of the 200 corpo- 
rations, 7 of which they controlled directly or indirectly. While the 

Chart XXX. — Holdings of the Mellon family^ in the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations* 



Ptretnt of iQwty copilot f>t'd 
M# Utllon heiamgs opptor omong 
rtcertf tf>ortr>oidi*gt 




Mellon sphere of influence is not industrially integrated, in 'that 
important constituents are in industries which seem to have but little 
relation to each other, it is concentrated geographically, most of the 
controlled enterprises having their origin or seat of operation in the 
Pittsburgh region. The Mellon sphere of influence also differs from 
those of the du Pont and Rockefeller families, in that it is chiefly of 
banking and not of industrial origin, its founder, Thomas Mellon — 
grandfather of the family members now in control — having started 
in the mercantile and banking business. 



124 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Holdings of the Mellon family in equity securities of the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 
JPercent of total stock outstanding] 



Company 



Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co 

Aluminum Co. of America 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Delaware). 

Brooklyn Union Gas Co., The 

General American Transportation Cor- 
poration — -- 

Gulf Oil Corporation 

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 

Koppers United Co 

Lone Star Gas Corporation 

Niagara Hudson Power Corporation 

Pittsburgh Coal Co 

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 

Pullman, Inc - - 

Texas Gulf Sulphur Co 

United Light & Power Co., The 

Virginian Railway Co., The 

Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing 
Co.- — - - 



Indi- 
viduals 



20.26 



4.72 
52.12 



22.40 
.90 



7.43 
1.91 
5.27 



Trusts 

and 
estates 



4.49 
1.43 



19.88 



10.67 
2.12 
2.32 



Holding 
compa- 
nies and 
other in- 
strumen- 
talities 



0.62 



3.87 
8.15 



19.42 



Foun- 
dations 



1.33 
4.31 



5.16 
3.42 



1.40 
2.54 



Total 



1.33 

29. '68 
1.43 



8.59 
70.22 

3.42 
42.28 

1.12 



37.52 
5.43 
10.13 



Mellon 
domi- 
nated 
corpo- 
rations 



'23.87 



» 6.77 



33. 85 

1 7.84 
44.85 



Total 



23.87 



6.77 



33.85 

7.84 

44.85 



<• Directly through Koppers United Co. 

i> Through Aluminum Co. of America through Aluminum Ore Co 

■ Through Gulf Oil Co. 

d Through Koppers Co. through Esmont Co. and Falmouth Co. 

« Through Koppers Co. through Virginian Corporation. 

The Mellon family, as of 1937, were interested as large shareholders 
in the following companies among the 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions : 

Gulf Oil Corporation 

Members of the Mellon family owned 70 percent of the common 
stock. This stock, valued at $241,000,000, represented by far the 
largest single investment of the family in the 200 corporations. 
Gulf Oil Corporation, in turn, controlled the Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. 
through ownership of nearly 34 percent of the common stock. 

Koppers United Co. 

The Mellon family owned 52 percent of the common and 82 percent 
of the preferred stock, with an aggregate market value of nearly 
$40,000,000. Koppers United Co. is mainly a holding company 
owning 100 percent of the voting stock of Koppers Co., one of the 
largest producers of coke and coal in the United States. Koppers Co. 
is also an important holding company in its own right, owning directly 
or indirectly about 67 percent of the Virginian Corporation common 
stock, which, in turn, held 75.5 percent of the common stock of The 
Virginian Railway Co.,' 1 28.4 percent of the voting common stock, t)f 

n Most of the remaining common stock as well as the preferred stock of the Virginian Corporation was 
owned by members of the Mellon family. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 125 

the United Light & Power Co., and 23.9 percent of the common stock 
of the Brooklyn Union Gas Co. 12 The entire Koppers group may be 
regarded as industrially integrated. 

Pittsburgh Coal Co. 

Members of the Mellon family, owned 50.1 percent of the common 
stock, and 33.9 percent of the preferred stock, the entire holding, 
however, having a market value of only about $4,000,000. 

Aluminum Co. of America 

The Mellon family, directly or indirectly, held 35.2 percent of the 
common stock and 25.0 percent of the preferred stock, having together 
a value of $72,000,000. This was by far the largest block in existence 
and should assure the Mellon interests a safe working control. 13 

The Aluminum Co. of America, through its wholly owned sub- 
sidiary, the Aluminum Ore Co., held 10.4 percent of the common 
stock of the Niagara Hudson Power Corporation, acquired in exchange 
for power sites formerly owned by the Aluminum Co. This block 
did not carry a controlling influence, as the United Corporation owned 
directly 24.6 percent of the stock and another 7.9 percent through 
its subsidiary, the United Gas Improvement Co. 

Pullman Inc. 

Members of the Mellon family owned 10.1 percent of the common 
stock with a market value of $12,000,000 and were represented by two 
members on the 14-man board of directors. Theirs was by far the 
largest block known to be in existence but it is doubtful how con- 
siderable a measure of working control it represented. 

General American Transportation Corporation 

Holdings of the Mellon family amounted to 8.6 percent of the 
common stock, with a market value of about $4,000,000. While this 
was the largest known block of stock, it probably did not carry a 
controlling influence as the family was not -visibly represented in the 
management. 

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 

The holdings of the Mellon family amounted to 5.4 percent of the 
common stock with a market value of about $10,000,000. The hold- 
ings had no controlling influence, as the Pitcairn family owned more 
than 35 percent of the common stock. 

" While these two blocks represent about the same proportion of the total voting power, it appears that 
the holdings of the Kopper= Co. represent working control in the Brooklyn Union Gas Co., as other large 
blocks are lacking, but are not sufficient for control in The United Light & Power Co. as the holdings of the 
five investment companies under the influence of Harrison Williams and J. & W. Seligman & Co. add up 
to about 38 percent of the common stock while two other investment companies, independent of each other 
and of the Williams and Seligman group, each hold 7 percent of the stock. TheMellon interests, therefore, 
depend on the cooperation of some of the other large stockholders to exercise control. 

13 The only other combination which might challenge their control would have to comp: ise A. V. Davis 
(chairman nf the board), Roy Hunt (president), and almost all other large stockholders. 



|26 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Various other corporations 

Members of the Mellon family also appeared as owners of consider- 
able blocks of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. (1.3 percent), 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (2.2 percent of common stock), Jones 
& Laughlin Steel Corporation (3.5 percent), Lone Star Gas Corpora- 
tion (6.1 percent of preferred stock), and Westinghouse Electric & 
Manufacturing Co. (0.5 percent of common stock), with a total value 
of $9,000,000. These holdings in all cases -represent only a small 
minority of the voting stock outstanding and hardly carried scon- 
siderable influence on the management. 

The great bulk of the aggregate holdings of the Mellon family in 
the 200 corporations, about $261,000,000 out of the total holdings of 
$391,000,000, was held directly by members of the family — most 
of it by four individuals. Trusts and estates were also of considerable 
importance, accounting for stock of the 200 corporations valued at 
$58,000,000, while the A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable 
Trust held $38,000,000 worth of equity securities of these corpora- 
tions. 14 

In contrast to the situation in the du Pont family group holding 
companies are very unimportant, the holdings of two such companies 
(sinee dissolved) amounting to only $4,000,000. Finally about 
$30,000,000 of the total family holdings were in the hands of an operat- 
ing financial corporation, the Mellon Securities Corporation, entirely 
owned by the family and the A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable 
Trust. 15 

4. THE ROCKEFELLER SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (see 

chart XXXI) 

The market value of the holdings of members of the Rockefeller 
family (including the Rockefeller foundations) in the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations aggregated $397,000,000, mostly in common 
stock ($369,000,000) ; of this, the family foundations accounted for 
$94,000,000 of common and $18,000,000 of preferred stock. The 
aggregate holdings represented fully 1% percent of the market value 
of the total stock outstanding of the 200 corporations and nearly 
5 percent of that of the shares included in the 20 largest shareholdings. 
The aggregate assets of the 5 corporations regarded as under control 
of the Rockefeller family- amounted to nearly $4,500,000,000 or 6% 
percent of the total assets of the 200 corporations and nearly 3 percent 
of those of all nonfinancial corporations. The Rockefeller interests 
thus ranked first in total assets. 

From an industrial point of view, the Rockefeller empire is the most 
compact of the three, practically all the investments of the family 
among the 200 corporations being in the oil industry and almost all 
of them going back to the old Standard Oil Co. dissolved in 1911, of 
which John D. Rockefeller, Sr., was the largest stockholder. 

n Although the stock held by the A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust is not, strictly speaking, 
part of the wealth of the family, it is money which formerly belonged to it, and in terms of voting power 
it is usually still in the control of the family, since members of the family are heavily represented on the 
board of trustees. 

" Control of several important constituents of the Mellon sphere of influence, of course, was exercised not 
directly but through industrial corporations (Gulf Oil Corporation and Koppers Co.) which in turn were 
controlled by members of the Mellon family. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



127 



Holdings of the Rockefeller family in equity securities of the 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 

[Percent of total stock outstanding] 



Company 


Individ- 
uals 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


Holding 
compan- 
ies and 
other in- 
strumen- 
talities 


Founda- 
tions 


Total 


Rocke- 
feller 
domi- 
nated 

corpora- 
tions 


Total 


Atchison. Topeka <t Santa Fe Ry. 
Co , The -- 








0.38 


0.38 

i. 16 

.41 

.28 

5.71 

.84 

.32 

2.31 

2.11 

1.14 

.32 

19.52 

1.45 

.74 

.22 

16.34 

12.32 

11.36 

13.51 

.12 

4.79 






•Vtlantic Refining Co.. The - 


1.16 


0.41 






Bethlehem. Steel Corporation 






Consolidated Edison Co. of' New 






.28 






Consolidated Oil Corporation 

Continental Oil Co 


73 


1.54 


3.44 






.84 

.32 

2.31 

2.11 

1.14 

.32 

9.69 

1.45 

.74 

.22 






Illinois Central R. R. Co 
























Middle West Corporation, The 
























Norfolk & Western Ry. Co 












Ohio Oi! Co., The -'-.. 


6.34 


2.23 


1.26 






































8.64 
7.37 
2.44 
6.45 


7.70 
4.49 
4.39 
2.24 












.46 
4.53 
4.82 

.12 
4.79 


















•6.69 


20 20' 

































• Through the Standard Oil Co. (Indiana). 

Around the end of 1937, i. e., nearly 30 years after the dissolution of 
the old Standard Oil Co., the large holdings of the Rockefeller family 
were as follows: 

Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) 

Members of the Rockefeller family owned 8.7 percent with a market 
value of $105,000,000, and family foundations held an additional 4.8 
percent valued at $58,000,000. The combined block aggregating 13.5 
percent of the common stock represented by far the largest holding 
and in view of the wide distribution of the majority of the stock should 
carry with it an amount of influence equivalent to working control. 
Furthermore, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) owned 6.7 percent of the 
Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) bringing direct and indirect holdings 
of the Rockefeller family to 20.2 percent. The family, however, had 
no visible direct representation in the management. 

Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. 

Members of the family owned 16.3 percent of the common stock 
valued at $76,000,000. As this was by far the largest single blocHj 
and most of the stock was widely distributed, the Rockefeller interests 
seemed to have safe working control, although they were not visibly 
represented in the management. 



268445 41— No. 29- 



-Ki 



128 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 
Standard Oil (Indiana) 



Members of the family owned 6.8 percent and family foundations 
4.5 percent of the common stock, with a value of $35,000,000 and 
$23,000,000, respectively. The combined holdings of 11.4 percent 
appear to carry working control for the reasons mentioned in the 
cases of Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) and the Socony Vacuum Oil 
Co., Inc. 16 

Chabt XXXI. — Holdings of the Rockefeller family^ in the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations* 




^Including fioiamgt of lamilj e»dOmtd fou< 
Quitf capital 



Standard Oil Co. of California 

The Rockefeller family owned 11.9 percent of the common stock 
with a value of $45,000,000 and family foundations held another 0.5 
percent. This block appeared to carry working control, even in the 
absence of direct representation by the family in the management. 

The Ohio Oil Co. 

Members of the Rockefeller family held 9.5 percent of the common 
stock, with a market value of nearly $8,000,000; in addition family 

" The Standard Oil Co (Indiana! provides one of the rare cases in which the extent of control by a minority 
block has been put to a test. This happened in 1929 when the Rockefeller interests, with the help of other 
stockholders, succeeded in ousting the management, headed by Colonel Stewart. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 129 

foundations owned 9.1 percent valued at somewhat under $8,000,000. 
Members of the family and family foundations each also owned about 
10 percent of the preferred stock, with an aggregate value of over 
$12,000,000. These were the largest blocks in existence and should 
suffice for working control. The family, however, did not appear to 
be directly represented in the management of the company. 

Consolidated Oil Corporation 

The holdings of the Rockefeller family amounted to 6 percent of 
the common stock valued at $7,000,000. The block, however, does 
not seem to carry considerable influence in the management as the 
Petroleum Corporation of America (39 percent of whose stock was 
owned by Consolidated Oil Corporation itself) held 11.1 percent of 
the stock and the Rockefeller interests were not represented in the 
management. 

Other corporations 

Members of the Rockefeller family and the family foundations 
owned scattered holdings with a value of about $18,000,000 in many 
other corporations among the 200 group. These holdings did not 
seem to carry any influence with them. The family also reportedly 
had control of the Chase National Bank of New York, one of the 
largest commercial banks in the country, a brother-in-law of John D. 
Rockefeller, Jr. being president of the bank. 

Compared to the du Pont and Mellon groups, the holdings of the 
Rockefeller group were characterized by the high proportion of the 
entire family holdings which are owned by foundations. These hold- 
ings, mainly in the hands of the Rockefeller Foundation, the General 
Educational Board, and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, 
had a combined value of about $112,000,000 or 30 percent of the 
aggregate holdings of family members and foundations. Approxi- 
mately $109,000,000, or nearly another 30 percent, was held in trust 
and estates, mainly for the benefit of grandchildren of John D. Rocke- 
feller, Sr. Practically all the rest, valued at about $158,000,000, was 
held directly by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. 

5. IMPLICATIONS 

Analysis of the shareholdings of the three largest interest groups in 
the 200 corporations and of their spheres of influence leads to some 
significant conclusions which are generally corroborated by a study 
of the lesser interest groups, not described in the text. 

Each interest group shows a strong tendency to keep its holdings 
concentrated in the enterprise in which the family fortune originated. 
It is apparently rare to use the income from the original investment 
(or other income) to acquire large or controlling positions in other big 
corporations. This tendency is shown very clearly in the du Pont 
and Rockefeller groups. The branching out of the Mellon interests 
into a dominating position in half a dozen of important corporations 
is quite unusual and not duplicated among any other interest group 
disclosed in the study of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 

That the large interest groups have kept their holdings concentrated 
in one corporation, of course, does not mean that they have restricted 
their influence to one industrial unit. Indeed, there have been two 



130 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

different ways in which interest groups have actually extended their 
sphere of control from an industrial point of view without directly 
acquiring domination over additional corporations. First, the cor- 
poration which they controlled has often acquired a dominating posi- 
tion in other large corporations. The large interest groups in this way 
have obtained indirect control over other large enterprises without 
making an additional direct investment of their own, a procedure 
which permitted them to utilize the larger funds of the corporations 
which they directly controlled rather than their own more limited 
resources. Secondly, the large corporations under family control have 
branched out directly" into related or unrelated industries, particularly 
into new industries. 17 

The concentration of the stockholdings of large interest groups in 
one enterprise also reflects the practice of corporations of distributing 
only a fraction of their total income as dividends and reinvesting the 
remainder partly in their own business and partly in the securities of 
other enterprises. A classical example of this policy is the investment 
of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in General Motors Corporation, 
but quite similar cases are provided by the holdings of Gulf Oil 
Corporation in Texas Gulf Sulphuf Co. and of Koppers Co. in The 
Virginian Railway Co., the Brooklyn Union Gas Co. and the United 
Light & Power Co. 

This concentration in one enterprise is partly the result of the very 
great difficulty of acquiring ownership control over a corporation 
after it has become large, i. e., unless an investor has been, so to speak, 
in "on the ground floor." With the heavy capitalization now usual 
in large corporations it requires extremely large amounts of liquid 
funds to buy up a block of stock which will ensure dominance. 

Only few of the large fortunes represented among the 20 largest 
record shareholdings appear to be already on the way toward a diversi- 
fied state — at least insofar as this can be judged by the scope of an 
inquiry based on the 20 largest shareholdings — the main example 
being provided by the holdings of the Harkness family. 18 None of 
the three largest family interest groups seem to be in this stage. 

Of the three largest ' iterest groups, the Mellon group is now in the 
third generation, while the Rockefeller and the du Pont groups are 
mainly in the second and partly in the third generation. 19 Most of 
the other interest groups encountered in the study are also of the 
second or third generation, for instance, the Duke, Hartford, Widener, 
Harkness, and Woolworth holdings. Only relatively few of the large 
interest groups, if measured by the market value of the holdings, are 
still largely represented by the founders. 

The record fails to show any considerable degree of connection 
between the spheres of interest of the three largest interest groups. 
Connections between other interest groups are also rare. The only 
notable instance of interlocking stock ownership between large interest 
groups revealed by the study is the extensive holding of the Duke 
family in the Mellon controlled Aluminum Co. of America. 

" Examples are the entry into the aircraft manufacturing industry by General Motors Corporation and 
into the rayon industry by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 

"Seep. 117. 

19 Disregarding the du Pont holdings before the formation of the du Pont Powder Co., the direct prede- 
cessor of E. I. du Pont de Nemours <SrCo., for the reason that the size of the company and the importance of 
the family interest group was relatively small before the time of Coleman du Pont, i. e., the early years of 
this century. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 131 

The separation of the beneficial ownership in large blocks of stocks 
:and the voting control over them has progressed far. The main 
instrumentalities of this separation are family holding companies, 
trusts, and family foundations. How large a use is made of these 
instrumentalities, compared to direct holdings of blocks of stock by 
individuals, depends largely on the size of the family — the smaller the 
family the less need for such instrumentalities — and on the extent of 
the ability and inclination of the beneficial owners to take an active 
part in the management. 

Family holding companies and trusts have made it possible to keep 
control centralized in the hands of a few persons while beneficial 
ownership has become widely diffused over sometimes several dozens 
of beneficiaries. An important part in tins centralization is played 
by the appointment of the same trustees for a large number of in- 
dividual trusts having different beneficiaries. Thus practically all 
the trust funds set up within the Rockefeller family are administered 
by the Chase National Bank, itself reputedly under Rockefeller 
control, while most of the Mellon family trusts are administered by 
the Union Trust Co. of Pittsburgh, controlled by the Mellon family, 
and the du Pont family has used the Wilmington Trust Co. and the 
Delaware Trust Co. (both controlled by the family) as trustee in 
almost all cases. 

Foundations have tended to keep their endowments invested in 
stock of the family enterprises, even if the family in form apparently 
has relinquished control over their financial policy. Foundations in 
practice still constitute a part of the instrumentalities by which a 
Family interest group retains domination over a corporation. In 
most cases some steps toward diversification of holdings have been 
taken by investing in corporations not belonging to the family's 
3phere of influence, but such shifts so far have affected only a minor 
proportion of the funds, though apparently they have been more 
important in the case of foundations than for the two other chief 
instrumentalities — trust funds and family holding companies. 

The discussion in this and the foregoing chapters has demonstrated 
the continued existence of large stock ownership and its importance 
as a base for control. It has shown that even where an original 
"entrepreneurial" interest has subsequently been split among a 
multitude of heirs, devices were developed to perpetuate and centralize 
control of this interest in a few hands. The findings of this study also 
indicate that, even within the group of large stockholders, a few indi- 
viduals or families predominate. It was foimd, however, that the 
existence of large stock ownership did not make for an identity 
between ownership a>nd control, and that the various devices adopted 
by families to hold together a controlling block of stock (personal 
holding companies, trusts, and family endowed foundations) them- 
selves resulted in a separation of ownership and control. This study 
of the concentration of stock ownership demonstrates that ownership 
of a controlling stock interest and management of it are not necessarily- 
identical — that the chief individual income beneficiaries of the divi- 
dends of large corporations may not themselves constitute the respon- 
sible management of these corporations. 



CHAPTER VIII 

FOREIGN HOLDINGS IN THE 200 LARGEST 
NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS x 

1. SOURCE AND CHARACTER OF DATA 

Information on the extent of foreign holdings in the 200 corpora- 
tions was regarded as an essential part of this study since foreigners 
have invested heavily in American stocks and by 1937 owned 3 to 4 
percent of the total stock outstanding in all domestic corporations. 2 
Until this study was made there was very little information readily 
available on the foreign holdings in individual American corporations. 
Moreover, in the few cases where information on foreigners' holdings 
was compiled, the data referred only to those foreign holdings which 
were registered on the company's books in the names of persons resid- 
ing outside the United States, with the result that shares held by 
American nominees for the benefit of foreigners escaped detection. 

The information on foreign holdings in the 200 corporations pre- 
sented in this chapter is derived from the reports on Treasury Form 
1042, covering dividends paid to foreigners; i. e., persons domiciled 
outside the United States. 3 These reports are made to the Bureau of 
Internal Revenue not only by the company issuing a dividend check 
to a holder residing outside of the United States but also by domestic 
brokers, banks, and other nominees when they transmit or credit to a 
foreign beneficiary dividends on stock registered on the company's 
books in the nominee's name. From Form 1042 for the year 1937 
records showing, among other things, the amount of dividends paid 
to foreigners during 1937 by the issuer or nominee had been prepared 
in connection with studies of total foreign investments in the United 
States. These records were made available by the Bureau of In- 
ternal Revenue to the Temporary National Economic Committee for 
the purpose of this study. 

Utilization of Form 1042 as the source of determining the extent of 
foreign holdings in American stocks has the great advantage that the 
figures include both stock registered on the books of the companies in 
foreigners' names and stock held for the benefit of foreigners by Ameri- 
can nominees. The use of this source, however, involves certain 
difficulties which will be summarized in section 5. It will be explained 
there why the figures given in this chapter as well as the data on the 
foreign holdings in the stock issues of each of the 200 largest non- 
financial corporations (insofar as they paid any dividends in 1937), 
which are presented in section VI of appendix III, must be regarded 
as showing only the minimum of ownership in the 200 corporations by 
foreigners in 1937. 

1 For some additional information (foreign holdings among 20 largest record shareholdings), see ch. V. 

' Based on the ratio of estimated amount of dividends paid to foreigners in 1937 to all dividends paid by 
domestic corporations, including intercorporate dividends, the proportion is somewhat under 3 percent. 
(See appendix I, table 10.) If intercorporate dividends were eliminated the proportion would rise to about 
4 percent. 

1 Dividends paid to corporations owned by foreigners but incorporated within (lie United States are not 
covered by these reports. 

133 



134 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

2. FOREIGN HOLDINGS IN ALL 200 CORPORATIONS 

Tabulation of Form 1042 for all stock issues of the 200 corporations 
indicates that the total dividend payments to foreigners reported for 
the year 1937 aggregated about $106,000,000. These companies paid, 
during the year 1937, total common and preferred dividends of about 
$2,200,000,000. It may therefore be estimated that, for the 313 
issues of the 200 corporations on which any dividends were paid 
during the year 1937, foreign holdings reported on Form 1042 repre- 
sented nearly 5 percent of all stock outstanding. Nothing is known 
about the proportion of foreign holdings in the 91 issues which paid 
no dividends in the year 1937. As these issues accounted for only 
about 4 percent of the value of the equity securities of all the 200 
corporations, no appreciable error in the totals can be introduced by 
assuming that the average proportion of foreign holdings was the 
same lor these 91 issues as in the 313 issues on which dividends were 
paid. 

Applying the average percentage of foreign ownership of nearly 

5 percent to the total market value at the end of 1937 of the 404 issues 
of equity securities of the 200 corporations — i. e., slightly over 
$33,000,000,000— it is estimated that the foreign holdings of stock of 
these 200 corporations had a value of approximately $1,600,000,000.* 
To this must be added, first, the known indirect foreign sharehold'ngs 
(through Solvay American Investment Corporation and General 
Aniline and Film Corporation) in the 200 corporations, amounting to 
slightly over $100,000,000. A further stepping up of the first estimate 
is necessary to take account of those nominee holdings which are 
reported only in aggregate figures but could not be allocated among the 
200 corporations. 5 Such unallocated holdings seem to have amounted 
to between 15 and 20 percent of total foreign holdings, or to about 
$300,000,000 for the 200 corporations. Aggregate foreign holdings in 
the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, then, appear to have had a 
value of about $2,000,000,000 at the end of 1937. This is equivalent 
to about 6 percent of the total value of the equity securities issued 
by the 200 corporations. 6 

Segregating common and preferred stocks for the dividend-paying 
corporations which reported them separately, it is found that reported 
dividend payments to foreigners aggregated about 5% percent of the 
total for common stock 7 and about 3% percent for preferred stock. 
Again taking into account the known indirect holdings and stepping 
up the reported figures on account of dividends unallocated by certain 
nominees, it appears that foreigners' holdings of common stocks in 
the 200 corporations had a value, at the end of 1937, of about 
$1,800,000,000, while the value of preferred stock was somewhat 
under $200,000,000. These estimates make it likely that foreigners 
owned about 6K percent of the common stock and nearly 4 percent of 
the preferred stock of the 200 corporations. 

4 Separate estimation of the market vMue of holdings for each issue, based on the multiplication of total 
market value bv the percentage of dividends paid to foreigners as reported on Form'1042, yielded a figure of 
about $1,530,000,000 for the 313 issues on which any dividends were paid during 1937. 

» Cf. sec. g (b) below. 

8 If the American Viscose Corporation had been properly included among the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations, the value of foreign holdings \\ ould have been increased by as much as $100,000,000 or about 5 
percent. However, this would not have alfected materially the percentage relationship of such holdings 
to the total value of the equity securities of all the 200 companies. (See footnote 4, p. 343, appendix V.) 

7 Had American Viscose Corporation been included, this percentage would ha 1 e been increased to about 

6 percent as the dividends ol t bis corporation, which amounted to over $12,000,000 in 1937, were almost 
wholly naid to foreigners. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 135 

The total value of stocks in all American corporations held by 
foreigners at the end of 1937 amounted to about $4,200,000,000, con- 
sisting of nearly $2,700,000,000 of diversified portfolio holdings of 
foreigners 8 and about $1,500,000,000 of direct investments, 9 ; i. e., 
investments by foreigners in American subsidiary corporations and a 
few other large blocks of stock. Comparison of these over-all esti- 
mates with the nearly $2,000,000,000 respresenting the value of 
foreign holdings of stock in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
indicates that somewhat over one-half of all foreign investments in 
American stocks was in the equity securities of these 200 corporations. 
If the comparison is limited to portfolio investments, the proportion 
of foreign holdings invested in the 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions, however, increases to more than two-thirds. 10 For common 
stock alone the proportion of foreign investments in American stocks 
represented by securities of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
seems to have been somewhat above 60 percent for all foreign holdings 
and over 80 percent for foreign portfolio investments alone. Both 
ratios appear to be considerably lower for preferred stock, amounting 
to somewhat under 40 percent of all foreign investments in American 
preferred stock and to about 60 percent of foreign portfolio holdings 
of this type of security. - 

These figures provide a vivid illustration of the high degree of 
concentration of foreign holdings of American stocks — the equity 
securities of the 200 corporations accounting for probably not over 
one-third of the stock of all domestic corporations. As a result of 
this concentration, the proportion of stock held by foreigners is much 
higher among the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations than it is for 
all American corporations. Indeed, the proportion of about 6 percent 
for the 200 corporations is approximately twice as high as the ratio of 
close to 3 percent for all corporations and about three times as high as 
that of around 2 percent for all domestic corporations other than the 
200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 11 

Of the $106,000,000 of dividend payments to foreigners on stock 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, listed on Form 1042, 
$66,000,000 were reported by payor corporations and $40,000,000 by 
domestic nominees of foreign owners, such as banks, trust companies, 
and brokers. Since about one-third of the dividends paid by nom- 
inees could not be allocated to individual payor corporations (and, 
therefore, are not included in the figure of $106,000,000), it is estimated 
that not much over one-half of the shares of the 200 corporations held 

• Foreign Long-Term Investments in the United States, 1937-39 (U. S. Dept. of Com., Bur. of For. & 
Dom. Commerce), p. 16. Based on market value of common stock ($2,353,000,000) and market value of 
preferred stock $348,000,000), approximately 63 percent of its par value ($554,000,000). 

• The total value of foreign direct investments in the United States at the end of 1937 was estimated by Dr. 
Amos Taylor of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce at nearly $1,900,000,000 (Investigation of 
Concentration of Economic Power, pt. 25). Probably around three-quarters of this sum is represented by 
common and preferred stock, including surplus, of American corporations held by foreigners -the propor- 
tion prevailing at the end of 1934, according to estimates of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce 
(Foreign Investments in the United States, 1937, p. 35). For a definition of "direct investments" see Foreign 
Investments, note 31 (p. 56) and American Direct Investments in Foreign Countries, 19M, appendix E. 

10 In making this comparison it must be taken into account that the estimates of foreigners' portlwlio 
holdings of American stocks exclude 2 large blocks with a value of over $200,000,000 (namely, 500,000 common 
shares of Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation and 8,412,154 common shares of Shell Union Oil Corporation) 
which are included in this chapter in the estimates of the value of foreign holdings in the 200 large nonfinancial 
corporations, but are classified by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce as foreign direct invest- 
ments. (These $200,000,000 have been added to the Department of Commerce estimates in deriving the 
figures shown in the text.) 

" These ratios include in the numerator foreign direct investments, insofar as they have taken the form 
of stock, and make no attempt to eliminate intercorporate holdings. If intercorporate holdings were ex- 
cluded all 3 ratios would increase, but the upward revision would most likely be larger for all corporation? 
than for the 200 corporations. 



136 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

by foreigners were registered in foreign names n and not much less 
than one-half in the names of domestic nominees. 13 The proportion 
of dividends reported on Form 1042 by issuers and nominees varied 
considerably from company to company. Examples of common 
stock issues in which more than one-half of total dividends listed on 
Form 1042 were reported by American nominees H are: American 
Power & Light Co. (72 percent), Schenley Distillers Corporation (70 
percent), Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. (68 percent), 
the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (58 percent), the Youngs town 
Sheet & Tube Co. (58 percent), the Texas Corporation (57 percent), 
Republic Steel Corporation (55 percent), General Electric Co. (55 
percent), Public Service Corporation of New Jersey (55 percent), 
Chrysler Corporation (53 percent), Consolidated Edison Co. of New 
York, Inc. (51 percent), International Harvester Co. (51 percent), 
and United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co. (50 percent). 

No comprehensive information is available on the number of for- 
eigners who hold shares in the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
or in all American corporations. 15 

3. DIFFERENCES IN THE PROPORTION OF FOREIGN 

HOLDINGS 

A. THE OVER-ALL PICTURE 

The proportion of stock held by foreigners, of. course, varied greatly 
among the 200 large nonfinancial corporations. Chart XXXII and 
table 8 show that for the 172 corporations paying dividends, for- 
eigners received less than 1 percent of dividends paid in 36 companies, 
or about one-fifth of all cases. They received between 1 and 2 percent 
of the dividends in 26 companies, between 2 and 3 percent in 20 
companies, between 3 and 4 percent in 17 companies, and between 
4 and 5 percent in 24 companies. Ratios above 5 percent were rarer. 
However, there were 32 companies in which foreigners received be- 
tween 5 and 10 percent of total dividends paid. There were 17 cases 
in which the proportion of dividends received by foreigners was over 
10 percent. 

' 2 Foreign names, of course, include foreign nominees such as banks and brokers domiciled abroad. 

13 At the end of 1937 nominee holdings constituted 51 percent of all foreign holdings in stock of United 
States corporations. (Foreign Long-Term Investments in the United States, 1937-39, p. 18.) 

h The proportions would be higher if dividends reported by nominees without allocation to payor corpora- 
tions were included. 

'is If it is assumed that the average value per foreign shareholding does not differ from' the over-all average 
for all shareholdings in the 200 corporations at the end of 1937 (i. e., about $4,000 for common and $3,700 for 
preferred stock), the number of foreign shareholdings, both those appearing on the company's books and those 
in domestic nominees' names, of the 200 corporations seems to be near 450,000 for common stock and around 
50,000 for preferred stock. These figures, however, can be regarded as nothing more than en indication of the 
order of magnitudes involved, as there is no specific evidence to back the assumption that the average value 
per shareholding is the same for foreign shareholders as for domestic shareholders. 

The number of foreign shareholdings is, of course, considerably larger than that of foreigners (both individ- 
uals and corporations) who own at least 1 issue of stock in the 200 corporations. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



137 



Table 8. — Frequency distribution of proportion of dividends paid to foreigners 
in 1937 by 200 largest nonfinancial corporations (as reported on Treasury 
Form 1042) 



Percentage of dividends reported paid to foreigners 



Under 0.90 percent. . 

1 to 1.96. percent 

2 to 2.99 percent 

3 to 3.99 percent 

4 to 4.99 percent 

5 to 5.99 percent 

6 to 6.99 percent 

7 to 7.99 percent 

8 to 8.99 percent 

9 to 9.99 percent 

10 to 10.99 percent . . 

11 to 11.99 percent.. 

12 to 12.99 percent.. 

13 to 13.99 percent. . 

14 to 14.99 percent. 

15 to 15.99 percent . 

16 to 16.99 percent.. 

17 to 17.99 percent . . 

18 to 18.99 percent . . 

19 to 19.99 percent.. 

20 percent and over. 



Companies paying dividends. 
Companies not paying dividends... 



Total. 



Manufac- 
turing 



% 



Railroads 



29 



Electric, 

gas, and 

water 

utilities 



36 



Other 



Total 



36 
26 
20 

17 
24 
11 
8 
6 
5 
3 
4 

3 


2 

3 
1 

4 



172 
28 



200 



The 17 companies, among the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
in which dividends paid to foreigners in 1937, so far as reported on 
Treasury Form 1042, accounted for over 10 percent of total dividends, 
are: 

Shell Union Oil Corporation 80. 

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co « 40. 3 

The American Metal Co., Ltd 36. 8 

International Paper & Power Co a 20. 2 

Singer Manufacturing Co b 18. 8 

Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation 6 17. 7 

Anaconda Copper Mining Co b 17. 5 

Western Union Telegraph Co b 17. 1 

United Gas Corporation e 15. 8 

Republic Steel Corporation 15. 6 

The American Rolling Mill Co 12. 5 

The Great Northern Ry. Co b 12. 3 

American Water Works & Electric Co., Inc 12. 2 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation 10. 7 

Standard Brands, Inc '_ 10. 6 

The American Smelting & Refining Co 10. 3 

Union Pacific Railroad Co 10. 2 

• In these companies no dividends were paid in 1937 on the common stock. The figures, therefore, ropre 
sent the proportion of preferred dividends reported paid to foreigners. 

k These companies had only common stock (or equivalent) outstanding. 

* Represents proportion of di vidends 1 paid on 7-percent preferred stock. 



138 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Chabt XXXII. — Proportion of dividends paid to foreigners in 1937 by 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations (as reported on Treasury Form 1042) 



11 DIVIDEND PAYING COBPOBATIONS 



NUMBER OF ISSUES 



NUMBER OP ISSUES 



NUMBER OF ISS UES 




NUMBER OF ISSUES 



PERCENTAGE TOTAL DIVIDENDS 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER J 39 

If known indirect holdings were also taken into account, Allied 
Chemical & Dye Corporation, with 28 percent of the common stock 
owned by foreigners would have to be added to the list. 16 

B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

Probably the most outstanding difference in the proportion of 
foreign holdings among the 404 issues of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations is that between common stock, on the one hand, and 
preferred stock, on the other. Foreign holdings, so far as reported 
on Form 1042, accounted for about 3}£ percent (median) of the value 
of the 115 common stock issues for which separate information is 
available. In contrast they amounted to only 2 percent among the 
93 issues of preferred stock. J7 Among the 53 corporations, which 
had both common and preferred stock outstanding, and reported 
dividends separately, cases in which foreigners received a higher 
proportion of common than of preferred stock were more than twice 
as numerous as cases in which the opposite relation prevailed. 

There were only 22 issues, or only one-fifth of the total, in which 
foreigners received less than 1 percent of the dividends. 18 

The frequency distributions of the percentage of foreign holdings 
for the 200 corporations and for their common and preferred stock 
issues for which information is available separately, presented in 
tables 8 and 9 and illustrated in chart XXXII, show clearly the wide 
variation in the importance of foreign holdings in individual com- 
panies. On the one hand, there were 3 corporations among the 172 
dividend-paying corporations in the group where the available data 
indicate no foreign ownership whatever. These were, of course, 
companies closely held by a family or a group of business associates: 
Ford Motor Co. ; Anderson, Clayton & Co. ; and Weyerhaeuser Timber 
Co. 19 At the other extreme were a few corporations in which foreign- 
ers are credited with a large proportion, or even the majority, of total 
holdings, such as the Shell Union Oil Corporation and the American 
Metal Co., Ltd. 20 However, even among the companies which were 
not either completely owned by a domestic group or predominantly 
owned by foreigners there were wide variations in the proportion of 
foreign o ^rsbip. 

14 American Viscose Corporation, if included, would have headed this list. 

17 The other 196 issues either paid no dividends or were issued by companies which reported dividends 
for all common and preferred stocks in one figure. 

" No information is available on the remaining 93 common stock issues and 103 preferred stock issues of 
the 200 corporations, because no dividends were paid on 48 issues of common and 42 issues of preferred stock 
and the other 45 issues of common and Gl issues of preferred stock were of companies for which only aggregate 
dividends on all common and preferred stock issues were reported 

'• These corporations had six issues of stock outstanding. No foreign holdings were reported in seven 
additional issues, mainly issues wholly owned by paront corporations. 

10 American Viscose Corporation also falls in this category as it was almost wholly owned by a foreign 
company. 



140 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Table 9.— Frequency distribution of proportion of dividends paid to foreigners in 
1987 on stock issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations (as reported on 
Treasury Form 1042) 





Common stock issues 


Preferred stock issues 


Percentage of divi- 
dends reported 
paid to foreigners 


Manu- 
factur- 
ing 


Rail- 
roads 


Electric, 

gas, and 

water 

utilities 


Other 


Total 


Manu- 
factur- 
ing 


Rail- 
roads 


Electric, 

gas, and 

water 

utilities 


Other 


Total 


Under 0.99 


8 
9 
9 
8 
10 
4 
6 
1 
3 


3 

1 
1 


7 
3 
3 
3 


4 
3 

4 
5 
1 


22 

16 

13 

15 

15 

6 

7 

4 

3 

1 



2 

1 

1 

2 



1 

3 

1 


2 


12 
6 
6 
6 


3 
1 


12 
5 
2 
3 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 


6 
1 
1 
2 

1 


33 


1 to 1.99 

2 to 2.99 


12 
9 


3 to 3.99 - - --- 


12 


4 to 4 99 


3 


5 to 5.99 


1 
2 


1 


4 
1 


2 


6 


6 to 6 99 


4 


7 to 7 99 




1 


1 






2 

1 




3 


9 to 9 99 




1 




1 


10 to 10 99 








1 




1 


11 to 11 99 


1 
1 
1 
2 




1 











12 to 12 99 




1 


1 
1 




2 


13 to 13 99 








1 


14 to 14 99 



















15 to 15 99 












1 





1 


lfi to 16 99 


1 
2 
1 















17 to 17 99 






1 











18 to 18 99 

















19 to 19 99 





















2 








2 


2 






4 
















Total.. - 


09 


8 


19 


19 


115 


40 


9 


33 ! 11 | 93 

! 1 



C. DIFFERENCES AMONG INDUSTRIES 

Table 8 shows that the proportion of foreign holdings among the 
200 corporations was considerably higher for manufacturing corpora- 
tions, with a median of about 4 percent, on the basis of reports on 
Treasury Form 1042, than for public utility companies, with a median 
of about 2 percent. The number of railroad companies for which the 
information wafe available was too small and the distribution of the 
percentages of foreign ownership too scattered to derive a representa- 
tive average. 

The proportion of foreign ownership also differed considerably 
among manufacturing corporations. Although there are corpora- 
tions with high and with low proportions of foreign holdings in most 
major industries, foreign holdings appear to be, on the average, 
definitely higher for some industries than for others. Thus, the pro- 
portion of foreign holdings was above average for the common stock 
in most of the large steel companies, amounting to over 14 percent for 
United States Steel Corporation, over 10 percent for Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, over 15 percent for Republic Steel Corporation, 12 }£ 
percent for American Rolling Mill Co., and 7 percent for the Youngs- 
town Sheet & Tube Co. 21 The only steel companies among the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations with a low proportion of foreign 
holdings were Inland Steel Co., National Steel Corporation, and 

21 All these percentages represent the proportion of dividends paid to foreigners in 1937, as reported on 
Treasury Form 1042, to total dividends paid during that year. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 141 

Wheeling Steel Corporation, all with a ratio of about 2 l / 2 percent of 
common stock. The proportion of foreign holdings also was con- 
siderably above the average for the oil industry. About 86 percent 
of the common stock of Shell Union Oil Corporation was owned by 
foreigners; relatively high proportions of foreign ownership were also 
shown for Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation (17.7 percent), 
Tidewater Associated Oil Co. (9.3 percent), Continental Oil Co. 
(7.6 percent), and Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) (4.8 percent). 
Foreign shareholdings were relatively large in two of the large auto- 
mobile manufacturers, amounting to 7 percent in Chrysler Corpora- 
tion and nearly 5 percent in General Motors Corporation; there were, 
of course, no foreign holdings in the third large automobile producer, 
the Ford Motor Co. The percentage of foreign holdings was very 
high in one of the largest chemical companies, the Allied Chemical & 
Dye Corporation, of whose common stock foreigners owned 5% per- 
cent directly and another 22^ percent indirectly. The proportion 
of foreign holdings was more moderate for the other large chemical 
companies in the group of 200 corporations, viz. American Cyanamid 
Co., 4 l / 2 percent; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 3% percent; Union 
Carbide & Carbon Corporation, 2 percent. Foreign holdings were 
low in many consumers' goods industries, such as meat packing, 
canning, and sugar refining, but were fairly high in tobacco, dairying, 
and distilling companies. They were relatively large in the mail- 
order houses (Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 7 percent; and Sears. 
Roebuck & Co., 4.2 percent) but low in chain stores (with the excep- 
tion of F. W. Woolworth Co.). 

4. THE CONTROL ASPECT OF FOREIGN HOLDINGS 

The figures presented in this chapter show that foreigners at the 
present time have a considerable interest in many of the voting issues 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial American corporations. As these 
corporations dominate most of our important industries, it is essen- 
tial to determine the extent of control which these relatively large 
holdings give to foreigners. The question cannot be definitely 
settled without a case study of each of the situations involved. Still 
less can it be answered solely from the figures on total estimated 
holdings by foreigners which have been presented in this chapter. 
But those figures, together with information on the 20 largest share 
holdings in the 200 corporations, presented in chapters V and VI, 
permit at least a tentative answer. 

In most of the 200 corporations foreign holdings are apparently 
widely diffused, even where they amount to between 5 and 15 percent 
of the total stock outstanding. A special problem, it is true, is pre- 
sented by the holdings of certain Dutch "administration offices," 
organizations which issue bearer certificates, reputedly distributed 
among numerous individual investors, evidencing ownership of a 
certain number of shares of an American corporation registered in the 
name of the administration office on the corporation's books. 22 Ad- 
ministration offices were among the largest record shareholders in 
several important corporations, and sometimes owned very sub- 

bese offices resemble fixed investment trusts or bankers' shares companies existing in this country. 
(See the Securities and Exchange Commission's report on Investment Trusts and Investment Companies, 
pt One, pp. 29-31 and 105-106), except that the certificate evidences an interest in only 1 underlying issue. 



142 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

stantial blocks. 23 Theoretically, the holdings of these administration 
offices are large enough in several cases to carry some influence on the 
management. There is, however, no evidence that the administra- 
tion offices have tried to exercise the powers which they might possess 
on the basis of their considerable voting strength. Rather, they seem 
to have restricted themselves to the custodial functions involved in 
issuing bearer certificates on the basis of the underlying American 
•shares. 

There are, however, a few cases among the 200 corporations in 
which foreign holdings are large enough to permit influence on the 
management and where the character of the foreign owners is such 
thc-t they might be expected to behave as active shareholders and 
to use their voting strength. These are the Shell Union Oil Cor- 
poration, where two companies in the Royal Dutch group held over 
64 percent of the common stock; the American Metal Co., Ltd., in 
which one British corporation (Selection Trust, Ltd.) held nearly 
24 percent of the common stock; and the Allied Chemical & Dye 
Corporation, 23 percent of whose common stock was owned indirectly 
by one foreign group (Solvay & Cie of Brussels (Belgium)). All that 
can be said is that the possibility of foreign influence on the manage- 
ment does exist in these companies. Whether it is an actuality, 
or a potentiality only, cannot be decided from statistical material, 
though the first alternative can be presumed for the Shell Union Oil 
Corporation. 24 

5. LIMITATIONS OF DATA 

Treasury Form 1042, as a source of estimating the value of foreign 
holdings of American stock, is subject to several limitations which, 
though not too serious in themselves, must be borne in mind in study- 
ing the data, particularly those for individual issues. 

(a) Stock issues on which no dividends were paid during the year 
1937 necessarily had to be omitted. This excluded 28 of the 200 
companies and 91 of the 404 issues covered in the other chapters of 
this study, the omissions being most serious among railroads 

(6) Some nominees reported in a lump sum all dividends on Ameri- 
can stocks which they paid to foreigners rather than showing separate 
figures for individual corporations. The data on dividend payments 
to foreigners in individual corporations, thus understate the actual 
amount of such payments. It is estimated, however, that unallo- 
cated dividend payments to foreigners amounted to only about 20 
percent of payments which could be allocated to the payor corpora- 
tions. This deficiency in the material therefore should not seriously 
impair the value of the figures for the entire group of 200 corporations 
or large sections thereof. It may result, however, in a serious under- 
statement of foreign holdings in the case of a few individual issues. 

(c) About 40 of the 200 corporations reported dividend payments 
to foreigners on all of their stock issues in one sum rather than sep- 

23 They held, for instance, in 1937, about 25 percent of the preferred and 2 percent of the common stock 
of Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.; 18 percent of the preferred and 12 percent of the common stock of Shell 
Union Oil Corporation; 14 percent of the common stock of Mid Continent Petroleum Corporation; 12).$ per- 
cent of the common and 1 percent of the preferred stock of Tidewater Associated Oil Co.; 9 percent of the 
common and 4^ percent of the preferred stock of American Car & Foundry Co.; 8J.S percent of the common 
and around 1 percent of the preferred stock of Republic Steel Corporation; nearly 8 percent of the common 
stock of Anaconda Copper Mining Co.; 6W percent of the common stock of Bethlehem Steel Corporation; 
and 5J-S percent of the preferred and 4 percent of the common stock of the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 

*> The presumption is clear as well, in the case of American Viscose Corporation, which is almost wholly 
owned by Courtaulds, Ltd., of London, Encland (see footnote 4, apix-nc'h V). 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 143 

arately for each issue of common or preferred stock. For these 
companies, of course, the proportion of foreign holdings could be 
calculated only for the aggregate of all stock outstanding, although 
the proportion might have varied considerably among their different 
issues. 

(d) Data on dividend payments to foreigners were transformed 
into estimates of the value of the shares owned by foreigners by 
assuming that the proportion of total dividends which were paid to 
foreigners during 1937 in each issue represented the proportion of the 
issue neld by foreigners at the end of 1937. This assumption is 
subject to the error that dividends were paid at various dates through- 
out the year, whereas the estimate of foreigners' holdings based on 
those dividend payments is presumed to apply to December 31, 1937. 
The statistics of international capital movements ^ indicate, however, 
that foreigners had only a small net purchase of American securities 
during the year 1937 ; holdings at the end of the year apparently were 
so little above the annual average that the difference can be dis- 
regarded. 

(e) Form 1042 for the 200 corporations, which constitutes the 
statistical basis of this chapter, does not cover the "indirect" foreign 
holdings, i. e., stock of the 200 corporations owned by holding or 
other companies incorporated in the United States which were in 
turn owned (directly or indirectly) by foreigners. The most out- 
standing example of such indirect holdings is provided by the 500,000 
shares of the Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation owned by the 
Solvay American Investment Corporation (a Delaware corporation) 
whose common stock is entirely held by a Swiss corporation which, 
in turn, is owned by Solvay & Cie. of Brussels (Belgium). 26 The 
indirect foreign holdings in the 200 corporations generally have had 
to be disregarded due to lack of sufficient information. Exceptions 
were made, however, for the holdings of Solvay American Investment 
Corporation and of General Aniline & Film Corporation (formerly 
American I. G. Chemical Corporation) which, though not included 
in the tables of this chapter or in section VI of appendix III, are 
taken into account in the more important summary figures used in 
the text. 27 

(/) The figures naturally do not include either stocks registered 
in the names of persons residing in this country which were in reality 
held for the benefit of a foreigner but for which the American nominee 
and record shareholder, from ignorance or other motives, failed to 
file a Form 1042 with the Treasury. Cases of nonreporting of such 
nominee holdings may be expected chiefly where the American nominee 
is an individual not engaged in the securities business and where the 
relationship is a personal rather than a business matter. That the 
nonreported nominee holdings and the indirect holdings of American 
stocks by foreigners may be quite substantial is indicated by the 
existence in recent years of a large statistically unresolved capital 

« Bulletin of the Treasury Department, e. R., March 1940, p. 3fi. 

" In this case the Form 1042 would have to be filled out by Solvay American Investment Corporation 
which, of course, is not included in the group of the 200 corporations covered in this study, and not by Allied 
Chemical & Dye Corporation. 

17 These holdines (all common shares) consisted of 500,000 Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation and 20.305 
I'nion Carbide * Carbon Corporation held by Solvay American Investment Corporation on March 31, 
1938; 289,225 Standard Oil Co. (N. J.), 10,000 Eastman Kodak Co., 10,000 Standard Oil Co. (Ind.), 18,050 
Aluminum Co. of America and 6,500 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. held by General Aniline & Film 
Corporation as of March 31, 1938. 

268445 — 41— No. 2fl 11 



144 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

inflow into the United States, 28 part of which may be assumed to 
have taken the form of unreported purchases of stock in American 
corporations. 

(g) The figures given in this chapter and in section VI of appendix 
III therefore are to be regarded only as the minimum proportion 
and value, respectively, of the shares of the 200 largest nonfinancial 
corporations owned in 1937 beneficially, directly or indirectly, by 
foreigners. The true figures are certainly somewhat higher and may 
be considerably higher than given in this chapter. 

>« See the Balance of International Payments of the United States in 1938, pp. 9-11. 



APPENDIX I 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP 

IN AMERICAN CORPORATIONS 

IN 1937 



145 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



APPENDIX I 



THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN AMERICAN CORPORATIONS 

IN 1937 

Ppge 

I. Importance of various types of stockholders at the end of 1937. 149 

II. The number of stockholders at the end of 1937 150 

A. Estimation of number of stockholders based on distribution of 

dividends 151 

1. Number of dividend recipients reported on Federal 

income tax returns 151 

2. Number of dividend recipients not reported on Fed- 

eral income tax returns 152 

(a) Average dividend income of dividend re- 
cipients with net income under $1,000 152 

(6) Average dividend income of married persons 

with net income from $1,000 to $2,500 156 

(c) Average dividend income of other dividend 

recipients not reported or inadequately 
reported on Federal income tax returns — 156 

(d) The number of dividend recipients not re- 

ported on Federal income tax returns 157 

3. Total number of dividend recipients 157 

4. Number of stockholders not receiving any dividends 

in 1937 . 157 

5. Total number of domestic stockholders 158 

6. Foreign stockholders 159 

B. Estimation of number of stockholders based on proportion of 

individuals in different income classes receiving dividends.- 159 

1. Number of dividend recipients with incomes covered 

by Federal income tax data 161 

2. Number of dividend recipients in income classes not 

covered by Federal income tax data — 162 

(a) Proportion of dividend recipients among 
married individuals with incomes from 

. $1,000 to $2,500 162 

(6) Proportion of dividend recipients among 

individuals with incomes below $1,000 162 

(c) Number of dividend recipients in income 
classes not covered by Federal income tax 
data 163 

3. Total number of domestic stockholders 164 

C. Estimation of number of stockholders based on the number of 

shareholdings and the duplication ratio 164 

D. Estimation of number of stockholders based on the Roper 

survey 166 

T-i. ^' Comparison of different estimates of number of stockholders 167 

III. The number of shareholdings at the end of 1937 168 

A. Estimation of number of shareholdings in registered corpora- 

tions.. 169 

1. Number of record shareholdings 169 

2. Adjustment for nominee holdings ." 170 

B. Estimation of number of shareholdings for selected groups of 

unregistered corporations.. . , t . 172 

C. Estimation of number of shareholdings for all other unreg- 

istered corporations 173 

D. Final estimate of number of shareholdings 175 

E. Number of foreign, corporate, and institutional shareholdings. 175 



148 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Page 
IV. Distribution of stock ownership at end of 1937 1 176 

A. Concentration of stock ownership 1 176 

B. Relations between income and stock ownership 178 

C. Concentration of stock ownership in individual corporations. 180 

D. Relations between income and number of stocks owned 181 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 

10. Distribution of dividends among various classes of recipients, 1937 149 

11. Relationship between net income, proportion of returns reporting 

dividends and average dividend income reported on 1936 Delaware 

State income tax returns, for net incomes less than $5,000 153 

12.- Relationship between net income, proportion of returns reporting 
dividends, and average dividend income reported on 1937 Federal 
income tax returns 156 

13. Comparison of average dividend income reported on Delaware State 

and Federal income tax returns in 1936, for selected net incomes 156 

14. Number of record shareholdings in American corporations, December 

31, 1937 170 

15. Average proportion of record shareholdings and shares outstanding 

represented by nominee holdings, December 31, 1937 170 

16. Average number of shares held in various classes of record sharehold- 

ings, December 31, 1937 ........ 172 

17. Relationship between number of shareholdings and total Sss!Es - for 

1,148 representative corporations, December 31, 1922 174 

18. Distribution of dividend incomes of $5,000 and over by size of divi- 

dends, 1937 177 

19. Distribution of dividend income in 1937 by size of net income 178 

20. Relationship between dividend income and net income, 1937 179 

LIST OF CHARTS 

Chart 

XXXIII. Relationship between net income and average dividend income 

reported by individuals on 1936 Delaware income tax returns 

for net incomes under $5,000 154 

XXXIV. Relationship between net income and average dividend income 

reported by individuals on 1937 Federal income tax returns 

for net incomes under $15,000 155 

XXXV. Relationship between net income and proportion of individuals 
with dividend income as reported on Federal income tax 

returns in 1937 with net incomes under $15,000 160 

XXXVI. Relationship between net income and proportion of individuals 
with dividend income as reported on Delaware income tax 
returns in 1936 for net incomes under $5,000 — 163 



APPENDIX I 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN AMERICAN 
CORPORATIONS IN 1937 

This appendix discusses in some detail the distribution of owner- 
ship in American corporations summarized in chapter II of this report. 
The picture is one of wide public interest in the equity securities of 
these corporations, contrasted with a high concentration of stock 
ownership in the hands of a relatively few persons. Much of the 
material used in this study has not been available previously. 

I. Importance of Various Types of Stockholders at the End 

of 1937 

The aggregate importance of the different types of stockholders 
(such as corporations, foreigners, institutions, and domestic indi- 
viduals) can be determined roughly by an analysis of the distribution 
of dividends among the various classes of recipients. Such a distribu- 
tion is given in table 10 for the year 1937. 

Table 10. — Distribution of dividends among various classes of recipients 1 — 1987 



Item 



Millions of 
dollars 



(1) Taxable dividends paid by all domestic corporations - 

(2) Dividends from domestic corporations received by domestic corporations 2 - 

(3) Dividends from domestic corporations received by domestic noncorporate and foreign 

stockholders :..---- . 

(4) Dividends from domestic corporations received by foreign stockholders * 

(5) Dividends from foreign corporations received by domestic noncorporate stockholders * . . 

(6) Dividends received by domestic noncorporate stockholders (6) = (3) — (4)+(5)... 

(7) Dividends reported received by individuals filing i ncome tax returns 5 

(a) Net incomes over $5,000 - 

(b) Net incomes under $5,000' 

(c) No net income 

<8) Dividends received by nontaxable fiduciaries (not reported by individuals filing income 

tax returns as dividend income) 7 - - 

(9) Divic nds received by others (9) = (6) - (7) - (8) - 

(a) Nonprofit organizations 8 - 

(b) Mutual savings banks » . - 

(c) Federal Government and agencies 10 - 

(d) Others (mainly individual stockholders not filing income tax returns, or filing returns 

but not reporting dividends received).. -- 



7,584 
2,632 

4,902 

200 

30 



4,732 

3,574 

2,780 

734 

60 

535 
623 

75 
6 

12 

530 



1 From Statistics of Income for 1937 unless otherwise noted. 

« Dividends received on stock of domestic corporations subject to taxation under title I of the effective 
Tevenue act. ; 

• Estimate based on figures given in The Balance of Internationa) Payments of the United States in 1937 
p. 47; to the "dividends on foreign-held American stocks" there is added two-thirds of the income to for- 
eigners from direct investments in the United States. - 

4 Estimate based on figures given in The Balance of International Payments of the United States in *938 
p. 45; The Balance of International Payments of the United States in 1937, p. 53; and American Direcl 
Investments Abroad, pp. 22 and 24. 

1 Includes taxable fiduciary income tax returns. 

• Individuals with net incomes over $1,000 or $2,500, depending on family status, or with gross Incomes 
over $5,U00. 

' From Statistics of Income for 1937; see text for details. 
' Rough estimate; see text for details of estimation. 

» Estimate based on value of stock of domestic corporations held by active mutual savings banks as of 
June 30. 1937 (Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Controller of the Currency, p. 740). 
10 Reconstruction Finance Corporation (Report, Fourth Quarter, 1937). 



150 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

The total dividends paid by all corporations filing income tax 
returns in 1937 amounted to $7,703,000,000 1 of which approximately 
98.5 percent, 2 or $7,584,000,000 was taxable. 3 Of the taxable divi- 
dends, $2,682,000,000 or 35 percent was paid by domestic corporations 
to other corporations filing income tax returns, while the remaining 
$4,902,000,000 (65 percent) was paid to domestic noncorporate and 
foreign stockholders. It is estimated on the basis of data given in 
The Balance of international Payments of the United States in 
1937, 4 that roughly $200,000,000 in dividends, representing from 
2 to 3 percent of all dividends, was paid by domestic corporations to 
foreign stockholders. The remainder of the dividends not yet 
accounted for — namely, $4,702,000,000 — was received by domestic 
noncorporate stockholders. Of this amount about $93,000,000, or 
somewhat over 1 percent of all dividends, was probably received by 
eleemosynary or nonprofit organizations, 5 mutual savings banks, and 
the Federal Government and agencies. Consequently about $4,609,- 
000,000, or approximately 61 percent of taxable dividends, was paid 
by domestic corporations to domestic individual and fiduciary stock- 
holders. In addition, however, these domestic individual and fiduci- 
ary stockholders received approximately $30,000,000 in dividends 
from foreign corporations, 6 or about $4,639,000,000 in all. 

II. The Number of Stockholders at the End of 1937 

One of the most important aspects of a study of the ownership in 
American corporations is a determination of how widespread such 
ownership is — i. e., how many persons there are who own equity 
securities of American corporations. Detailed estimates of the num- 
ber of stockholders have previously been available only for the years 
1927 to 1932, and even these estimates, which will be discussed in 
appendix II, are subject to a substantial margin of error. The more 
current estimates which have appeared must be regarded as little 
better than guesses. 7 

An attempt is made in this section to obtain a more satisfactory 
estimate of the number of stockholders than existed heretofore, based 
on data much of which have not been available previously. However, 
even this estimate must necessarily be quite rough in view of the 
nature of the data available. To insure a reasonable degree of reli- 
ability, estimates of the number of stockholders will be made from 
several different points of view and with different sets of data, and 
the results obtained from the various approaches compared with each 
other. 

i Statistics of Income (or 1937, Part 2, an annual publication of the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the 
U. S. Treasury Department. 

1 Bulletin of the Treasury Department, February 1940, p. 12. 

8 Broadly speaking, all dividends paid in money or other property and such stock dividends as confer on 
the recipient rights or interests different from those which his former shareholdings represented are taxable. 

* Prepared in the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the U. S. Department of Commerce. 

8 It is estimated that in 1937 approximately $75,000,000 in dividends, or about 1 percent of dividends paid by 
domestic corporations, was received by nonprofit organizations. In 1922 a sample study of 4,000 representa- 
tive corporations, indicated that nine-tenths of 1 percent of the stock was held by such'organizations. (See 
National Wealth and Income, a report of the Federal Trade Commission.) Similar data, available for a 
number of large corporations as of the end of 1937, indicate a somewhat higher percentage of holdings by non- 
profit organizations. The institutional holdings in such stocks, however, are believed to be proportionately 
larger than for all corporations. 

•See table 10. 

' De Long, James C, (vice president of the Financial World), in Printers Ink, July 18, 1935, gave an esti- 
mate of 15,000,000 stockholders; and an identical estimate was given in Investor America, April 1938, a 
publication of the American Federation of Investors. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 151 

A. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS BASED ON DISTRIBUTION 

OF DIVIDENDS 

The few reasonably careful estimates of the number of stockholders 
which were made in the past were based on the distribution of divi- 
dends reported in income tax data published by the Bureau of Internal 
Revenue in Statistics of Income. Essentially, this method attempts 
to determine the total number of individuals receiving dividends by 
allocating the total amount of dividends received by individuals to 
various groups of dividend recipients. For some of these groups the 
number of persons receiving dividends is known; for others it is esti- 
mated on the basis of the known amount of dividends received by the 
group and an assumed average dividend received by members of the 
group. Once the total number of dividend recipients is estimated, 
an adjustment upward is made to include owners of all stock, whether 
or not on a dividend-paying basis. This is the approach used in this 
section. While this approach is basically similar to that followed by 
others, the results appear more reliable as some of the data used in 
this estimation have not been available previously. 

1. Number of Dividend Recipients Reported on Federal Income Tax 
Returns. 

Individuals and taxable fiduciaries 8 filing income tax returns with 
net income reported receipt in 1937 of $3,514,000,000 in dividends on 
1,694,000 returns. 9 Since a number of these returns were joint 
returns, 10 the number of individuals, holding dividend-paying stocks, 
represented by these returns was somewhat in excess of 1,700,000 and 
may have been as high as 2,000,000. 

Individuals filing income tax returns with no net income, i. e., with 
excess of deductions over gross income, reported receipt of $60,000,- 
000 ll in dividends. While the number of returns reporting dividends 
is not known., the total number of returns with no net income amounted 
to only 84,000. The number of returns with dividends, therefore, 
must have been considerably below 84,000 and too small to affect 
perceptibly the total number of dividend recipients filing income tax 
returns. 

In addition to dividends reported as such by individuals filing 
income tax returns, a substantial part of their income classified as 
fiduciary income actually represented dividends received by non- 
taxable fiduciaries and passed on to beneficiaries, who reported the 
income simply as "fiduciary income" without indicating the ultimate 
source, i. e., corporate dividends. Dividends received by nontaxable 

• In general, a fiduciary is required to file an income tax return for every estate and trust with net income 
of $1,000 and over or with gross income of $5,000 and over. An estate or trust is "taxable" if the net income 
(gross incomain excess of allowable deductions less the amount, distributable to beneficiaries) exceeds the 
personal exemption of $1,000. 

• Op. cit. supra, note 1, Part 1, p. 13. The total number of income tax returns with net income reporting 
dividends is given in this issue of Statistics of Income for the first time, estimated on the basis of an actual 
count of returns with net income of $5,000 and more reporting dividends, and on a sample of over 1,000,000 
returns, or better than 20 percent, with net income unde& $5,000. This is a figure which had to be roughly 
approximated in earlier years. 

Dividends from foreign as well as domestic corporations are included on these returns. The number of 
persons holding foreign stocks, without at the same time holding domestic stocks, however, is believed to 
be entirely negligible. 

10 Approximately 45 percent of all returns were joint returns (id., p. 9), and it may be assumed that approxi- 
mately the same proportion of the returns reporting dividend income were joint returns. However, it is 
unlikely that there would be more than one person holding dividend-paying stocks in the same family 
represented by a Joint return in more than a small fraction of these cases. 

« Id., p. 170. 



152 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

fiduciaries filing income tax returns in 1937 amounted to $535,000,000. 12 
The total amount of dividends reported on individual and fiduciary 
income tax returns together, therefore, was about $4,100,000,000. 
It is not necessary, however, to increase the estimate of nearly 
2,000,000 persons reporting receipt of dividends to adjust for those 
reporting receipt of dividends in. the form of fiduciary income, since 
the number of persons receiving, divid-ends indirectly through a 
fiduciary is known to be relatively small 13 and since, furthermore, 
many of the beneficiaries probably received dividends from stocks 
held directly and are tlierefore already included in the number of 
individuals reporting dividends. 

There remains some $530,000,000 in dividends still unaccounted 
for. This sum was received mainly by individual stockholders not 
filing income tax returns, or filing returns but not reporting dividends 
actuallv received. The immediate problem, then, is to estimate the 
number of persons receiving this $530,000,000 in dividends, 14 and to 
add them to the nearly 2,000,000 dividend recipients reported on 
Federal income tax returns. This is the most difficult part of the 
estimation of the total number of stockholders, and the part subject 
to the largest error. 

2. Number of Dividend Recipients Not Reported on Federal Income 
Tax Returns. 

To estimate the number of stockholders receiving this residual 
$530,000,000 of dividends, it is necessary to determine the approxi- 
mate average dividend income per dividend recipient. Since some 
data are available on the relationship between net income of persons 
receiving dividends and the average dividends received (tables 1 1 and 
12 and charts XXXIII and XXXIV), the income levels of the indi- 
vidual stockholders receiving the residual $530,000,000 in dividends 
will be considered first. 

These stockholders may for convenience be divided into four 
groups: Persons with net income under $1,000 15 (exempt from filing 
income tax returns); married persons with net income from $1,000 to 
$2,500 16 (exempt); other persons with net income over $1,000 who 
did not file income tax returns; and persons who did file income tax 
returns but did not report any or all of dividends actually received. 
As the share of the $530,000,000 in dividends accounted for by each 
of these four groups separately is not known, it will not be possible 
to estimate the number of dividend recipients in each of the groups. 
For the four groups combined, however, the number of dividend 
recipients can be estimated by dividing the amount of dividends 
received by an estimated average dividend, based on the estimated 
values of the average dividends received by the component groups. 

(a) Average dividend income of dividend recipients with net income 
under $1,000. — For persons with net income under $1,000, Delaware 
State income tax returns constitute the only available source of 
information on dividends received. In this State every resident 21 

' 2 Id., pp. 173 and 176. Fiduciaries with no net income filing income tax returns are not included in the 
regular Statistics of Income tabulations but are given for the first time in Statistics of Income for 1937 as a 
supplementary tabulation. 

13 About 183,000 estates and trusts filed income tax returns, of which 138,000 were nontaxable. (Id., pp. 
173 and 176.) Obviously, not all of these estates and trusts received dividend income. 

i* This aggregate residual figure attributable to such individuals is believed to be approximately correct. 
A small error, whose direction is not known, is introduced by the use of fiscal year data for corporations 
contrasted to calendar year data for individuals. 

" And with gross income under $5,000. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



153 



years of age or over is required to file an income tax return. 16 In 
1936, a year not markedly different from 1937 in res.pect to payment 
of dividends, 17 an average dividend of $189 was reported by Delaware 
residents receiving dividends and having net incomes under $1^000 18 
(table 11 and chart XXXIII). 

Table 11. — Relationship between net income, proportion of returns reporting 
dividends, and average dividend income reported on 1986 r>elawnre Rini» **>rnrne 
tax returns, for net incomes less than $5,000 



Net income 


Percent of 
returns re- 
porting 
dividends 

'8.1 
8.5 
8.2 
7.6 
6.7 
5.8 
5.8 
5.5 
6.8 

7.4 

5.9 

7.5 
7.5 
9.6 
10.8 


Average 
di,;j^; 
income of 
individuals 
reporting 
dividends 

$107 
98 
151 
171 
181 
188 
228 
278 
237 
238 
253 
239 
252 
209 
224 


Net income ' 


Percent of 
returns re- 
porting 
dividends 


Average 
dividend 
income of 
individuals 
reporting 
dividends 


$1 to $100' 


$1,500 to $1,600 


9.8 
12.3 
12.9 
12.3 
16.2 
17.0 
19.9 
18.9 
21.3 
27.7 
30.7 
41.5 
51.4 
55.6 
62.5 


$219 


$100 to $200 


$1,600 to $1,700 


223 


$200 to $300 . . 


$1,700 to $1,800 


308 


$300 to $400 - 


$1,800 to $1,900., 


317 


$400 to $500 


$1,900 to $2,000. 


332 


$500 to$60u 


$2,000 to $2,100 


284 


$600 to $700 


$2,100 to $2,200 


347 


$700 to $800 


$2,200 to $2,300 


413 


$800 to $900 .. 


$2,300 to $2,400 


403 


$900 to $1,000 


$2,400 to $2,500... 


456 


$1,000 to $1,100 


$2,500 to $3,000 


454 


$l,100«to $1,200 ... 


$3,000 to $3,500 


610 


$1,200 to $1,300 


$3,500 to $4,000 


716 


$1,300 to $1,400 


$4,000 to $4,500 


896 


$1,400 to $1,500 


$4,500 to $5,000 


1,005 









' Exclusive of housewives and other dependents, 21 years old and over, reporting no individual income. 
If these are included, individuals reporting dividends constitute 1.5 percent of persons reporting a net 
income under $100. 

This average dividend cannot be accepted without qualification 
as representative of all persons in Delaware with net incomes under 
$1,000. In spite of the legal requirement, complete coverage was 
not attained; 19 and even for those riling income tax returns probably 
not all dividends received were reported. Failure to submit returns 
and, still more important, failure to report receipt of dividends prob- 
ably make the computed average dividend somewhat too high. 20 On 
the other hand, understatement of the amount of dividends received 
would have the opposite effect, though probably of insufficient 
magnitude to offset the two factors previously noted. Consequently 
the computed average dividend of $189 is almost certainly somewhat 
too high for persons in Delaware with net income of less than $1,000, 
and an average of $150 is probably nearer the true value, although 
still subject to a wide margin of error. 

It appears permissible, further, to use the estimated average 
dividend of $150 for dividend recipients in Delaware with net income 
of less than $1,000 to represent the average dividend income of 
dividend recipients in this income level for the United States as a 
whole. 21 

'• Residents under 21 years of age with net income over Si, 000 must also file returns. 
. -V™" 1 *' 4 * 5 ' 000,000 in taxable dividends were distributed by domestic corporations in 1936 contrasted 
to *7 5H4. 000,000 in 1937 (Statistics of Income for 1936 and 1937. Part 2 and Bulletin of the Treasury Depart- 
ment. February 1940). 

'• Preliminary results for the year 1936 were made available to the Securities and Exchange Commission 
irom a study now in progress under the joint sponsorship of the Delaware State Tax Commissioner, the 
university of Delaware, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. Comparable results for the year 
i lfltfi 6 yCt available ' but u may be assumed that the average dividend in 1937 was slightly higher than 

"It Is estimated that somewhat over 80 percent of the total population, including dependents, was cov- 
ered by returns filed for 1936. 

w Joint returns have a similar effect on the computation of the average dividend received, but their effect 
should be minor. 

"Admittedly, this procedure may involve a substantial error, which, however, will be estimated later. 



154 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



The lowest income level for which comparable information is given 
on Federal income tax returns is the $1,000 to $2,000 group (table 12 
and chart XXXIV). The information is available solely for 1937 



Chart XXXIII 



AVER* 
1400 



1200 



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NET INCOME AND AVERAGE DIVIDEND INCOME 

REPORTED BY INDIVIDUALS ON 1936 DELAWARE INCOME TAX RETURNS 

FOR NET INCOMES UNDER $5,000 



1000 



600 



200 



AVERAGE 

DIVIBWB INCOME 

(Itl DOLLARS) 

1400 



1200. 



800 



600 



400 



2000 3000 

NET INCOME (IN DOLLARS) 



4000 



5000 



and only single persons are covered, gravely reducing comparability 
with the. Delaware figures. 22 However, data given in the-Statistics 

« The average dividend income reported on Federal income tax returns for 1937 for net incomes of $1,000 
to $2,000 was $450 compared to $261 for the same income group in the Delaware returns for 1936 The Federal 
data, of course, are subject to the same limitations resulting from nonfiling of returns and nonreporting 
of dividends previously noted in the discussion of the Delaware data. As a matter of fact, the Federal data 
are probably more affected by these limitations in view of the high coverage of the Delaware data. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



155 



of Income for 1936 covering the entire United States and similar 
data obtained from the Delaware study do permit a rough comparison 
for net income classes over $5,000 of the average dividend per return 
reporting dividends, in Delaware and in the country as a whole. 
For the different net income classes between $5,000 and $15,000 the 



Chart XXXIV 



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NET INCOME AND AVERAGE DIVIDEND INCOME 

REPORTED BY INDIVIDUALS ON 1937 FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS 

FOR NET INCOMES UNDER $15,000 



AVERAGE 

dividend income 
(in dollars! 

8 COO 



AVERAGE 



5000 



40CC 



3CCO 



^wmmp 



5000 



4000 



3000 



2000 



1000 



4C00 8000 

NET INCOME (IN DOLLARS) 



120C0 



16000 



average dividend, per return reporting dividends, is very much alike 
both on the Federal and the Delaware returns (table 13). There is 
no obvious reason for supposing that the data would differ considerably 
in the lower income brackets. 23 

a One qualification affecting this comparison is that net income is not synonymous on Federal and Dela- 
ware returns. The difference, largely due to the deduction of the Federal income tax in the computation 
of net income for Delaware returns, contrasted to the much smaller deduction of the Delaware income tax 
for Federal returns, is not important for small net incomes but is substantial for large net incomes, whore a 
higher net income would ordinarily be reported on a Federal return than on a Delaware return. 



156 



CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 



Table 12. — Relationship between net income, proportion of returns reporting 
dividends, and average dividend income reported on 1937 Federal income tax returns 



Net income 


Percent of 

returns 

reporting 

dividerrao 


Average 
dividend 
income of 
individuals 
reporting 
dividends 


Net income 


Percent of 

returns 

reporting 

dividends 


Average 
dividend 
income of 
individuals 
reporting 
dividends 


$1,000 to $2,000 


14. „ 

23.9 
ii. 3 
32.1 
44.9 
50.7 
51.5 
59.7 
63.9 
69.5 
69.7 
71.6 
73.9 


$450 

573 

494 

644 

944 

1,290 

1,793 

2,026 

2,387 

2,721 

3,194 

3,525 

4,126 


$13,000 to $14,000 


75.7 
77.5 
80.3 
83.2 
88.2 
93.6 
96.2 
96.3 
95.7 
94.1 
100.0 
100.0 


$4,523 


$2 000 to $2,500 


$14,000 to $15,000.. -.. 


4,957 


$2,500 to $3,000 


$15^00 to $20,000 


6,294 


$3,000 to $4,000 


$zu,l'0u 1.0 $25,000 


8,971 


$4,000 to $5,000 


$25,000 to $50,000 


15, 717 


$5,000 to $6,000 


$50,000 to $100,000 


37, 677 


$6,000 to $7,000 


$100,000 to $250,000 

$250,000 to $.500,000 

$500,000 to $1,000,000 

$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 

$2,000,000 to $3,000,000 

$3,000,000 and over. 


92, 875 


«7 nnn tA «8,000 


271, 453 


$8,000 to $9,000 


624, 723 


$9,000 to $10,000 


1, 022, 188 


$10,000 to $11,C™ 


1, 406, 083 


$11,000 to $12,000 


5, 638, 000 


$12,000 to $13,000 









Table 13. — Comparison of average dividend income reported on Delaware State' and 
Federal income tax returns in 1936, for selected net 'incomes 



Net income 


Average dividend in- 
come of individuals 
reporting dividends 


Net income 


Average dividend in- 
come of individuals 
reporting dividends 




Delaware 


Federal 


Delaware 


Federal 


$5 000 to $6,000 


$1, 319 
1,668 
1,829 
2,040 
2,826 


$1, 197 
1,520 
1,848 
2,211 
2,611 


$10,000 to $11,000 


$2, 769 
3,008 
4,166 
3,786 
4,629 


$2,969 




$11,000 to $12,000. 


3,370 


$7 000 to $8,0)9 


$12,000 to $13,000 


3,773 


$ 000 to $9,000 


$13,000 to $14,000 


4,278 




$14,000 to $15,000 


4,490 









(6) Average dividend income of married persons with net income from 
$1,000 to $2,500. — Married persons with net income from $1,000 to 
$2,500, who were exempt from filing Federal returns, probably re- 
ceived an average dividend income between $150, the estimated aver- 
age dividend income for residents of Delaware with net income less 
than $1,000, and $487, the average amount of dividends reported on 
Federal returns by single individuals with net income from $1,000 to 
$2,500. The average dividend income actually received by these 
single individuals was probably considerably lower than the average 
reported, in view of nonfiling of returns and nonreporting of dividends. 
There is also some evidence — e. g., the lower average dividend income 
reported on Federal returns by single and married persons combined 
with net income from $2,500 to $3,000 than by single persons with net 
income from $2,000 to $2,500 (table 12) — that for a given net income 
married persons tended to have a smaller investment in stocks than 
single persons. Consequently, the average dividend income of mar- 
ried persons with net income from $1,000 to $2,500 is considered to 
have been about $250. 

(c) Average dividend income oj other dividend recipients not reported 
or inadequately reported on Federal income tax returns. — Little is known 
of the average amount of dividends received by other dividend recip- 
ients who did not file income tax returns or who did file income tax 
returns but did not report receipt of dividends. Dividend recipients 
with net incomes above $1,000 who should have filed income tax re- 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 157 

turns, but did not. nrobably received an average dividend of well over 
$150, though even the approximate amount is not known. 24 Persons 
receiving dividends who did file income tax returns but did not report 
receipt of dividends had an average dividend probably not much less 
than $150, and possibly even more; here, again, the approximate 
amount may only be guessed. 

The effect of persons reporting receipt of some dividends on their 
income tax returns but not reporting all dividends received is believed 
to have been relatively minor. If it were possible to correct for this 
factor, the residual amount of dividends would be less than the 
$530,000,000 obtained, and consequently the ultimate .estimate of the 
number of dividend recipients would be reduced. 

(d) The number of dividend recipients not reported on Federal income 
tax returns. — The preceding discussion leads to an estimate of some- 
what over $150 foT the average dividend received by individuals in 
this group as a whole, receiving the $530,000,000 in dividends not yet 
accounted for. 25 If this is correct, the $530,000,000 in dividends not, 
yet accounted for were received by about 3,500,000 persons. 

Admittedly, however, the true, value of the average dividend re- 
ceived by these individuals may be substantially different from $150, 
so that it is necessary to determine a range within which the true 
value probably iies For this purpose, a range of $100 to $200 seems 
reasonable. If the average dividend were as low as $100 for the group 
unaccounted for by income tax data, there would be approximately 
5,300,000 stockholders in this group. With an average dividend of as 
high as $200, the number of dividend recipients unaccounted for by 
income tax data would be estimated at 2,700,000. The actual num- 
ber of dividend recipients unaccounted for by income tax data then 
probably lies somewhere in the range between 2,700,000 and 5,300,000, 
with the most likely value in the neighborhood of 3,000,000 to 
4,000,000. 

3. Total Number of Dividend Recipients. 

Combining the number of dividend recipients reported on. Federal 
income tax returns (close to 2,000,000) with the number of dividend 
recipients not reported, the total number of dividend recipients is 
found to be between. 4,700,000 and. 7,3.00,000, with the most likely 
value between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000. 26 

4. Number of Stockholders Not Receiving Any Dividends in 1937. 
Since the number of dividend recipients has been estimated, there 

remains only the determination of the number of stockholders not 
receiving any dividends in. 1937. There is no method of determining 
the number of such stockholders directly from the data available. 
However, it is possible to estimate the relative importance of book 

" Similarly there is no information on the average amount of dividends received by State or municipal 
officials with silaries not subject to Federal taxation, but this omission is of minor importance. 

!1 An average dividend of $150 presumes an average market value during 1937 of about $3,000 for the average 
stock investment of these individuals, declining to not much over $2,000 by the end of the year. 

K An error, not previously mentioned, which is introduced by the use of income tax data to estimate 
the number of stockholders at some instant of time is based on the fact that dividends on the same shares 
may be reported on more than one return when different individuals filing income tax returns have held 
the same shares at different dividend dates during the year. The overestimate in the number of dividend 
recipients resulting from this factor should, however, be negligible. 

Two other minor limitations inherent in the use of income tax data to estimate the number of stockholders 
may be mentioned. The estimated average amount of dividends received by persons at the various income 
levels tends to he slightly too high, or in other words, the estimate of the number of dividend recipients 
tend-; to he too low, as a result of the treatment of joint returns in the same manner as individual returns 
in arriving at these figures. The fact that dividends received through nontaxable fiduciaries are pot re- 
in the data tends to have just the opposite effect. 



158 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

shareholdings 27 in. dividend and nondividend paying issues, and on 
that basis to approximate roughly the- number of stockholders not 
receiving any dividends in 1937. 

According to material obtained from the Survey of American 
Listed Corporations, a W. P. A. project sponsored by the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, dividends were paid in 1937 on 68 per- 
cent of 2,459 capital stock issues listed on a national securities 
exchange. These dividend-paying issues represented 68 percent of 
the number of shares outstanding in. the 2,459 issues and 95 percent 
of their market value. Certain tests indicate that the relative pro- 
portion of book shareholdings in dividend-paying issues was approxi- 
mately midway between the share and the value ratios, i. e., that the 
proportion was around 80 percent. It is possible that the relative 
proportion of book shareholdings receiving dividends in. all domestic 
corporations differed somewhat from the ratio obtained for these 
relatively large listed corporations but no considerable differences 
appear in the available data. 28 To the extent that there is a differ- 
ence which does not show up in. the available statistics, nonregistered 
stocks might be expected to have had a poorer dividend-paying 
record. If this were true, a slightly higher adjustment for the number 
of holders of n.on.dividend-paying stocks than is adopted in. this section 
would be necessary. 

It appears, then, that about 20 percent of the book shareholdings 
did not receive dividends in 1,937, so that the number of persons 
holding stocks not paying any dividends in. 1937 was probably about 
one-fourth of the number of dividend recipients or close to 1,500,000, 
though the number may conceivably have been, as low as 1,000,000 
or as high as 2, 000, 000. 29 However, some, and probably many, of 
the stockholders holding non.dividend-paying stocks also held divi- 
dend-paying stocks. The extent of such duplication of holding is, 
of course, not known, 30 but it is estimated that there were in the 
neighborhood of 1,000,000 stockholders not receiving any dividends 
in 1037, with a probable range of from 500,000 to 1,500,000. 

5. Total Number of Domestic Stockholders. 

Combining the number of dividend recipients, based on. the dis- 
tribution of dividends reported on. income tax data, with the estimate 
of the number of stockholders not receiving any dividends in. 1937, 
it is concluded that there probably were between 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 
stockholders in. 1937, although the number may possibly have been as 
low as 5,000,000 or as high as 9,000,000. 

This estimate covers all domestic individual and fiduciary stock- 
holders. To obtain a figure representing all domestic stockholders 
it is necessary to add the number of corporate and institutional 
stockholders. The number of such stockholders, however, is so small 
that they may be neglected in. any rough estimate of the total number 

27 A book shareholding is a holding of shares by an individual or other holder in whose name one or more 
shares of a corporation's stock is registered. An individual represents as many book shareholdings as the 
number of different issues in which he holds shares. 

2 * For example, the data compiled by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for 1937 do not show any large 
disparities between the relationship of dividends paid and book value of equity for reporting companies 
grouped by size of assets (Statistics of Income for 1937, Part 2). Similarly, stocks listed on the two New 
York City exchanges did not show much difference from stocks listed on other exchanges in the proportion 
of stock issues paying dividends and in the proportion of total shares listed which such dividend-paying stocks 
represented. 

2 « This, of course, presupposes that the number of stockholders represented by a given number of book 
shareholdings is the same for dividend and nondividend-paying stocks. Though such a hypothesis has 
obvious limitations, the error introduced by this factor is believed to be negligible. 

3° However, some information on the duplication of holdings is discussed infra, pp. 164-5. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER \ 59 

of domestic stockholders. Thus, there were only about 50,000 cor- 
porate stockholders 31 and, while comparable information is not avail- 
able for nonprofit organizations, the number of such institutional 
stockholders may be assumed to be entirely negligible compared to the 
number of individual stockholders. 

6. Foreign Stockholders. 

There is no information available on the number of foreigners own- 
ing stocks in American corporations. As table 10 shows, foreigners 
received less than 3 percent of all dividends paid out by American cor- 
pora lions, and about 4 percent of the dividends paid to noncorporate 
stockholders. They may be assumed, to have represented an even 
smaller proportion of the number of stockholders, since their average 
holdings were apparently larger than those of domestic stockholders. 32 

B. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS BASED ON PROPORTION 
OF INDIVIDUALS IN DIFFERENT INCOME CLASSES RECEIVING DIVIDENDS 

The second estimate of the number of stockholders, like the first, 
will be based generally on income tax data using as before the total 
number of returns reporting dividend income to obtain, the number of 
dividend recipients represented by income tax returns but taking a 
somewhat different approach to obtain the number of other dividend, 
recipients. As indicated in the first estimation of the number of 
stockholders, dividends were reported on 1,694,000 returns in 1937, 
representing, in. view of the joint returns included, nearly 2,000,000 
individuals holding dividend-paying stocks. The method which is 
used to estimate the number of dividend recipients, other than those 
reporting receipt of dividends on income tax returns, is based on the 
extension of certain known, results relating to the proportion of 
persons receiving dividends in the various income levels. The very 
high positive correlation between net income class and the per- 
centage of returns reporting dividends for persons filing Federal 
income tax returns in 1937 will permit a rough estimate to be made of 
the number of other individuals holding dividend-paying stocks 
(table 12 and chart XXXV). The number of dividend recipients will 
then be adjusted upward to include holders of nondividend-paying 
stocks in precisely the same manner as for the first estimate. 

This approach is not entirely independent of the preceding since the 
same basic source, income tax data, is utilized and consequently some 
of the same deficiencies which will be pointed out below are present. 
The limitations involved in the use of income tax data are probably 
even more serious here than they were in the previous approach. 

The most serious type of error inherent in the use of income tax 
data to estimate the number of income recipients receiving dividends 
is that introduced by the failure of individuals filing income tax 
returns to report any dividends though they actually received some. 
There are probably a considerable number of persons receiving a 
small amount of dividends who do not report receipt of any dividends, 
resulting in too low an estimate of the number of dividend recipients 

11 Statistics of Income for 1936 indicates that there were 45,000 corporate dividend recipients in that year. 
Comparable data are not yet available for 1937. 

: > This would he expected lo he true on the hasis of general considerations. Furthermore, data collected 
from 4,307 corporations by the Federal Trade Commission for the year 1922 in its report, National Wealth 
and Income, indicated a considerably higher par value per book shareholding for foreign holdors than for 
domestic individuals. 

208445—41— No. 29 12 



160 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



among persons filing income tax returns. Possibly more important, 
such failure to report dividends results, in turn, in too low an estimate 
of the number of dividend recipients not filing income tax returns 
since the percentages applied in the various income classes to determine 



Chart XXXV 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NET INCOME AND PROPORTION OF INDIVIDUALS 
WITH DIVIDEND INCOME AS REPORTED ON FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS 
IN 1937 FOR NET INCOMES UNDER $15,000 



PERCENT OF RETURN'S 
REPORT" ■"■ 
100 



PERCENT OF RETURNS 
"IDENDS 
100 



60 



40 



20 



G DIVIDENDS 






















REPORTING DI 
















































• 






















• 






















• 




















• 


• 




















• 
























































































• 






















• 




• 










































• 
























• 









60 



40 



20 



4000 



8000 
NET INCOME (IN DOLLARS) 



12000 



16000 



the number of dividend recipients not filing returns are based on the 
proportion of returns reporting dividends in the income classes 
covered by income tax data. Both sets of percentages tend to be too 
low when no adjustment is made for nonreporting of dividends by 
persons filing income tax returns. No direct adjustment has been 
made here since there are no pertinent data available. However, the 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER Jgj" 

other types of error involved in the use of income tax data, discussed 
below, are compensating in direction, though probably not fully so. 
Furthermore, an attempt will be made to adjust for the remaining 
error indirectly in estimating the range within which the number <>f 
dividend recipients probably lies. 

There are three other types of error for which no adjustment has 
been made. First, the estimated percentages of income recipients 
receiving dividends at the various income levels tend to be slightly too 
high as a consequence of the treatment of joint returns in the same 
manner as individual returns in arriving at these percentages, result- 
ing finally in a slight overestimate of the number of dividend recipients. 
Another error, similar in its net effect, results from the fact that more 
than one individual filing a return may report the same shares, in 
view of the many cases of acquisition and sale of stock during the year. 
This overestimate of the number of dividend recipients probably is in 
the neighborhood of 5 percent. A third error, which tends to under- 
estimate the number of dividend recipients and thus is opposite in its 
effect to the two other types of error just discussed, results from the 
fact that dividends received through nontaxable fiduciaries are not 
reported as dividends by individuals receiving such income, so that 
the estimated percentages of income recipients receiving dividends 
at the various income levels tend to be slightly too low. These 
qualifications should be kept in mind in proceeding with the details 
of the second estimation. 

1. Number of Dividend Recipients With Incomes Covered by Federal 
Income Tax Data. 
Income tax returns in 1937 covered single persons With net incomes 
of $1,000 and over and married persons with net incomes of $2,500 33 
and over with the exception of. certain nonfiling persons, a small group 
of whom (such as State and municipal officials) were exempt but who 
for the most part simply failed to report though legally required to do 
so. The National Resources Committee in its study of "Consumer 
Incomes in the United States" 34 assumed that the percentage of non- 
filing individuals with net income between $5,000 and $10,000 was 
about 25 percent of the number reporting; 15 percent for individuals 
with net income between $10,000 and $15,000; 5 percent for individuals 
with net income between $15,000 and $20,000; and a negligible per- 
centage for individuals with net income over $20,000. These figures, 
stated to be "arrived at after considering the tentative estimates 
;i'lvanced by several authorities who were consulted," shall be used in 
the absence of better estimates although they appear rather high 
and arc admittedly arbitrary. Furthermore, the ratio of nonfiling 
in the income classes less than $5,000 will be assumed to be about 
35 percent. 35 On such assumptions there were in 1937, 8,500,000 
single and married income recipients in the income classes covered 
by Federal income tax data, 36 representing close to 2,500,000 dividend 
recipients, compared to the 6,500,000 returns actually filed, represent- 
ing nearly 2,000.000 dividend recipients. This estimate presupposes, 

» Also persons with gross income over $5,000, irrespective of their net income. 

the National Resources Committee study, Consumer Incomes in the United States, August 1938, 

11 If these individuals account for the same proportion of dividends recei\ >d by persons in the income 
classes covered by Federal income tax data as they are assumed to constitute of the number of persons in 
these income classes, they would have received close to $400,000,000 in dividends. However, this is probably 
a gross overestimate in view of the nature, of the assumptions made. 

* Individuals with net incomes over $1,000 or $2,500, depending on marital status, or with gross incomes 
over $5,000. 



1(J2 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

of course, that the relative number of individuals with dividend 
income was the same for filing and nonfiling individuals in the, same 
income classes and omits any adjustment for nonreporting of divi- 
dends by persons filing income tax returns. The actual number of 
dividend recipients in the income classes covered by Federal income 
tax returns is, therefore, somewhat higher than 2,500,000. 

2. Number of 'Dividend Recipients in Income Classes A T ot Covered by 
Federal Income Tax Data. 

In the following the proportion of dividend recipients among indi- 
viduals with incomes not covered by Federal income tax data will be 
estimated and applied to the total number of persons in these income 
classes to determine the number of dividend recipients in income 
classes not covered by Federal in.come.tax data. 

(a) Proportion of dividend recipients among married individuals with 
incomes from $1 ,000 to $2,500.— Of the persons filing Federal income 
tax returns with net income from $1,000 to $2,000, 14.2 percent 
reported dividends; this percentage uniformly increased, with higher 
income except for persons with net income from $2,500 to $3,000 
(table 12 and chart XXXV). The slightly higher percentage of 
persons reporting receipt of dividends on income tax returns with 
net income from $2,000 to $2,500, compared to those with net income 
from $2,500 to $3,000, was probably attributable to the fact that the 
$2,000 to $2,500 income class was comprised, of single persons only, 
while there were both single and married persons in the $2,500 to 
$3,000 income class. 37 From this point of view 38 the percentage of 
income tax returns reporting dividends in the $1,000 to $2,000 and 
$2,000 to $2,500 income classes was probably higher than the pro- 
portion of married income recipients in these income classes receiving 
dividends. For the latter an estimate of 10 to 15 percent does not 
seem unreasonable. 

(6) Proportion of dividend recipients among individuals with incomes 
below $1,000. — There remains the problem of estimating the propor- 
tion of all income recipients with net income below $1,000 receiving 
dividends. Since 14.2 percent of Federal income tax returns in. the 
$1,000 to $2,000 net income class reported receipt of dividends (and 
since these returns covered single persons only who are believed to 
invest more often in stocks than married persons of comparable in- 
come), the proportion of persons (both single and married) with net 
income below $1,000 receiving dividends would be expected to be 
considerably smaller than 14.2 percent, in view of the high positive 
correlation between net income and the proportion of dividend 
recipients. Extrapolation of the relationship between net income 
and the proportion of persons receiving dividends for the various net . 
income classes over $1,000 (chart XXXV) indicates that probably 
somewhat less than 10 percent of persons with net income less than 
$1,000 received dividends. 39 Though this admittedly is a very rough 
approach, the results are corroborated by data obtained for the year 
1936 from the Delaware tax study, which gives the desired information 

37 This assumes, as is probably true, that in a given income level a higher proportion of single persons 
than of married men or women owns stock. 

38 1, e., neglecting other possible compensating factors. 

38 The proportion would be considerably higher in the upper than in the lower part of the income range. 
It is important to note, therefore, that there would be a considerably higher concentration of persons in the 
upper range of this income group than in the lower range. However, the differences in this respect are not 
very large for incomes ranging from $250 to $1,000. (See, for example, the National Resources Committee 
publication, Consumer Incomes in the United States, August 1938, table 2, covering 1935-36.) 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



163 



for various income classes under $1,000 though only on a State-wide 
basis (table 11 and chart XXXVI). 40 For this State 7 percent of the 
persons with net income less than $1,000 reported receipt of dividends. 



Chart XXXVI 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NET INCOME AND PROPORTION OF INDIVIDUALS 

WITH DIVIDEND INCOME AS REPORTED ON DELAWARE INCOME TAX RETURNS 

IN 1936 FOR NET INCOMES UNDER $5,000 



100 


OF RETURN'S 
G DIVIDENDS 








REPORTING DI 


80 










• 










• 


• 


4C 








• 






- 


•. 


• 




2C 






•/ 








. 


• 








'**•. 












1 i 





ETLTA'S 
IDENDS 
100 



B0 



CO 






2000 3CC0 

NET INCOME (IN DOLLARS) 



4000 



5000 



(c) Number of dividend recipients in income classes not covered by 
I- "Ural income tax data. — It appears now that slightly below 10 per- 

40 For net incomes over $5,000, a higher proportion of income recipients in 1936 (and therefore probably in 
1937) received dividends in Delaware than in the Nation as a whole. There is some question whether 
this relationship was also characteristic of the lower income brackets. 



Ig4 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

cent of income recipients not required to file income tax returns 
received dividends. To determine the total number of income recip- 
ients in this category, there must be added to the approximately 
41,000,000 persons known to have been employed 41 an estimate of 
the number of persons not employed but still receiving income. 
This should bring the total number of income recipients to close to 
50,000,000 persons. It has already been estimated that of 8,500,000- 
single and married income recipients with net income over $1,000 and 
$2,500, respectively, about 2,500,000 received dividend income. 
Assuming that about 10 percent of the approximately 40,000,000 
remaining income recipients received dividends, it may be estimated 
that roughly 4,000,000 of such persons had dividend income, resulting 
in a grand total of about 6,500,000 dividend recipients in all. If the 
percentage of income recipients not required to file income tax returns 
who received dividends were as low as 5 percent, the total number of 
dividend recipients would be about 4,500,000. If this percentage 
were as high as 15 percent, the estimate of the total number of dividend 
recipients would have to be increased to about 8,500,000. 

S. Total Number oj Domestic Stockholders. 

Stepping up this estimate of the number of dividend recipients to* 
include holders of nondividend-paying stocks, in precisely the same 
manner as before (sec. II, A), it appears that there were from 7,000,000* 
to 8,000,000 domestic stockholders in 1937, although the number may 
possibly have been as low as 5,000,000 or as high as 10,000,000. 

C. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS BASED ON THE NUMBER 
OF SHAREHOLDINGS AND THE DUPLICATION RATIO 

A third estiriate of the number of stockholders in dividend-paying- 
issues is obtained by dividing the estimated number of shareholdings 
of domestic individuals in dividend-paying stock of American corpor- 
ations by the estimated average number of dividend-paying stock 
issues held by such persons, the latter being approximated on the 
basis of a sample of Federal income tax returns. This estimate is 
then adjusted upward, as in the prior estimates, to include stock- 
holders who own nondividend-paying stocks exclusively. 

The number of shareholdings of domestic individuals in American 
corporations at the end of 1937 was probably about 25,000,000 (sec. 
III). Of this number about 20,000,000 were shareholdings in divi- 
dend-paying stocks (sec. II, A, 4). 

Preliminary data are available for 1936 indicating the average num- 
ber of corporations from which individuals, in the various income 
groups covered by income tax returns, reported receipt of dividends. 42 
These data were obtained from a random sample of 5,000 Federal in- 
come tax returns reporting dividend income of less than $10,000 for 
1936, and a complete tabulation of returns with dividend income of 
$10,000 or over. 43 Applying the average number of corporations for 
which dividends were reported received by individuals in the dif- 
ferent income levels covered by income tax data to the number of 

*' As of 1936, which should not be much different from 1937. (See U. S. Department of Commerce, 
National Income 1929-36, p. 20.) Unpaid family farm labor and work-relief employees have not been 
included. 

42 There is no reason to assume that the figures would be much different in 1937. 

*' Preliminary results made available by the income tax study sponsored by the U. S. Treasury De 
partment. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 165 

dividend recipients in those income classes in 1937," it would be esti- 
mated that the nearly 2,000,000 persons reporting receipt of dividends 
on Federal income tax returns in 1937 held about 5,800,000 share- 
holdings. However, as an individual occasionally held shares in more 
than one issue of the same corporation, the nearly 2,000,000 dividend 
recipients covered by Federal income tax data may be estimated to 
have accounted for approximately 6,000,000 shareholdings. 45 The 
problem, then, is to estimate the number of persons owning the re- 
maining 14,000,000 shareholdings in dividend-paying stock which are 
held by persons with net income under $1,000, and persons with net 
income over $1,000 who did not file income tax returns. 

The following table shows the relationship between net income and 
the average number of corporations from which dividends were re- 
ceived, based on a random sample of 5,000 Federal income tax returns 
reporting dividend income of less than $10,000 for 1936. 

Net income and average number of corporations from which dividends were received 

$1,000 to $2,000 2. 11 

$2,000 to $3,000 2. 34 

$3,000 to $4,000 2. 66 

$4,000 to $5,000 3.09 

Extrapolating from this table it appears that persons with net in- 
come under $1,000 owned shares in slightly less than 2.0 dividend- 
paying corporations on the average. Dividend recipients with net 
income over $1,000 who did not file income tax returns probably 
owned shares in slightly over 2.0 dividend-paying corporations on the 
average. Both of the averages have to be raised slightly to obtain 
the average number of dividend-paying stock issues held by these 
individuals, since stockholders occasionally own shares in more than 
one issue of the same corporation. Consequently, the average num- 
ber of dividend-paying stocks held by the individuals is estimated to 
have been somewhat over 2.0. The number may, however, have 
been as low as 1.75, though this seems unlikely, or as high as 2.25. 

It appears, therefore, that the 14,000,000 shareholdings in. dividend- 
paying stocks, owned by persons not reporting their holdings on Fed- 
eral income tax returns, represented somewhat less than 7,000,000 
stockholders, though the number may have been anywhere in the 
range from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000, the upper limit representing a 
less likely value than the lower limit. Adding the nearly 2,000,000 
dividend recipients accounted for by Federal income tax returns, an 
estimate of somewhat less than 9,000,000 total dividend recipients is 
obtained, with limits of somewhat less than 8,000,000 and 10,000,000, 
respectively. Finally, adjusting for the number of stockholders 
who own nondividend-paying stock exclusively, it is estimated on 
this basis that there were in all about 10,000,000 domestic stock- 
holders in American corporations, though the number rnay have been 
as low as 9,0C^ 000 or as high as 11,000,000. 48 

4< Statistics of Income for 1937, pt. 1, p. 12. 

15 Actually, they accounted for more than 6,000,000 shareholdings in view of the understatement of. the 
number of dividends received by persons reporting receipt of dividends and, more important, as a result 
of the nonreporting of any dividends by persons who received such income. 

"This estimate, like the prior estimates, is affected by deficiencies in the income tax data. Nonreporting 
of dividends actually received, the filing of more than 1 return for the same shareholding due to changes 
in ownership during the year, and the treatment of joint returns as individual returns tend to exaggerate 
the estimate of the average number of stocks from which dividends were received and thus to give a deflated 
estimate of the number of stockholders. This bias downward is offset to an unknown extent by the fact 
that understatement on income tax returns of the number of dividends received and the treatment of 
dividends received through fiduciaries would tend to result in an underestimation of the average number o f 
stocks from which dividends were received. 



265 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

D. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS BASED ON THE 
ROPER SURVEY 

The only direct approach to the estimation of the number of 
stockholders is furnished by a survey conducted in November 1939 
by Elmo Roper for the New York Stock Exchange, in which 5,000 
persons were asked, among other questions, whether they (or their 
husbands) owned stock at the time of the survey. 47 This sample 
was chosen so as to be representative of the general adult population 
with respect to sex, marital status, age, geographical distribution, 
and economic level. Only one person in a household was inter- 
viewed, alternating between husband and wife. Individuals over 
20 years of age, living by themselves, were treated in the same way 
as households and represented in the sample in the same proportion 
as they are in the general population. The question on stock owner- 
ship referred only to the ownership of the person interviewed and not 
to that of any other persons in the household except in the case of a 
married woman living with her husband, in which case the question 
was phrased to determine stock ownership of either wife or husband. 

Of the 5,000 persons interviewed, representing 5,000 different 
households, 18.8 percent stated that they (or their husbands) owned 
stock at the time of the survey. However, stock was probably owned 
in slightly more than 18.8 percent of these households since in some 
cases where a husband answered that he did not own any stock 
his wife or other persons in the household may have held stock, while 
in other instances where a wife replied that neither she nor her hus- 
band owned stock other persons living in the same household (mostly 
childtren of the respondents) may have owned stock. Adjusting for 
these rather minor discrepancies, it appears that stock was held in 
close to 20 percent of all households (a family or an individual living 
alone being considered a household). As it is estimated that there 
are about 40,000,000 such households in the United States, 48 the 
Roper survey leads to an estimate of close to 8,000,000 families and 
single individuals holding stock near the end of 1939. The number 
of actual stockholders, however, would be somewhat higher since 
occasionally more than one person in a family holds stock. In view 
of the fact that there are slightly over 10,000,000 single individuals 
and slightly under 30,000,000 families, 49 it may reasonably be assumed 
that of the 8,000,000 households owning stocks, approximately 
2,000,000 are single individuals while 6,000,000 are families. 60 It does 
not seem likely that there were more than. 8,000,000 stockholders in 
the 6,000,000 families owning stock. This assumes 2 stockholders 
on the average in every third family owning stock and seems an 
extremely high estimate. Consequently, the actual number of 

47 "The Exchange," January 1^40, pp. 14-16. Additional information on the composition of the sample 
was supplied by Mr. Roper. 

48 According to the National Resources Committee study, Consumer Incomes in the United States, 
August 1938. p. 4, there were 39,4;>8,300 families and single individuals, or "consumer units," in 1935-36. In 
this report sons and dau,ghtersliving with their parents but paying for board and lodging and not pooling 
their incomes in the common family fund are classified as single individuals, rather than as members of 
families. The number of these "consumer units" is only slightly below the number of persons employed in 
1936. (See the U. S. Department of Commerce publication, National Income, 1929-36, p. 20.) 

4 » The National Resources Committee study, Consumer Incomes in the United States, August 1938, p. 4. 

50 Families have a somewhat higher average income than individuals (Consumer Incomes in the United 
States, August 1938), but there is some evidence that a single person is more likely to hold stock than a 
married person of the same income level. These two factors might be expected to offset each other to a 
considerable extent. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 167 

stockholders, estimated on the basis of the Roper survey, appears to 
lie between 8,000,000 and 10,000,000, a figure of about 9,000,000 
appearing as the most likely value. 51 

There are several limitations to the estimate based on the Roper 
survey which should be pointed out. First, there is the possibility 
that the question relating to stock ownership was not always answered 
correctly. Second and probably more serious, there is always the 
danger, despite the care taken, that in sampling so heterogeneous a 
population full randomization will not be achieved. The selection of 
a stratified sample in the Roper survey, of course, avoided some of 
the pitfalls involved in random sampling, but, even assuming that 
the sample was representative of the general population so far as the 
different strata are concerned, there is still the danger that the sub- 
samples taken from within those strata were not randomly selected. 
Finally, even if full randomization were obtained, the proportion of 
stockholders in the sample would be expected to differ somewhat 
from the proportion of stockholders in the population as a result of 
random sampling errors. This last type of error, however, is very 
small in this instance. 52 

E. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ESTIMATES OF NUMBER OF 
STOCKHOLDERS 

Four different estimates of the number of domestic stockholders 
have been presented, three of them based in part at least on income 
tax data and the fourth on an entirely independent source, the Roper 
survey. The following table summarizes the results. 63 

« In the February 1940 issue of Fortune, reference made (p. 108) to a special unpublished Fortune 

survey which indicated that there were about 6,000,000 s kholders in this country. This estimate was not 
published as an official survey finding but as an "informed .. <^ss." Upon investigation it was found that the 
Fortune estimate was based on a regular Fortune survey rnatie by Mr. Roper along the lines of the survey 
he conducted for the New York Stock Exchange. The results of the two different surveys were remark- 
ably alike, one indicating that 18.8 percent of the respondents or their husbands owned stock, the other 
indicating that 18.7 percent owned stock. 

The main reason for the discrepancy between the Fortune estimate and the estimate made in the text 
is that the former was based on the number of family units determined in such a manner as to exclude 
from consideration such persons as lodgers, individuals living in hotels, adults residing with their parents, 
etc. The percentage of affirmative answers obtained in the Roper survey was thus applied to a universe 
of 33,400,000 families instead of 40,000,000 units as in this report. Consequently the estimate of the number 
of stockholders given above, though derived from almost identical sampling data, would seem to be based 
on a more appropriate universe. Two other reasons for the discrepancy between the Fortune estimate 
and the estimate m this report are that in the former no adjustment was made for the fact that the question 
asked in the Roper survey was worded in a manner such that persons in the household (other than the 
man or woman, or the husband of the woman, being interviewed) might have owned stock without any 
indication of such ownership appearing in the answer nor was any quantitative adjustment made for the 
fact that there might be more than one stockholder in a family owning stock. In regard to the last fact, 
however, it was arbitrarily assumed in the Fortune estimate that duplication of ownership of husband 
and wife would be approximately offset by the tendency of persons to state that they owned stock when 
in fact they did not. 

u Assumine that the actual proportion of the number of individuals and families in the popuktion who 
owned stock was somewhere between 16 and 25 percent, it is estimated on the basis of the Tcnebycheff 
inequality that 95 times out of 100 the proportion of such stockholders in a random sample of 5,000 would 
differ by less than 2.5 percent from the true proportion in the population. Since the approach does 
not utilize any information on the nature of the distribution involved, this is an extreme estimate. By- 
making use of the normal law of error, the conditions for which are approximately satisfied, the sampling 
error is reduced so that 95 times out of 100 the proportion of stockholders in a random sample of 5,000 would 
differ by less than 1 .0 percent from the true proportion in the population. Since the sample in the Roper 
survey is Gratified rather than purely random, the sanipling error would be expected to be even smaller. 

The small size of the random sampling error is corroborated by the result of another survey conducted 
by Mr. Roper. (See note 51 above.) Pooling together the information contained in the two samples, 
the random error is further reduced. 

!1 The estimates based on income tax data are for the end of 1937, while the estimate based on the Roper 
survey is for the end of 1939. However, it is not likely that there was much chance in the number of stock- 
holders. So far as the diffusion of ownership In large widely-held stocks is concerned, data compiled on a 
quarterly basis by the New York Stock Exchange for 50 common stocks and 27 preferred stocks indicate 
that the number of book shareholdings in these issues increased only by about 2 percent between the end 
of 1037 and the end of 1939. 



168 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





Estimate of number of domestic stockholders based on— 




Distribution 
of dividends 
(income tax 

data) 
(millions) 


Proportion 
receiving divi- 
dends (income 
tax data) 
(millions) 


Duplication 

ratio (income 

tax data) 

(millions) 


Roper survey 
(millions) 


Estimate ' 


6-7 
5-9 


7-8 
5-10 


10 
9-11 


9 
8-10 







: These are not to be considered as absolute limits but simply as highly probable limits. Though it 
does not seem likely that the true number of domestic shareholders lies outside these limits, this is still a 
possibility. 

The estimates based on income tax data are unquestionably more 
comprehensive in scope than the estimate based on the Roper survey, 
but the latter estimate may well be the more accurate, in spite of the 
relatively small sample on which it is based, since it results from a 
direct approach and is not subject to the many limitations inherent 
in the use of income tax data. 

Combining these results, it appears that the number of domestic 
stockholders in American corporations at the end of 1937 (or at the 
end of 1939) was between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000. In view of the 
many shortcomings of the basic data, the midpoint of this range, 
i. e., 8,500,000 should be regarded only as the most likely estimate. 
It is not improbable, however, that the number of stockholders was 
as low as 7,000,000 or as high as 10,000,000. 

III. The Number of Shareholdings at the End of 1937 

Another essential part of any study of the ownership of American 
corporations is the determination of the number of shareholdings, 
i. e., the number of holdings of shares by individuals or other classes 
of holders. 54 Determination of the number of shareholdings is 
important since, considered together with the number of stockholders 
and other factors, it makes possible an analysis of the diversification 
of holdings in American corporations, permitting a comparison in 
this respect of different types of stockholders, different groups of 
corporations, and different periods of time. 

Accurate data on the number of shareholdings are available solely 
for corporations at least one of whose issues was registered under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for a few selected groups of 
unregistered corporations. 65 Only a crude estimate can be made of 
the number of shareholdings in the remaining unregistered corpora- 
tions, which consist largely of small industrial companies. 

However, even for registered corporations, comprehensive data 
are available only on the number of book shareholdings, i. e., the 
number of names appearing on the stockholders' lists of the corpora- 
tions. This figure represents the number of record shareholdings 
rather than the number of beneficial shareholdings. In many instances 
one book shareholding actually represents a large number of beneficial 
shareholdings while in other instances the reverse is true. Thus, a 
book stockholder such as a broker, a bank or trust company, or a 
bank nominee, who is included on the books of a corporation as a 

M A stockholder is considered to have as many shareholdings as the number of difforent issues in which he 
holds shares. 

m By an unregistered corporation is meant a corporation none of whose issues was registered under the 
1934 act. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 1Q9 

single bolder of any issue, obviously may, and usually does, represent 
a considerable number of beneficial owners, with the result that the 
number of book shareholdings tends to be smaller than the number of 
beneficial shareholdings. On the other hand, there are some cases of 
holdings, e. g., holdings through nominees, where several record 
shareholdings are owned beneficially by the same person. Such 
cases tend to inflate the number of shareholdings but are believed to 
be much less important in their effect on the number of shareholdings 
than the understatement of beneficial shareholdings cited above. 
Consequently, the number of book shareholdings in corporations tends 
to be somewhat less than the number of beneficial shareholdings. 
In the estimation of the number of shareholdings an adjustment will 
be made for this factor. 

A. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN REGISTERED 

CORPORATIONS 

1. Number of Record Shareholdings. 

Information on the number of record shareholdings or book share- 
holdings in companies with securities registered under the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 was obtained from questionnaires on the 
distribution of stock by size of holdings at the end of 1937 sent out 
by the Securities and Exchange Commission to all companies with 
any issue of securities registered under the 1934 act. All stocks of 
these companies were covered by the questionnaire even though not 
all of the stocks were registered. The corporations which replied 
had, at the end of 1937 or the nearest available date, 13,800,000 book 
shareholdings, of which close to 2,400,000 were in preferred stock. 
Of this total, only 13,400,000 shareholdings, including 2,000,000 
shareholdings in preferred stock, were in registered issues, the remain- 
der constituting shareholdings in issues admitted to unlisted trading 
privileges or not listed on any national securities exchange. Since 
the registered issues of these companies accounted for between 90 
and 95 percent of the market value 66 and about 80 percent of the 
shares outstanding 57 in all registered stock issues, it may be estimated 
that, at the end of 1937, there existed approximately 15,000,000 book 
shareholdings in issues registered under the 1934 act, of which 2,200,000 
were in preferred stock. It appears, therefore, that all stock issues of 
corporations with at least one issue registered under the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 accounted for a total of close to 15,500,000 
shareholdings, of which 2,600,000 were in preferred stock (table 14). 
The number of book shareholdings in these companies was probably 
not much different at the end of 1939. 58 

M Though the total market value of all registered stock issues has not been calculated, it is believed to 
be only about 5 percent larger than the market value of $40,700,000,000 for stocks traded on the New York 
Stock Exchange and the New York Curb Exchange at the end of 1937. This value may be compared 
with the market value of $42,200,000,000 for all stock issues of the corporations which submitted the data 
^quested, a market value of $41,100,000,000 for the registered issues of such corporations, and a market 
value of $38,000,000 for those registered issues which were listed on the two New York exchanges. The 
latter figure indicates that the companies for which the number of equity shareholdings is known accounted 
for 93 percent of the market value of stock issues registered on the New York Stock Exchange and the New 
York Curb Exchange, and it seems likely that they comprised about the same proportion of the market 
value of all registered stock issues. 

" The registered issues of the companies submitting the information requested accounted for about 80 
percent of the total number of shares outstanding in all registered issues (Third Annual Report, p. 24, and 
Fourth Annual Report, p. 28, of the Securities and Exchange Commission) and 88 percent of the shares listed 
on the two New York exchanges. The market value of the registered issues not covered by questionnaire 
replies, however, appears to be a better basis than the number of shares outstanding for estimating the 
number of shareholdings in these issues since many of the issues of companies which did not submit replies 
had a very large number of low-priced shares outstanding not at all indicative of the number of persons 
participating in those issues. 

M See note 53. 



170 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Table 14. — Number of record shareholdings in American corporations, Dec. 31, 1937 





Number of shareholdings • 




Common 


Preferred 


Total 


Companies with issues registered under Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 __ 


12,900,000 

1,730,000 

450,000 

850,000 

260,000 
61,000 


2,600,000 
70,000 
( 3 ) 
150,000 

206,000 
78,000 


» 15, 500, 000 
1,800,000 


Banks 


Insurance companies 


450,000 




1, 000, 000 

466,000 
139,000 


Public utility holding companies registered under Public Util- 
ity Holding Company Act of 1935 but not under 1934 act 

Large nonflnancial unregistered companies' 1 .. 


All other unregistered companies. _ 


f 3, 000, 000 
{ to 








I 6,000,000 


Total 






( 22,355,000 
{ to 








I 2 25,355,000 



1 See text for details of estimation. 

a To determine the number of beneficial shareholdings, it is estimated that these figures should be raised 
by about 2,000,000. 

3 Negligible. 

4 Unregistered companies included in this report on the 200 largest nonflnancial corporations. 

2. Adjustment for Nominee Holdings. 

It is possible to obtain a rough idea of the difference between the 
number of book shareholdings and the number of beneficial share- 
holdings by utilizing available data on the nominee holdings of brokers, 
banks, and trust companies and their nominees, which are by far the 
most important of the nominee holdings. 

The average proportion of the number of book shareholdings and 
total shares outstanding represented by the holdings of brokers, banks, 
and trust companies and their nominees in a small group of large 
widely-held companies 69 is indicated, in table 15. 

Table 15. — Average proportion of record shareholdings and shares outstanding 
represented by nominee holdings, 1 Dec. 31, 1937 2 



Item 


Brokers and deal- 
ers (and their 
nominees) 3 


Banks and trust- 
companies (and 
their nominees) « 




Holders 
(percent) 


Shares 
(percent) 


Holders 
(percent) 


Shares 
(percent) 


Common: 

Weighted mean 


0.6 
1.2 

1.0 
1.3 


14.6 
16.2 

7.0 
5.1 


0.5 
0.8 

0.7 
1.0 


8. a 


Median 

Preferred: 

Weighted mean ... 


11.5 
9.7 


Median. 


10.4 



1 See text for details and qualifications. 
a Or nearest available date. 

3 Data reported for 29 issues of common stock and 15 issues of preferred stock by the following 29 corpo- 
rations: Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.; American Can Co.; American Gas & Electric Co.; American 
Telephone & Telegraph Co.; American Woolen Co.; Anaconda Copper Mining Co.; the Atchison, Topeka 
& Santa Fe Railway Co.; the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; General 
Electric Co.; Gulf Oil Corporation;-International Business Machines Corporation; International Harvester 
Co.; International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation; Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.; National Dis- 
tillers Products Corporation; the New York Central Railroad Co.; Northern Pacific Railway Co.; Para- 
mount Pictures, Inc. ; Radio Corporation of An&rica; Sears, Roebuck & Co. ; Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) ; 
Tide Water Associated Oil Co.; Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation; United States Rubber Co.; and 
United States Steel Corporation. 

4 Data reported for 14 common issues and 7 preferred issues by the following 14 corporations: American 
Can Co.; American Gas & Electric Co.; the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.; the Baltimore & 
Ohio Railroad Co.; General Electric Co.; International Business Machines Corporation; International 
Harvester Co.; National Distillers Products Corporation; the New York Central Railroad Co.; Northern 
Pacific Railway Co.; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey); United States Rubber Co.; 
and United States Steel Corporation. The holdings of banks and trust companies and their nominees in- 
cluded only those holdings whose beneficial ownership could not be determined from the stock certificates. 

«' There are about 2,324,000 book shareholdings in these 29 corporations which were all included in this 
report on the 200 largest American nonflnancial corporations. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER J7]_ 

Most of this material was obtained in reply to letters sent out by 
the Temporary National Economic Committee requesting data on the 
distribution of stock held by various classes of record holders. Al- 
though these percentages are subject to a number of qualifications in 
attempting to generalize the results to all stocks of companies with 
issues registered under the 1934 act, 60 it is believed that they may be 
used as crude measures of the relative importance of the record share- 
holdings of brokers, banks and trust companies and their nominees 61 
in all registered companies. 

One of these percentages, indicating the proportion of shares 
accounted for by the holdings of brokers and dealers, may be checked 
with more comprehensive data regarding the proportion of voting 
shares of 353 listed corporations registered in the names of New York 
Stock Exchange brokers, obtained at the beginning of 1938 by the 
committee on stock list of the New York Stock Exchange in a study 
of the solicitation of proxies for the voting of stock registered in the 
names of members and member firms of the exchange. 62 This study 
showed that the voting shares registered in the names of members and 
member firms of the New York Stock Exchange amounted to 12.2 
percent of the outstanding shares. This result may be compared 
with the finding that the holdings of brokers and dealers in the sample 
of large corporations covered by table 15 represented 14.6 percent of 
the common shares outstanding in these corporations. 63 The direction 
of the difference between the two figures might be explained by the 
fact that the study made by the New York Stock Exchange included 
a few issues of voting preferred stock and covered stock registered 
in the names of members of the New York Stock Exchange only, 
whereas the data supplied by the sample of large corporations, on 
which table 15 is based, included common stock only and covered 
stock registered in the names of all brokers, whether or not they were 
members of the New York Stock Exchange. The data supplied 
by the sample of large corporations, summarized in table 15, therefore 
satisfy in an approximate manner the one check which can be made of 
the permissibility of roughly extending the results indicated in the 
table to all registered corporations. 

From table 15 it appears that from 1 to 2 percent of the 15,500,000 
book shareholdings in registered corporations, or 155,000 to 310,000 
book shareholdings, were holdings of brokers or banks, with the true 
value probably closer to the lower limit of the range indicated. To 
estimate the number of beneficial shareholdings represented by the 
record shareholdings of brokers and banks, it is necessary to determine 
the average number of beneficial shareholdings represented by each 
of these book shareholdings. As no data of this type are available, 
resort must be had to a rough approximation. For 9 widely-held 
common stocks 64 the average size of the beneficial ownership of shares 
held in the names of New York Stock Exchange brokers in 1939 was 

•° E. g., the small number of cases included, the bias in the sample arising from the very large size of the 
companies covered, and the occasional difficulty in classification. 

•' The holdings of banks and trust companies and their nominees include only those holdings whose bene- 
ficial ownership could not be determined from the stock certificates. 

« New York Stock Exchange Bulletin, January 1939. The 660,000,000 shares of the 353 companies covered 
in the study constituted about 50 percent of all voting shares listed on the exchange. 

M Both figures, 12.2 and 14.fi percent, are in effect weighted means. 

M American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Anaconda Copper Mining Co., General Electric Co., Interna- 
tional Harvester Co., Montgomery Ward A Co., Inc., the New York Central Railroad Co., Tide Water 
Associated Oil Co., United States Rubber Co., and United States Steel Corporation (information supplied 
to Temporary National Economic Committee). 



172 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



somewhat less than 200 shares. 66 If it is assumed that this figure was 
typical of the average beneficial shareholding in all common stock of 
registered corporations held in the names of brokers and banks, a 
record shareholding of a broker or a bank would appear to represent 
the holdings of almost 10 beneficial owners on the average, at least for 
common stock (table 16). 

Table 16. — Average number of shares held in various classes of record shareholdings- 
Dec. 31, 1937 i 



Item 



Individ- 
uals 2 



Estates 
and trusts 3 



Brokers 
and dealers 
(and their 
nominees) ' 



Banks and 
trust com- 
panies (and 
their nom- 
inees) 5 



Common: 

Weighted mean 
Median. 

Preferred: 

Weighted mean 
Median 



188 
237 



117 
76 



2,171 
1,495 



428 
322 



2,341 

1,987" 



840 
730 



i Or nearest available date. 

2 Data reported for 10 common issues and 5 preferred by the following 10 corporations: American Can Co. , 
American Gas & Electric Co., General Electric Co., International Business Machines Corporation, National 
Distillers Products Corporation, National Power & Light Co., the New York Central Railroad Co.,. 
Sears, Roebuck & Co., United States Rubber Co., and United States Steel Corporation. 

3 Data reported for 14 common issues and 8 preferred by the 10 companies listed in note 2, and by the follow- 
ing 4 companies: American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Deere & Co., and 
International Harvester Co. Individual trusts administered by banks and trust companies are included. 

4 Data reported for 28 common issues and 15 preferred by the corporations listed in table 15, note 4, with the- 
exception of Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey). 

s The holdings of banks and trust companies and their nominees include only those holdings whose bene- 
ficial ownership could not be determined from the stock certificates. 

On the basis of these considerations, it is estimated that the number 
of beneficial shareholdings in 'registered corporations represented by 
stock held in the names of brokers and banks would be in the neighbor- 
hood of 1,550,000 (10 percent of 15,500,000) to 3,100,000 (20 percent 
of 15,500,000) while the corresponding total number of beneficial share- 
holdings in registered corporations ranged from 16,895,000 (15,500,000 
+ 1,550,000—155,000) to 18,290,000 (15,500,000 + 3,100,000-310,000), 
with the true value probably about 17,500,000. 



B. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS FOR SELECTED GROUPS- 
OF UNREGISTERED CORPORATIONS 

There are several selected groups of unregistered corporations for 
which the number of book shareholdings may readily be determined 
from available information (table 14). These are banks, insurance 
companies, investment companies not registered, public utility 
holding companies registered under the 1935 act but' not under the 
1934 act, and the few large unregistered companies included in the 
200 largest nonfmancial corporations. 

For banks, the estimate of 1,800,000 book shareholdings was based 
on the number of book shareholdings (1,042,830) in. national banks 
obtained from the office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the 
number of book shareholdings in State banks and trust companies 
with assets over $100,000,000 (267,651) obtained from Moody's 
Manual of Investments; and the number of book shareholdings in 
the State banks with assets less than $100,000,000 estimated on the 

« J Such an average beneficial shareholding of about 200 common shares may be contrasted with the con- 
siderably lower average shareholding of less than 70 shares for individuals holding stock in their own names 
and with about the same averaee holding of 200 shares for estates and trusts (table 16). 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 173 

basis of the relationship between assets and book shareholdings 
for all national banks and for the State banks with assets over 
$100,000,000. 

For insurance companies, the estimate of 450,000 book share- 
holdings was derived from an estimate of 100,000 for the number of 
book shareholdings in legal reserve life insurance companies, and 
350,000 for the number of book shareholdings in other insurance 
companies. The data on the number of book shareholdings in legal 
reserve life insurance companies were taken from a Temporary National 
Economic Committee tabulation, while the data on the number of 
book shareholdings in other insurance companies were abstracted 
from Moody's Manual of Investments; in both instances it was 
necessary to step upward, on the basis of assets, the figures obtained 
from these sources to adjust for the somewhat incomplete coverage. 

The estimate of 1,000,000 book shareholdings in unregistered 
investment companies was obtained by applying to the 2,000,000 
book shareholdings in all investment companies at the end of 1935 66 
the proportion of total assets of investment companies represented 
by those investment companies all of whose securities were traded 
over-the-counter only. 67 

The number of book shareholdings in public utility holding com- 
panies registered, under the 1935 act but not under the 1934 act 
(466,000) is based on data for individual' companies obtained from 
Moody's Manual of Investments for the end of 1937. 

Figures for the few large unregistered companies included in a 
study of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations made for the 
Temporary National Economic Committee were obtained directly 
from the questionnaires submitted by these companies. The number 
of book shareholdings in these 14 companies amounted to 139, 000. 68 

Thus far, close to 3,900,000 book shareholdings have been accounted 
for in the few special groups of unregistered companies for which 
fairly satisfactory information is available. It is believed that the 
number of beneficial shareholdings in these companies is not much 
higher than 4.000,000. 

C. ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS FOR ALL OTHER UN- 
REGISTERED CORPORATIONS 

The most difficult part of the estimation of the total number of 
shareholdings is the estimation of the number of shareholdings for all 
unregistered corporations not yet specifically covered. These corpora- 
tions, which constitute the bulk of the number of unregistered corpora- 
tions, are for the most part relatively small nonfinancial companies. 

Though no data on. the number of shareholdings in these companies 
can be obtained directly, there is an. indirect approach which may be 
expected to yield a reasonably accurate estimate. The frequency 
distribution by size of assets for practically all corporations in the 
United States is given, in. Statistics of Income for 1937. By ascribing 
an average number of shareholdings per company to each of the asset 

«* There is probably not much difference between the end of 1935 and the end of 1937 in this respect 
•' See the report of the Securities and Exchange Commission on Investment Trusts and Investment 
Companies. Part Two, pp. 280, 370, and 377 " l 

"The companies are Aluminum Co., of America, American Cvanamid Co., Anderson Clavton & Co 
Duke Power Co Ford Motor Co. Glen Alden Coal Co., The Great Atlantic A Pacific Tea Company 
of America. Gulf Oil Corporation, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., Koppers United Co Lone 
Island Lighting Co., Xew Jersey Zinc Co., Singer Manufacturing Co., and Weverhaeuser Timber Co 
The American Oas A Electric Co., another unregistered company included in a study of the 200 lareest 
nonfinancial corporations made- for the Temporary National Economic Committee is not included in this 
tabulation since it was registered under the 1935 act and consequently has already been covered 



174 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



classes, it is possible to make a rough estimate of the number of share- 
holdings not yet accounted for. A substantial portion of the com- 
panies with assets over $10,000,000 and practically, all companies 
with assets over $60,000,000 have been covered previously, and it is 
believed that the remaining companies in these asset classes are for 
the most part closely-held corporations or wholly-owned subsidiaries. 
On the other hand, relatively few of the companies with assets below 
$10,000,000 have been covered thus far. 

The only information on shareholdings available for such companies 
is found in data collected by the Federal Trade Commission foi\ the 
year 1922 in its study of "National Wealth and Income." From the 
files of the Federal Trade Commission, a sample of over 1,000 com- 
panies was selected, in effect representing a sample of all corporations 
in 1922 stratified by industry and size, and the relationship between 
amount of assets and number of shareholdings investigated. Since 
the correlation between these two variables was reasonably high in 
the asset classes up to $10,000,000 (table 17), 69 for which there was a 
sufficient number of companies to study the relationship, it was possi- 
ble to assign to each of the asset classes an average number of share- 
holdings per company which was probably reasonably representative 
of all companies in those asset classes for the year 1922. On this basis, 
it appears that at the end of 1937 there were 2,500,000 shareholdings 
in companies with assets under $10,000,000, excluding those already 
accounted for. 

Table 17. — Relationship between number of shareholdings and total assets for 1,148 
representative corporations, 1 Dec. 31, 1922 2 



Fre- 
quency 


1,148 


1 


1 





6 


21 


3b 


125 


160 


1SS 


222 


183 


1(17 


47 


27 


13 


2 


2 


1 





1 


1,148 


Total assets 

in thousands 

of dollars 3 

Number of share- 
holdings 3 


to 

CO 

o 

q 

c-i 


to 
o 
to 

CO 


CO 

o 
US 

to 


09 



to 


to 

o 

Oi 

o 


to 
i>^ 

to 

o 

eo 

CO 


to 

cm 
o 

CO 

eo 


CM 

o 

CO 

CM 


CN 

CO 

£6 

CO 


vi 

C) 




cm 
eo 

30 

CO 


CI 

CM 



r- 

t- 


3 

cm' 



CN 
1 




s 

cm" 


e» 

CO 



CJ. 

1 


CO 

?[ 

CO 

O 

3 

CO 


ex 

— 
3 

8 

CO 

c-i 

co" 


cb 
e» 

cm" 



o> 

s 

CO 
CM 


CO 

CO 

a 

CS 

5 

of 


to 

CM 

© 
e» 

CO 
O 
CO 

eo 


3 

CN 



CO 
CM 
O 
OS 

CO' 


2 


2,453.5 to 3,700.0 












1 


1,627.0 to 2,453.5 




































2 


1,078.9 to 1,627.0. . 
































2 








4 


715.4 to 1,078.9 


















1 




2 

2 

7 

1 

18 

11 

17 

13 

11 

20 

14 

18 

20 

20 

4 

"2 


i 
5 
4 

6 
7 
13 
7 
7 
8 
13 
11 
9 
8 
5 
2 


"2 

4 
2 
6 
8 
7 
4 
4 
2 
4 
1 
2 


1 
"2 

3 
5 
4 
4 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 








7 


474.4 to 715.4 


















2 

"3 

2 












25 


314.6 to 474.4 
















1 


1 

3 

4 

1 
11 

8 
18 
12 
21 
31 
20 
32 
22 

3 


2 
4 

5 
in 
14 
Hi 
27 
22 
20 
26 
19 
31 
17 
8 
1 


1 


... 


1 




1 


20 


208.6 to 314.6 


















49 


138.3 to 208.6... 










1 
1 




1 
3 
1 
8 
4 
5 
10 
16 
16 
35 
18 
5 
3 


1 

"5 

8 
13 
10 
13 

H 

2:i 
39 
26 
5 
2 












48 


91.7 to 138.3 




















73 


60.8 to 91.7... .. 










1 
1 

"2 












67 


40.3 to 60.8 












1 

2 

2 
2 
6 
12 
10 
3 












89 


26.8 to 40.3 




1 








1 










83 


17.7 to 26.8 .. 








1 










99 


11.8 to 17.7 . 




















124 


7.8 to 11.8 








2 


1 

3 

7 
9 
1 


1 












119 


5.2 to 7.8. _. 


















185 


3.4 to 5.2 








1 
2 
1 














114 


2.3 to 3.4 


1 






















29 


1.5 to 2.3 .. 




1 














8 


1.0 to 1.5 























































1 Data from the files of the Federal Trade Commission used in their report on "National Wealth and 
Income," 1926. 
• Or nearest available date. 
3 These are equal logarithmic intervals. 



•• The correlation between the logarithms of the number of shareholdings and total assets was 0.50; this is 
a highly significant value. (Throughout this report, a result is considered "significant" only if the proba- 
bility of its occurrence through chance is less than 0.05; and "highly significant" only if this probability is 
less than 0.01.) 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER J 75 

However, the question naturally arises whether the diffusion of 
ownership in these companies at the end of 1922 was the same as 
that at the end of 1937 for companies of the same asset size. Although 
no such information was available on a comparable basis as of the 
two different years for companies with assets under $10,000,000, it 
was found possible to obtain comparable data as of both year-ends 
for large companies. For 58 such companies, all with assets over 
$10,000,000, the number of shareholdings per unit of assets was as 
a whole about twice as large in 1937 as in 1922. If the number of 
shareholdings per unit of assets for small companies were also about 
twice as large in 1937 as in 1922, the number of shareholdings at the 
end of 1937 in companies with assets under $10,000,000, excluding 
those already accounted for, would be estimated to have been in the 
neighborhood of 5,000,000. 

There appears, however, to be a logical basis for assuming that 
over this period the number of shareholdings per unit of assets in- 
creased less for small companies than for large companies, particularly 
the very small companies whose holdings would often be concentrated 
in a single family. Consequently the total number of shareholdings 
at the end of 1937 for all corporations with assets under $10,000,000, 
excluding those already accounted for, was probably between 2,500,000 
and 5,000,000. It is not believed necessary to make an appreciable 
adjustment upward to take care of the difference between beneficial 
shareholdings and the record shareholdings reported in the data col- 
lected by the Federal Trade Commission for these corporations, as 
their shares were probably rarely held in the names of brokers or 
banks. 

Extrapolation of the results obtained from the data collected by 
the Federal Trade Commission indicates the existence of another 
500,000 or so shareholdings in the approximately 1,000 corporations 
with assets over $10,000,000 which have not previously been ac- 
counted for. However, the number of such shareholdings may well 
have been as high as 1,000,000. Thus the total number of share- 
holdings at the end of 1937 for all corporations not yet specifically 
covered was probably between 3,000,000 and 6,000,000. 

D. FINAL ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

Combining the above figures on the number of shareholdings in the 
different groups of corporations, it is estimated that the total number 
of record shareholdings at the end of 1937 was between 22,355,000 
and 25,355,000 while the corresponding total number of beneficial 
shareholdings was between 24,355,000 and 27,355,000 with the most 
likely value in the neighborhood of 26,000,000. Though the true 
values may fall outside these ranges, it does not seem likely. 

E. NUMBER OF FOREIGN, CORPORATE, AND INSTITUTIONAL SHARE- 
HOLDINGS 

The estimate of total shareholdings presented in section D covers 
all domestic and foreign shareholdings in domestic corporations. To 
obtain the number of shareholdings of domestic individuals, it is 
necessary to deduct the number of foreign, corporate, and institutional 
shareholdings and to add the domestic shareholdings of foreign stock. 

268445 — 41— No. 29 13 



176 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

These adjustments, however, would not make an appreciable differ- 
ence in the number of shareholdings. Foreigners received less than 3 
percent of the dividends paid by domestic corporations to individuals, 
and probably accounted for an even smaller proportion of the share- 
holdings, since they might be expected to have a higher average 
size of shareholding than domestic individuals. Though corporations 
received about 35 percent of all dividends paid by domestic corpora- 
tions, the number of shareholdings of corporations is known to be 
relatively small. Thus, for a sample of 13 large widely-held corpora- 
tions, 70 considerably less than 2 percent of the record shareholdings 
were held in the names of corporations. 71 Institutional holdings 
were even less important from the point of view of number of share- 
holdings; for 16 large widely-held corporations, 72 not much over 0.5 
percent of the record shareholdings were held in the names of nonprofit 
organizations. The number of foreign, corporate, and institutional 
holdings in American corporations together probably amounted to 
close to 1,000,000 shareholdings. Consequently it appears that 
domestic individuals hold about 25,000,000 of the 26,000,000 share- 
holdings in American corporations. Though no data are available on 
domestic holdings of foreign stock other than the fact that $30,000,000 
in dividends were paid on such holdings in 1937 (table 10), their 
number is believed to be very small. 

IV. DISTRIBUTION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP AT END OF 1937 

In spite of the wide distribution of ownership of American corpora- 
tions indicated by the large number of stockholders, there is a high 
concentration of stock ownership in the hands of a relatively few 
persons. A marked concentration of ownership has already been sug- 
gested in the discussion in section II of the number of persons in 
various income classes receiving dividends and the amount of divi- 
dends received, used as a basis for the estimation of the number of 
stockholders. This aspect of the distribution of stock ownership 
will, however, be treated in a little more detail in the present section. 

A. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP 

The best overall picture of the concentration of stock ownership is 
given by the distribution of stockholders by dividend income based 
on Federal income tax data 73 (table 18). There were 7,590 persons 
in 1937 with dividend income over $50,000, corresponding probably to 
stock investments with an average market value in excess of $2,000,000 
during the year while 115,631 persons received over $5,000 in dividends 
corresponding to a stock investment of about $100,000 or more. 
The 10,000 persons with the highest dividend income, comprising not 
much over one-tenth of 1 percent of the total number of stockholders 
and about one-fiftieth of 1 percent of the total number of income 
recipients, received about 25 percent of all dividends paid to indi- 

'• American Can Co.; American Gas& Electric Co.; CroWn Zellerbach Corporation; Deere & Co.; General 
Electric Co.; International Business Machines Corporation; Montgomery Ward & Co.. Inc.; National 
Distillers Products Corporation; National Power & Light Co.; the New York Central Railroad Co.; 
Sears, Roebuck & Co.; United States Rubber Co.; and United States Steel Corporation. 

?• It is true, of course, that a few of the beneficial shareholdings of corporations may have been held in the 
names of nominees, but this could not be of much importance from the viewpoint of the number of share- 

72 Includes the 13 corporations listed in note 69 and also the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., Inter- 
national Harvester Co., and Union Carbide & Carbon Corooration. 

73 Statistics of Income for 1937, Part 1. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



177 



viduals. Only 65,000 persons, less than 1 percent of the numbert of 
stockholders and considerably less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the 
total number of income recipients, were necessary to account for one-- 
half of all dividends received by individuals. This certainly represents 
an impressive degree of concentration of ownership. 74 

Table 18. — Distribution of dividend incomes of $5,000 and over by size of dividends, 

1937 



Dividend income (thousands of dollars) 



$1,000,000 and o\er.. 
$500,000 to $1,000,000 
$250,000 to 500,000... 
$100,000 to $250,000. . 
$75,000 to $100,000. .. 

$50,000 to $75,000 

$40,000 to $50,000 

$30,000 to $40,000 

$25,000 to $30,000- . . . 

$20,000 to $25,000 

$15,000 to $20,000 

$10,000 to $15,000--. 
$5,000 to $10,000 



Number of 

returns 

reporting 

dividends ' 



49 

145 

389 

1,979 

1,527 

3,501 

2,880 

5,180 

4,312 

6,709 

11,417 

21, 884 

55,659 



Percent of 
total divi- 
dends 
received 3 



2.11 
2.47 
3.31 
7.54 
3.19 
5.17 
3.10 
4.32 
2.85 
3.61 
4.76 
6.46 
9.48 



Number of 

returns 
cumulated 
from above 



49 

194 

583 

2,562 

4,089 

7,590 

10, 470 

15,650 

19,962 

26, 671 

38,088 

59, 972 

115,631 



Percent of 
dividends 
cumulated 
from above 



2.11 
4.58 
7.89 
15.43 
18.62 
23.78 
26.89 
31.21 
34. 06"' 
37.67 
42.43. 
48. 89- 
58.:.7 



' From Statistics of Income for 1937, Part 1, p. 18. Includes only those persons with a net income of 
$5,000 and over reporting dividends. It may be assumed, however, that all but a riegligible number of 
persons receiving a dividend income of $5,000 and over received a net income of at least $5,000. 

1 Percent of all dividends received by domestic individuals except those accruing to them from nontaxable 
fiduciaries, for which data on distribution by size of dividends were not available. 

The amount of dividends received by the various dividend classes under $1,000,000 was estimated by 
multiplying the number of persons receiving dividends in each of these dividend classes by. the geometric 
mean of the class interval. The error resulting from this approach is believed to be of little consequence. 
In available data from the Delaware study the average dividend in each dividend class was almost exactly 
the geometric mean of the interval. The amount of dividends in the dividend class of $1,000,000 and over 
was estimated by using the cross-classification of the number of dividend recipients by size of dividend and 
net income class of recipients (Statistics of Income for 193", Part 1, p. 18) in conjunction with the distribution 
of the amount of dividends by net income class (id., p. 133). The sum of the dividends received by all per- 
sons with net incomes of $5,000 and over estimated on the above basis was only 1.1 percent greater than the 
actual dividends reported by this group, and was accordingly adjusted downward. 

Although it is possible to obtain from Statistics of Income a very 
good characterization of the distribution of dividends among persons 
receiving more than $5,000 in dividends, that is not true for individuals 
receiving small amounts of dividends. However, a sample of about 
10,000 Federal income tax returns for 1936 75 indicates that some- 
what over 50 percent of dividend recipients with net incomes less than 
$5,000, and more than $1,000 or $2,500, depending on their marital 
status, received less than $100 in dividends. 76 For this same sample, 
considerably over four-fifths of the dividend recipients with net income 
from $1,000 or $2,500 to $5,000 reported receipt of less than $500 in 
dividends. 77 These ratios would be expected to be even higher for all 
dividend recipients. As average dividend payments in 1937 were only 
slightly higher than in 1936, it is probable that in the neighborhood 
of half of the 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders received less than 
$100 in dividends in 1937 and that fewer than 2,000,000 stockholders 
had an annual dividend income of more than $500. 

74 Actually the degree of concentration of ownership was probably even slightly greater than indicated 
by thcs.' figures. (See appendix II, sec. II, B.) 

:! Similar data for a much larger sample are now being compiled by the Income Tax Study sponsored by 
the I'. S. Treasury Department. 

:> In Delaware, where it may be recalled all adults are supposed to file State income tax returns, 40 percent 
of the persons reporting receipt of dividends in 1930 received less than $100 in dividends. This ratio would 
probably be raised somewhat if nonreporting persons were included. 

77 In Delaware, about 70 percent of the persons reporting receipt of dividends in 1936 received less than 
$500 in dividends. 



178 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



The numerous stockholders receiving relatively small amounts of 
dividends accounted for only a negligible portion of all dividend income 
received by individuals in 1937. The 50 percent of the stockholders 
who received less than $100 in dividends probably accounted for con- 
siderably less than 5 percent of dividend income. 78 The more than 
80 percent of the stockholders with a dividend income of less than 
$500 probably received not much over 10 percent of all dividend in- 
come of domestic individuals. Thus the importance of the corporate 
ownership of these small stockholders is hardly impressive in spite of 
their large number. 

B. RELATIONS BETWEEN INCOME AND STOCK OWNERSHIP 

The distribution of stockholders and dividend income by the size 
of the net income of the recipient (table 19) shows, as would be ex- 
pected, the same sort of picture as described above, for the distribu- 
tion by size of dividend income. The 10,000 dividend recipients with 
the highest net income received about 20 percent of all dividends paid 
to individuals, while not many more than 100,000 dividend recipients 
were necessary to account for 50 percent of all dividends received by 
individuals. Though fewer than 500,000 of the 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 
dividend recipients had net incomes over $5,000, they accounted for 
close to 70 percent of all dividends paid to individuals. The approxi- 
mately 6,000,000 dividend recipients who did not file income tax 
returns, mainly persons with net incomes under $1,000 or $2,500 
(depending on their marital status), received only 10 percent of total 
individual dividend income. 



Table 19. — Distribution of dividend income in 1937 by size of net income* 



Net income (thousands of dollars) 



Number of 


Percent of 


returns 


total 


reporting 


dividends 


dividends 


received 2 


1 


1 


1 


\ 0.41 


1 


I 


12 


.41 


5 


.19 


27 


.61 


53 


1.01 


102 


1.35 


100 


.89 


201 


..31 


198 


1.10 


357 


1.31 


749 


2.13 


2,185 


4.00 


918 


1.31 


1,299 


1.63 


1,901 


1.99 


2,899 


2.52 


4,517 


3.14 


7,508 


4.02 


14,344 


5.52 


12,509 


3.62 


20,102 


4.39 


36,928 


5.66 


11, 272 


1.36 


12, 792 


1.41 


15, 145 


1.52 



Number of Percent of 

returns I dividends 

cumulated cumulated 

from above from above 



5,000 and over. 
4,000 to 5,000. . 
3,000 to 4,000.. 
2,000 to 3,000. . 
1,500 to 2,000.. 
1,000 to 1,500.. 
750 to 1,000.... 

500 to 750 

400 to 500 

300 to 400 

250 to 300. 

200 to 250 

160 to 200 

100 to 150 

90 to 100 

80 to 90 

70 to 80 

60 to 70 

50 to 60 

40 to 50 

30 to 40 

25 to 30 

20 to 25 

15 to 20 

14 to 15 

13 to 14. 

12 to 131 



15 
20 

47 

100 ; 

202 | 

302 

503 

701 ' 

1,058 I 

1,807 ! 

3,992 i 

4,910 ' 

6,209 

8,110 : 

11,009 : 

15,526 | 

23,034 ' 

37,378 i 
49,887 

69,989 ! 
106,917 
118,180 

130,981 i 

146,126 ! 



0.41 

.82 
1.01 
1.62 
2.63 
3.98 
4.87 
6.18 
7.28 
8.59 
10.72 
14.73 
16.03 
17.66 
19.65 
22.17 
25.31 
29.33 
34.85 
38.47 
42.86 
48.53 
49.89 
51. 30 ' 
52.82 



i From Statistics of Income for 1937, Pt. 1, p. 133. 

1 Percent of all dividends received by domestic individuals except those accruing to them from non- 
taxable fiduciaries. 



79 The proportion of dividend income received by such stockholders wouM be 5 percent if their average 
dividends amounted to $50. Though no information is available on the average amount of dividends re- 
ceived by persons filing Federal income tax returns reporting dividend income less than $100, the Delaware 
data show an average dividend income of $35 for such persons in 1936. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 179 

Table 19. — Distribution of dividend income in 1937 by size of net income • — Con. 



Net income (thousands of dollars) 



Number of 

returns 

reporting 

dividends 



Percent of 

total 
dividends 
received 3 



Number of 

returns 
cumulated 
from above 



Percent of 
dividends 
cumulated 
from above 



11 to 12... 
10 toll ... 
9 to 10.... 

8to9 

7 to 8 

6 to 7 

5 to 6 

Under 5 3 
Other'... 



17,916 
21, 824 
28,175 
34, 377 
46,050 
60,315 
92, 552 
» 1, 246, 946 
• 5, 500, 000 



1.54 
1.70 
1.87 
2.00 
2.27 
2.64 
2.91 
'17.88 
« 14. 30 



164,042 
185, 866 
214, 041 
248, 418 
294,468 
354, 783 
447. 335 
1, 694, 281 
» 7, 500, 000 



54.36 
56.06 
57.92 
59.92 
62.20 
64.83 
67.74 
85.62 
100.00 



» Dividend recipients filing income tax returns reporting net income. Estimate by Bureau of Internal 
Revenue. 

* Dividend recipients not filing returns or those filing returns but either not reporting dividend income 
or reporting no net income. 

1 Rough estimate. See sec. II for details. 

• Dividend recipients filing income tax returns reporting no net income received 3.57 percent of all divi- 
dends received by domestic individuals. 

There is a very high positive correlation, of course, between the 
income level and both the proportion of persons receiving dividends 
and the average amount of dividends received per dividend recipient 
(table 12 and charts XXXIV and XXXV). In addition, the higher 
the net income the larger is the proportion of income ascribable to 
dividends, resulting in an even higher concentration of dividend in- 
come than of total net income (table 20). Practically all persons (94 
percent) with net income over $50,000, for example, received dividend 
income, representing in the aggregate about 62 percent of their net 
income. On the other hand, it is estimated that fewer than 10 per- 
cent of the persons with net income under $1,000 received dividends. 
Even for the dividend recipients among persons with income of less 
than $1,000, dividends, as a whole, represented a minor portion of 
their income, not much over 10 percent on the average. 



Table 


20. — Relationship between dividend income 


and net income, 1937 1 


Net income 

(thousands of 

dollars) 


Ratio of 
dividend 
income to 
total in- 
come of 
all per- 
sons re- 
porting 


Ratio of 
dividend 
income to 
net in- 
come of 
all per- 
sons re- 
porting 


Ratio of 
dividend 
.income to 
net in- 
come of 
dividend 
recipients 


Net income 

(thousands of 

dollars) 


Ratio of 
dividend 
income to 
total in- 
come of 
all per- 
sons re- 
porting 


Ratio of 
dividend 
income to 
net in- 
come of 
all per- 
sons re- 
porting 


Ratio of 
dividend 
income to 
net in- 
come of 
dividend 
recipients 


3,000 and over... 


Percent 
87.8 
54.0 
73.4 
58.5 
65.7 
70.5 
63.0 
59.4 

53.6 

50.2 
49.1 
48.3 
45.3 
43.1 
40.4 


Percent 
115.9 
62.5 
90.7 
70.8 
83.6 
85.4 
79.1 
75.7 
79.6 
64.4 
06.0 
60.3 
58.9 
57.8 
54. 
51.8 
48.4 


Percent 
115.9 
02.5 
90.7 
76.0 
88.4 
88.8 
83.0 
. 78.0 
82.9 
67.6 
68.5 
62.6 
61.7 
60.6 
57.6 
55.2 
52.3 


40 to 50... 


Percent 
37.8 
34.6 
31.7 
28.4 
25.0 
22.5 
21.5 
20.6 
18.7 
18.1 
17.0 
15.3 
13.8 
12.2 
10.3 
5.2 


Percent 
44.8 
40.8 
37.5 
33.5 
29.4 
26.5 
25.4 
24.4 
22.0 
21.2 
20.0 
18.0 
16.2 
14.3 
12.0 
5.9 


Fercent 
49.5 


2,000 to 3,000. . . . 


30 to 40 


46.0 


1,500 to 2,000 ... 


25 to 30 


43.5 


1,000 to 1,500 ... 


20 to 25 


40.3 


"50 to 1.000 


15 to 20 


36.6 


500 to 750 


14 to 15 


34.2 


400 to 500. . . 


13 to 14 


33.5 


300 to 400... 


12 to 13 


33.0 


250 to 300 


11 to 12 


30.7 


200 to 250... 


10 to 11 


30.5 


150 to 200... 


9 to 10 


28.7 


100 to 150 


8 to 9 


28.2 


90 to 100 


7 to8 


27.1 


80 to 90 


6 to 7 


27.7 


70 to 80 


5 to 6 . 


23.6 


60 to 70.. 


Under 5 2 


23.1 


50 to 60... 









1 As reported on Federal income tax returns with net income. From Statistics of Income for 19S7, Pt. 1, 
pp. 133, 135, and 137. 

1 Includes only those individuals reporting a net income. Does not include persons not filing returns or 
reporting no net income. 



|gO CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

C. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP IN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS 

The concentration of corporate ownership in the aggregate, which 
has been depicted in sections A' and B, does not necessarily reflect a 
similar concentration of stock ownership in single issues, i. e., the 
concentration of corporate ownership in the hands of the wealthy may 
reflect either large shareholdings in single corporations or a wide 
diversification of holdings in many corporations. The two aspects of 
the distribution of ownership involved, the typical size distribution of 
shareholdings in single corporations and the typical number of share- 
holdings held by individuals, will be discussed briefly in this and the 
following sections. 

Information on the size distribution of record ownership .in' indi- 
vidual corporations is available, as of the end of 1937, for almost all 
issues traded on a national securities exchange and for a few other 
large issues as well. 79 The data indicate the relative importance of 
book shareholdings or record shareholdings with a market value of 
less than $500, $500 to $1,000, $1,000 to $5,000, $5,000 to $10,000, 
and $10,000 and over. Half of the record shareholdings had a market 
value of less than $500 at the end of 1937, while two-thirds had a 
market value less than $1,000. The smallest half of the record share- 
holdings accounted for only about 4 percent of the market value of 
all stock outstanding in these corporations, and roughly 5 percent of 
the noncorporate shareholdings. About 4 percent of the record share- 
holdings had a market value of $10,000 and over at the end of 1937, 
representing 60 percent of the market value of all stock outstanding 
in these corporations. If corporate shareholdings are excluded, both 
of these ratios would, of course, be somewhat reduced ; it is not possible, 
however, to estimate on the basis of available data how large the 
reduction would be. 

These percentages indicate a high concentration of ownership of 
stock in the average large corporation. As a result of the difference 
between record and beneficial shareholdings, the percentages, however, 
tend to show a higher concentration of ownership than actually 
existed. The most important difference is the result of the holdings 
of record of brokers, banks, and their nominees (sec. III). For a 
group of 12 large widely-held corporations 80 it was possible, on the 
basis of material supplied by them to the Temporary National Eco- 
nomic Committee to eliminate the record shareholdings of brokers and 
banks and their nominees from the distribution of market value of 
shareholdings. This procedure would be expected to understate some- 
what the actual degree of concentration, of ownership since the aver- 
age size of beneficial shareholdings of stock held in the names of 
brokers and' banks and their nominees seems to be larger than the size 
of beneficial shareholdings of individuals in general (sec III). S1 The 

t These data will be presented in a study now being completed by the Securities and Exchange Com- 
mission covering almost all equity issues of corporations which had at. least one issue registered at the end 
of 1937 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

so American Can Co.; American Gas & Electric Co.: the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Ec Railway Co.; 
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.; General Electric Co.; National Distillers Products Corporation; 
International Business Machines Corporation; Northern Pacific Railway Co.; International Harvester 
Co.; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; United States Rubber Co.; and United States Steel Corporation. 

V| Instances in which several record shareholdings in the same stock are owned beneficially by the same 
person through nominees are not eliminated bj this procedure. This also lends to understate the actual 
degree of concentration of ownership. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 18 J 

revised distribution of market value of shareholdings (excluding those 
of brokers and banks) differs little from the unadjusted distribution 
and reflects almost as marked a concentration of ownership in the 
hands of a few stockholders. 82 

D. RELATIONS BETWEEN INCOME AND NUMBER OF STOCKS OJWNED 

The ownership of all corporations as a whole has been shown to be 
highly concentrated in the hands of a relatively few stockholders. 
This has also been shown to be true for the average individual cor- 
poration. It remains to be determined whether there is a similar 
concentration in the number of shareholdings or corporate stocks 
owned; i. e., whether most shareholdings are concentrated in the hands 
of a few wealthy persons. The problem concretely is to analyze the 
distribution of the 25,000,000 shareholdings of domestic individuals 
among the 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 stockholders. 

Up to the present practically no data have been available on the 
number of corporate stocks owned by individual stockholders. How- 
ever, the Federal Income Tax Study sponsored by the U. S. Treasury 
Department is now compiling such data from income tax returns for 
1936 showing the number of individuals with dividend income over 
$10,000 and a sample of returns of individuals with lower incomes 
classified by net income and by the number of corporations from which 
dividends were received. 83 Preliminary results from this study have 
been made available for this report. 

A preliminary tabulation covering all individuals with dividend 
income of $10,000 or more indicates that of such persons those with 
net income of $100,000 or over held stock in 25 dividend-paying cor- 
porations on the average in 1936, as contrasted to stock in 13 divider- 1 
paying corporations held by persons with net income from $10,000 to 
s 1 ."> .000. 84 There were onlv 4 1 .880 persons in all with dividend income 
over $10,000, but they held stock in from 700,000 to 800,000 dividend- 
paying issues. These shareholdings constituted close to 4 percent of 
the approximately 20,000,000 85 shareholdings in dividend-paying 
stocks. 

Preliminary data are also available for a random sample of 5,000 
Federal income tax returns reporting dividend income of less than 
$10,000 for 1936. 86 These data indicate that stockholders with net 
income less than $;",000 and more than $1,000 or $2,500, depending 
on their marital status, received dividends from 2.4 corporations on 
the average in that year: 62 percent received dividends from only one 
corporation; and only 3.7 percent held stock in 10 or more corpo- 
rations paying dividends. Stockholders with net income from $5,000 
to $10,000 reported stock holdings in about 3.2 dividend-paying 
corporations on the average: 55 percent reported reeeipt'of dividends 

M The whole subject of the dispersion of ownership in individual corporations will be considered in detail 
in ch. Ill of this report for the 2O0 largest nonflnancial corporations, and in a separate report for 1710 cor- 
porations with securities listed on a national securities exchange. (Temporary National Economic Com- 
mittee Monograph No. 30). 

■ See note 4«, p. 165, for an enumeration of the more important types of error inherent in the use of these 
data to estimate the average number of corporations from which dividends were received by persons in the 
various income classes. The net effect of these errors, however, is not believed to be very substantial. 

* There is no reason to assume that the figures would be much different in 1937. 

M Estimated to be roughly 80 percent of the total number of shareholdings. See supra, p. 185. 

- 8 Similar data are now being compiled by the Income Tax Study sponsored by the U. S. Treasury Depart- 
ment, covering a much larger sample of returns. 



182 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

from one corporation only; another 7 percent owned shares in 10 
or more dividend-paying corporations. 87 

The above data show that there is a rather high correlation between a 
person's net income and the number of dividend-paying stocks he owns 
but that even individuals with large income are stockholders in only 
a relatively moderate number of different corporations. Thus, though 
there is a certain amount of diversification of holdings by wealthy in- 
dividuals in a large number of corporations, as reflected by the number 
of their shareholdings, this is not nearly so important a factor in the 
concentration of ownership of all domestic corporations as the concen- 
tration of ownership in the average corporations resulting from the 
size of shareholdings of wealthy individuals in single stock issues. 

w The only other information available on the average number of stocks held is contained in a study of 
Its stockholders' list made by the National Steel Corporation at the end of 1935. (Business Week, Decem- 
ber 14, 1935. Additional information on the composition of the sample was supplied by the National 
Steel Corporation.) The replies to questionnaires, sent to all individual owners of stock of National Steel 
Corporation and answered by 37 percent of such persons, indicated that on the average a holder of the stock 
of National Steel Corporation held 18 other stocks or bonds. The average number of other stocks or 
bonds held varied considerably for different income levels; with 9.9 other issues of securities held on the 
average by persons with total annual family income less than $3,000; 13.5 other securities held by persons with 
income from $3,000 to $5,000; 19.5 other securities held by persons with income from $5,000 to $10,000; and 26.7 
other securities held by persons with income over $10,000. Since the major portion of the holdings may rea- 
sonably be attributed to stocks, it is seen that holders of National Steel Corporation stock held on the aver- 
age shares in many more stocks than holders of corporate stock in general. That the holders of National 
Steel Corporation stock were wealthy in comparison with stockholders in general is indicated by the fact 
that only 27 percent of its individual stockholders who reported had incomes less than $3,000, 16 percent had 
incomes from $3,000 to $5,000, 23 percent had incomes from $5,000 to $10,000, and 31 percent had incomes over 
$10,000. It is possible, of course, that the respondents do not represent a random sample of all owners of 
the stock of National Steel Corporation. This, however, is not indicated by available data. Comparing 
the distribution of size of holdings in National Steel Corporation stock with other stocks of large corporations, 
it is found that the number of shares, or market value, of National Steel Corporation stock held by an indi- 
vidual was typically much larger than for other large issues. 



APPENDIX II 

TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP 
IN AMERICAN CORPORATIONS 



183 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



APPENDIX II 



TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN AMERICAN 

CORPORATIONS 

jfage 

I. Trends in the number of stockholders and shareholdings 186 

A. Trends in the number of stockholders 186 

B. Trends in the number of shareholdings 186 

1. 1900-37 187 

2. 1929-37 . 187 

(a) Trends in number of book shareholdings 187 

(b) Analysis of trends in number of book share- 

holdings 189 

(1) Odd-lot balances 190 

(2) Stock held in brokers' names 190 

(3) -Newly issued stock 192 

II. Trends in the distribution of ownership _ 194 

A. Implications of increase in number of stockholders and share- 

holdings 194 

B. Concentration of stock ownership 195 

C. Concentration of stock ownership in individual corporations. 197 
III. Previous estimates of the number of stockholders and shareholdings. 198 

A. Warshow's estimate of number of shareholdings 198 

B. Means' estimate of number of shareholdings 199 

C. Means' estimate of number of stockholders 200 

D. Twentieth Century Fund's estimate of number of stockholders 

ahd shareholdings : 200 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 

21. Annual change in number of book shareholdings, 1929-39 188 

LIST OF CHARTS 

Chart 

XXXVII. Number of book shareholdings in 50 common stocks and 27 

preferred stocks, New York Stock Exchange series, 1929-39. 189 
XXXVIII. Change in number of book shareholdings in 77 stocks and cus- 
tomers' odd-lot balance in all stocks listed on New York 

Stock Exchange (cumulative quarterly figures, 1929-39) 190 

185 



APPENDIX II 

TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP IN 
AMERICAN CORPORATIONS 

I. Trends in the Number of Stockholders and Shareholdings 

Appendix I has given a broad outline of the distribution of owner- 
ship at the end of 1937, an outline which is believed to be still valid 
in all important respects at the end of 1939. It is of some interest 
to compare this picture, even if only in a cursory manner, with the 
characteristics of the distribution of ownership in prior years and to 
indicate any trends which seem to have existed. Trends in the 
number of stockholders and shareholdings will be discussed in this 
section, while the possibility of changes in the degree of concentration 
of ownership will be explored in section II. 

A. TRENDS IN THE NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS 

No careful estimate of the number of stockholders of American 
corporations existed prior to 1927. Even the later estimates were 
necessarily very rough in view of the nature of the data available. 
At the end of 1927 the first detailed estimation of the number of 
stockholders pointed to the existence of from 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 
stockholders. 1 This indicates a substantial growth in the number of 
stockholders in the subsequent 10 years to about 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 
in 1937, almost all of which appeared to have taken place in the first 
half of the period. 

B. TRENDS IN THE NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

1. 1900-37. 

Though the first careful and apparently reasonably accurate esti- 
mate of the number of stockholders was made for the year 1927, there 
exist prior estimates of the number of shareholdings, the reliability 
of which is difficult to evaluate. 2 Thus it has been estimated that 
total shareholdings in American corporations numbered about 
4,400,000 in 1900, 14,400,000 in 1923, and 18,000,000 in 1928. 2 While 
these figures are subject to a wide margin of error, particularly the 
estimate for 1900, they undoubtedly reflect a considerable increase 
over the three decades. At the end of 1937 the number of share- 
holdings, it is estimated, was around 26, 000, 000, 3 the increase in the 

1 Sec. Ill for details. 

1 See sec. Ill infra, for details. As a result of an apparent upward bias in the manner of their derivation, 
these figures, originally estimated as the number of book shareholdings, are probably a closer approximation 
of the number of beneficial holdings. They have been used as such in this report without upward adjust- 
ment. 

1 For details of the estimate, see appendix I, p. 175. 

186 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 187 

preceding 10 years taking place largely in the first half of the period. 
The growth in the number of shareholdings over these 10 years can 
be followed in some detail from several series which have been 
compiled since the end of 1928. 

2. 1929-87. 

(a) Trends in number of book shareholdings. — There are three series 
on the number of book shareholdings which may be used to study 
the trend over the period 1929-37. The New York Stock Exchange 
has compiled, on a quarterly basis since the first quarter of 1929, the 
aggregate number of book shareholdings in 50 common stocks and 
27 preferred stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. These 
issues accounted for about one-third of the book shareholdings and 
shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange and for about one- 
sixth of all shareholdings in American corporations. Another series 
has been published annually by Forbes since the end of 1928, showing 
the combined number of common and preferred book shareholdings 
in a varying number of large companies ranging from over 100 to 
over 150. 4 This series, which includes some issues not traded on any 
exchange, covered on the average about one-third of all shareholdings, 
accounting for somewhat less than one-third at the beginning of the 
period and somewhat more than one- third at its end. A third series 
of the number of book shareholdings in about 217 companies was 
compiled by the New York Times for the years 1930-33; it covered 
the majority of corporations with 1,500,000 shares or over outstand- 
ing and included more than three-quarters of all shares listed on the 
New York Stock Exchange. 

The annual percentage change in the number of book shareholdings 
indicated by each of these series is shown in table 21. There is com- 
paratively little difference in the percentage changes between the New 
York Stock Exchange series and the New York Times series over the 
period 1930-33 for which both sets of data are available. Similarly, 
there is not much difference between either of these series and the 
Forbes series for the years subsequent to 1930. However, £or 1929 
the Forbes series indicates a much larger percentage increase in the 
number of book shareholdings over the entire year than does the New 
York Stock Exchange series for the last three-quarters of the year, 
while the Forbes series indicates a smaller percentage increase than 
either the New York Stock Exchange series or New York Times series 
for the year 1930. 5 

4 It is possible, however, to obtain a coherent series by considering only the number of book shareholdings 
in companies appearing in successive years and thus to derive a series of link relatives. 

5 A deficiency common to all three series is the fact that a constant number of companies are included in 
the comparison of successive years. The figures, therefore, do not reflect the changes in the number of 
book shareholdings resulting from the organization or the dissolution of companies (except insofar as they 
are reflected in mergers of other companies with those included in this series). The organization of new 
companies was particularly important in 1929, and to a lesser extent in 1930. In the discussion of the reasons 
for the changes in the number of book shareholdings, as indicated by the available series presented above, 
this factor will , however, be taken into consideration . 



Igg CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Table 21. — Annual change in number of book shareholdings, 1929-39 





New York Stock 
Exchange series ' 


New York Times 
series ' 


Forbes series ' 


Year 


Number of 
holdings at 
end of year 


Percent 

change 

during 

year 


Number of 
holdings at 
end of year 


Percent 

change 

during 

year 


Number of holdings 

at 2 


Percent 
change 




Beginning 
of year 


End of 
year 


during 
year 


1929 


2, 366, 000 
3, 014, 000 
3, 469, 000 
3, 823, 000 
3, 788, 000 
3,814,000 
3, 776, 000 
3, 738, 000 
3, 849, 000 
3,861,000 
3, 931, 000 


( 3 ) 

+27.4 

+ 15.1 

+10.2 

-.9 

+.7 

-1.0 

-1.0 

+3.0 

+2.9 

-.8 


6, 271, 000 
7, 964, 000 
9,119,000 
9,781,000 
9, 688, 000 


+27.0 

+14.5 

+7.3 

-1.0 

(<) 


4, 031, 000 
5, 966, 000 

7, 439, 000 

8, 447, 000 

9, 337, 000 
9, 350, 000 
8, 909, 000 
9,201,000 
9,001,000 
9, 325, 000 


5, 896, 000 
7,211,000 
8, 427, 000 
9, 010, 000 
9, 407, 000 
9, 348, 000 
8,746,000' 
9, 005, 000 
9, 323, 000 
9,414,000 


+46.3 
+20.9 
+13.3 

+6.7 


1930 

1931 

1932 


1933 


+ 7 


1934_.._ 


— 


1935 




— 1 8 


1936 






—2 1 


1937 






+3.6 


1938 






+.9 


1939 






(5) 

















1 See text for coverage. 

2 The disparity between the number of shareholdings at the end of a given year and the beginning of the 
following year is due to a difference in the companies included. 

3 Data available for comparison with end of first quarter only. This series indicated a 21 percent increase 
over the last 9 months of the year. 

* Data not available after 1933. 
6 Data not yet available. 

Making allowance for these differences, it appears possible to use 
these series to represent the trend in the number of book share- 
holdings of all large corporations. Comparable information is not 
available for the smaller corporations, but it is unlikely that their 
inclusion would affect very much the trend indicated as these smaller 
corporations account for less than one-fifth of all shareholdings. 
(See appendix I, p. 175.) It may be expected, however, that per- 
centage changes in the number of book shareholdings of small cor- 
porations were considerably smaller than those in large corporations. 

The number of book shareholdings in the 50 common stocks and 27 
preferred stocks comprising the New York Stock Exchange series is 
shown graphically on chart XXXVII on a quarterly basis for the 
period 1929-39. The most striking aspects of the chart are the steady 
and substantial growth in the number of book shareholdings of com- 
mon stock from 1929 to 1932 and the relatively small fluctuations 
from 1933 to 1939. For preferred stock, the fluctuations in the 
number of book shareholdings were very much smaller than for 
common stock and did not indicate any distinct trend. The New 
York Times and the Forbes series, combining both common and pre- 
ferred stock on an annual basis, show pretty much the same picture 
as the New York Stock Exchange series. Thus it appears that 
almost all of the increase in the number of book shareholdings in 
American corporations from the end of 1928 to the end of 1937 took 
place prior to the end of 1932. Over the 1929-37 period as a whole 
these series indicate a growth of about 100 percent in the number of 
oook shareholdings. This is more than twice the percentage increase 
indicated by the estimates of total shareholdings in all American 
corporations at the end of 1928 and 1937. Part of the difference is 
probably attributable to the fact that the large companies comprising 
these series experienced greater proportionate increases in the number 
of shareholdings than the smaller companies which were not included. 
The remainder of the discrepancy may well be due to errors in the 



( n.WKXTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



189 



overall estimates of the number of shareholdings at the end of 1928 
and 1937, primarily too high an estimate for 1928. Some of the 
reasons for the sharp increase in the number of shareholdings will be 
discussed in the following section. 

(b) Analysis of trends in number of book shareholdings. — Trends in 
the number of book shareholdings are significant from the point of 

Chart XXXVII 



IN 5 



LSINQS 

COMMON STOCK 

[IN ?:••:: us ands) 



MMRER OF ROOK SHAREHOLDINGS 
COMMON STOCKS AND 27 PREFERRED STOCKS 
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE SERIES 
1929-1939 



4 coo 
















































3000 


» v 


1 


/- — 7 


/ 










""7'"' 


----" 


— — -> 

\ 




/ 




PR 


:ferbe 


D STOC 


.^ 


/ 










/ 


OMMON 


STOCK 














2 000 
























1000 
























0. 

























SHAREHOLDINGS 

PREFERRED STOCK 

(IN T HOUSANDS ) 

400 



iese so 



view of diffusion of ownership only insofar as they reflect changes in 
beneficial holdings and not simply changes in record holdings, as, for 
example, are involved in the transfer of stock from a nominee holder 
(such as a broker) to the beneficial owner. Consequently, it is of 
primary importance to obtain some idea of the extent to which the 
trends indicated in chart XXXVII are attributable to changes in the 



190 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



true diffusion of stock ownership, reflecting either changes in the 
number of actual stockholders or changes in the diversification of 
holdings among a constant number of stockholders, as contrasted to 
other more or less mechanical factors. There are three sets of figures 
which cast some light on this subject: (1) Odd-lot customers' balances 
on the New York Stock Exchange; (2) data on changes in the propor- 
tion of shares held in brokers' names for a few large corporations listed 
on the New York Stock Exchange; (3) and data on newly-issued 
stock. 

(1) Odd-lot balances: Chart XXXVIII shows a pronounced 
parallelism between the movements in the number of book share- 

Chakt XXXVIII 

CHANGE IN NUMBER OF ROOK SHAREHOLDINGS IN 7 7 STOCK S-i' AND 

CUSTOMERS' ODD-LOT BALANCE IN ALL STOCKS LISTED ON NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE 

(Cumulative Quarterly Figures, 1929-1939) 




REFERRED STOCKS INCLUDED 



NEW TORK STOCK E1CHAK0E 



holdings in the 77 issues covered by the New York Stock Exchange 
series and the odd-lot customer balances in all common and preferred 
stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange. 6 However, though 
it is believed that the odd-lot purchase balance on the New York 
Stock Exchange was an important factor in the increase in the number 
of shareholdings over the period, and though there is much corrobora- 
tive evidence for the belief, it is not possible to determine the quantita- 
tive importance of this factor with any degree of accuracy. 

No data are available for directly testing the possibility that, in 
addition to the shifting of holdings from round-lot holders to odd-lot 
holders, changes in the diffusion of holdings may also have been 
affected by shifts in beneficial holdings within the group of round-lot 
holders. 

(2) Stock held in brokers' names: It is possible, on the other hand, 
to segregate a second important factor affecting the trend in the num- 

» On the New York Stock Exchange, any transaction involving less than 100 shares, with certain minor 
exceptions, is termed an odd-lot transaction. Odd-lot balances, covering about 98 percent of all odd-lot 
transactions, were obtained from data supplied to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER ^91 

ber of book shareholdings in stocks listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange, namely changes in the amount of stock held in brokers, 
names. 

The types of transactions reflected in such changes are: (a) the 
transfer by the beneficial owner to his own name of stock held in the 
name of a broker, or "street name"; (6) the transfer by the beneficial 
owner of stock held in his own name, to the name of a broker; (c) the 
transfer of stock by one beneficial owner who held the stock in his 
own name to another beneficial owner whose stock was held in the 
name of a broker; and (d) the transfer of stock by one beneficial owner 
whose stock was held in the name of a broker to another beneficial 
owner who held the stock in his own name. 7 The first two types of 
transactions result in changes in record holdings without corresponding 
changes in beneficial holdings and do not affect the number of bene- 
ficial shareholdings or the diffusion of stock-ownership. The second 
two types of transactions, on the other hand, may affect the number 
of beneficial shareholdings, but only if the stock transferred to or from 
"street name" represents the entire holding in that stock of either the 
purchaser or the seller, but not of both, and only to the extent that 
there is a difference between the number of instances in which the 
purchaser buys stock which he did not hold previously from a seller 
who liquidates only part of his holdings in that stock and those in which 
a purchaser buys stock some of which he already holds from a seller 
who liquidates all of his holdings in that stock. 

Data obtained from the Pecora hearings 8 for 11 large common 
stock issues listed on the New York Stock Exchange 9 indicate that, 
as of July 1, 1933, 13.0 percent of the common shares of these com- 
panies were held in brokers' names contrasted to 23.7 percent on July 
1, 1929. 10 Since the number of shares outstanding in these issues 
increased only slightly over this period, it appears that close to 10 
percent of the outstanding shares held in brokers' names on July 1, 
1929, were no longer so held on July 1, 1933. Assuming that approxi- 
mately the same relationsliip characterized all stocks listed on the 
New York Stock Exchange throughout this period, it is estimated that 
for all stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange as of both dates " 
almost 100,000,000 fewer shares were held in brokers' names on July 1, 
1933, than on July 1, 1929. From July 1, 1933, to the end of 1937, 
there appears to have been a reversal of trend, with an estimated in- 
crease of close to 30,000,000 shares in the names of brokers over the 
period. 12 Changes during the years 1938 and 1939 are believed to 
have been of minor proportions. 

: Changes in the number of shareholdings registered in the names of brokers may also reflect transfer of 
stock from one broker to another, but such transfer should have little effect on the number of book share- 
holdings. 

8 Hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, 73d Cong., 2d sess., 
on Stock Exchange Practices, Part 17, pp. 7934-7936. No data were given for preferred stock, but this is 
not a significant omission. 

9 American Telephone & Telegraph Co.; Anaconda Copper Mining Co.; Chrysler Corporation; General 
Motors Corporation; International Nickel, Ltd.; International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation; 
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.; Radio Corporation of America; United Corporation; United States Steel 
Corporation; and F. W. Woolworth Co. 

to These arc w< i-jhted means; the corresponding medians are 26.4 percent in 1929 and 16.7 percent in 1933. 

" It is believed that there is not much difference in this respect between the middle of 1929 and 1933 and the 
beginning of 1929 and 1933. This is corroborated by the only material available for such a comparison, 
quarterly data for the common stock of United States Steel Corporation. 

■ ' At the '-nil (if 1937, 12.2 percent of the voting shares of stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange 
were registered in the names of members and member linns of the New York Stock Exchange. (See ap- 
pendix I, p. 171 I The holdings of all brokers and dealers, including those not members of the New York 
Exchange, represented 14.6 percent of the common shares outstanding in 29 large widely-held common 
stocks. (Ibid). Data were available for 10 of these 29 companies both as of July 1, 1933, and DecembeTin; 
1937. For these companies, 11.9 percent of the common shares were held in brokers' names at July 1, 1933, 
contrasted to 14.9 percent at December 31, 1937. 

268445— 41— No. 29 14 



292 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

If the average number of shares involved in each transfer of stock 
out of brokers' names amounted to 200 shares, the average size of 
beneficial ownership of shares held in brokers' names estimated for 
the end of 1937 (see appendix I, pp. 171-2), such transfers from 1929 
to 1933 would in the aggregate have increased the number of book 
shareholdings by about 500,000. The average number of shares 
involved in such transfers, however, was probably smaller than the 
average size of beneficial holdings. If it were as small as 1 00 shares, the 
resulting increase in the number of book shareholdings from 1929 to 
1933 would have been as high as 1,000, 000. 13 Taking the midpoint 
between these figures, the increase in the number of book shareholdings 
from 1929 to 1933 arising from transfer of stock out of brokers' names 
may be estimated at around 750,000. From 1933 to 1937 the transfer 
of stock back to brokers' names seems to have resulted in a decrease 
of from 200,000 to 250,000 book shareholdings so that the net change 
from 1929 to 1937 was an increase of not much over 500,000 book 
shareholdings. However, only part of this increase represented 
changes in the number of book shareholdings without corresponding 
changes in the number of beneficial shareholdings. (See p. 168-9.) 
Consequently, only a very small part — probably much less than one- 
tenth — of the increase in the number of book shareholdings from 1929 
to 1937 or to 1939 appears to reflect the purely technical changes in 
the number of record holdings of stocks listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange throughout this period without corresponding changes in 
the number of beneficial holdings. 14 

(3) Newly issued stock: Thus far two factors effecting an increase 
in the number of book shareholdings from 1929 to 1937 have been 
considered. It has been suggested that a considerable part of this 
increase is attributable to odd-lot transactions on the New York 
Stock Exchange representing a real diffusion of ownership, while only 
a small portion of the increase seems to reflect the purely mechanical 
factor of transfer of stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange out 
of brokers' names. To a minor extent, the remainder of the increase 
in the number of book shareholdings may reflect odd-lot net purchases 
off the New York Stock Exchange an/1 changes in brokerage holdings 
of stocks not listed on the New York Stock Exchange. However, 
increasing diffusion of ownership among round-lot holders of stock 
outstanding at the beginning of the period and the acquisition of 
newly issued stock by persons not previously holding such stock 
would appear to be potentially more important factors. 15 

The importance of the acquisition of newly issued stock by persons 
not previously holding such stock can be roughly estimated from 
available data. According to The Commercial and Financial 
Chronicle $9,000,000,000 of new corporate equity securities was sold 
from the end of 1928 to the end of 1937, two-thirds of which was sold 
in 1929 and most of the remainder in 1930. Though these figures 

u The average size of a round-lot transaction, based on daily transactions of 5 commission houses over a 
period of 30 months during 1936, 1937, and 1938. appears to have been close to 150 shares. (The round-lot 
commission business of these houses represented about 15 percent of the aggregate round-lot volume on the 
Exchange.) . , 

!'»•'■ This result may be contrasted with the conclusions drawn in an article on "The Increase in the Number 
of Stockholders in American Corporations Since 1929" by Lewis A. Froman (Journal of Political Economy, 
December 1934, p. 783) who terms this purely technical factor "the most important reason for the increase in 
the number of stockholders in American corporations since 1929." (Id., p. 787.) 

n The newly issued stock could have been acquired through round-lot purchases or odd-lot purchases. 
A small part of the increase in the number of book shareholdings attending the issuance of new stock may 
therefore, already have been reflected in the odd-lot balance on the New York Stock Exchange. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 193 

do not constitute complete coverage, they are supposed to represent 
a very high proportion of all corporate stock offered to the public. 
Data given in the "New York Stock Exchange Bulletin" indicate that 
$3,500,000,000 of this amount, representing 85,000,000 shares, accrued 
to listed companies as a result of issuing new shares through offerings 
by means of rights. The great majority of such shares were probably 
purchased by the stockholders to whom they were offered so that 
their issuance would not considerably increase the number of book 
shareholdings. It is not known how many book shareholdings were 
represented by the remaining $5,500,000,000 of corporate stock offered 
to the public, but it is possible to make a rough estimate. 

At the end of 1937 the market value of the average shareholding in 
a group of 1,700 corporations with securities listed on a national 
securities exchange was about $3,000. (See ch. II, p. 15.) In 1929 
and 1930, the 2 years during which most of the corporate public stock 
offerings took place, the market value of the average shareholding in 
these corporations would be expected to have been considerably 
higher, due primarily to the higher level of stock prices. However, 
the average market value of newly acquired shareholdings in these 
years was probably considerably lower than the average market value 
of shareholdings already in existence in corporations with securities 
listed on an exchange. This is particularly true of newly issued 
investment company stocks which constituted a substantial part of 
the offerings in 1929 and 1930. 16 For these reasons the average 
amount paid for newly acquired shareholdings over the period is 
estimated at not much over $3,000. On this basis the $5,500,000,000 
of corporate public stock offerings probably represented from 1,500,000 
to 2,000,000 book shareholdings. Some of this newly issued stock 
was undoubtedly purchased by stockholders by means of rights so 
that the issuance of $5,500,000,000 of corporate,<stock issues probably 
resulted in an increase of less than 1.500,000 to 2.000,000 in the num- 
ber of book shareholdings. However, since the most important 
offerings by means of rights, viz, offerings of stocks listed on the New 
York Stock Exchange, have been excluded, it seems probable that an 
increase of nearly 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 book shareholdings can be 
ascribed to the issuance of new stock. 17 

The above is admittedly a very rough estimate. However, it does 
indicate that only a relatively small portion (probably less than one- 
fourth) of the increase in the number of book shareholdings from the 
end of 1928 to the end of 1937 (or 1939) was attributable to the 
acquisition of newly issued stock by persons not previously holding 
such stock. Since it has previously been indicated that an even 
smaller portion of the increase resulted from the purely mechanical 
factor of transfer of stock out of brokers' names, it appears that the 
most important reason for the increase in the number of book share- 
holdings over this period was an increasing diffusion of ownership of 
stock in the direction of smaller owners, partly reflected in the odd- 
lot purchase balance. 

For a group of 66 management investment companies, the market value of the average shareholding 
at the end of 1929, shortly after the issues of most of these companies were offered, was somewhat over $3,000. 
(Securities and Exchange Commission report on Investment Trusts and Investment Companies, Part 
Two, pp. 381-382.) 

'" A small part of this increase, of course, may already have been reflected in the odd-lot balance on the 
Xcw York Stock Exchange. 



194 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

II. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP 

The preceding discussion of trends in the number of stockholders 
and shareholdings during the 10 years from the end of 1927 to the 
end of 1937 has indicated a substantial growth from four to six million 
stockholders and roughly 18,000,000 shareholdings in 1927, 18 the first 
year for which; a relatively reliable estimate of the number of stock- 
holders is available, to eight to nine million stockholders and about 
26,000,000 shareholdings at the end of 1937. Most of the increase 
appears to have taken place in the first part of the period. It has 
yet to be determined whether accompanying this increase in the 
number of stockholders and shareholdings there have been any 
marked changes in the concentration of ownership of American 
corporations. 

A. IMPLICATIONS OF INCREASE IN NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS AND 

SHAREHOLDINGS 

The growth in the number of stockholders seems to have been pro- 
portionately much greater than the increase in new equity capital. 19 
Thus it appears that the proportion of total equity in all American 
corporations held by the average individual stockholder was smaller 
at the end of 1937 than at the end of 1927. This decline probably 
resulted in large part from a shift in ownership of part of the stock 
outstanding at the beginning of the period from the hands of a rela- 
tively small number of stockholders to a large number of stockholders, 
each holding on the average a smaller proportion of the total stock 
capitalization. To a lesser extent the decline may be attributed to 
the absorption, through public offerings, of newly issued shares by 
persons not previously owning stock. 

The sharp increase in the number of stockholders over the period 
1928-37 has, of course, been accompanied by a rise in the number of 
shareholdings. However, an increase in the number of shareholdings 
may reflect not only an increase in the number of stockholders but 
also the absorption of newly-issued securities by persons already 
owning stocks or a greater diversification of their holdings of out- 
standing stock. For the period 1928-37, the most important reason 
for the increase in the number of shareholdings seems to have been the 
purchase of shares by persons not previously owning stock. There 
is some evidence of a slightly smaller average number of shareholdings 
per individual at the end of the period than at the beginning, possibly 
occasioned by the shift of ownership in the direction of the new 
smaller owners, but the data are not conclusive. 

is The number of shareholdings at the end of 1927 was probably not much smaller than at the end of 1928, 
for which it was estimated at 18,000,000 by Gardiner C Means (sec. III). Mr. Means uses his estimate 
for the end of 1928 to cover the end of 1927 also: The Twentieth Century Fund, on the other hand, uses a 
somewhat smaller estimate of 17,000,000 for the end of 1927. 

' '» The increase in the number of stockholders was probably between 65 and 75 percent. (It may possibly 
have been as low as one-third or, at the other extreme, larger than 100 percent.) In contrast, the $12,000,- 
000 000 of corporate stock publicly offered over this period (The Commercial and Financial Chronicle) 
represented a much smaller proportion of the total equity of American corporations. This amount, nine- 
tenths of which was offered in the period from 1928-30, mostly in 1929, constituted less than one-fourth of 
the market value of stocks outstanding on the New York Stock Exchange alone at the beginning of 1928 
and less than one-fifth of the market value of stocks outstanding on the New York Stock Exchange at the 
beginning of 1929 (New York Stock Exchange Year Book, 1940, p. 51). Obviously, corporate stock offer- 
ings accounted for a substantially smaller proportion of the market value of all stock outstanding in Ameri- 
can corporations than they did of stock outstanding on the New York Stock Exchange alone. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER \ 95 

B. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP 

There is, then, evidence of a wider diffusion of ownership in Ameri- 
can corporations at the end of 1937 than at the end of 1927, both in 
the larger number of stockholders and the smaller proportion of the 
total equity in American corporations owned by the average stock- 
holder. Further evidence pointing in this direction is provided by 
the substantial purchase balance in odd-lot transactions on the New 
York Stock Exchange from the end of 1927 to the end of 1937. The 
question naturally arises whether this constitutes a significant or 
important diminution over the period in the degree of concentration 
of stock ownership in the hands of a few persons, in spite of the fact 
that a very high degree of concentration has previously been shown 
to have existed even at the end of 1937. Data on the distribution 
of dividend income from 1927 to 1937 would seem to furnish the 
simplest means of investigating this problem. Unfortunately the 
data available, viz, information tabulated from income tax returns, 
are not on a strictly comparable basis throughout this period. In 
particular, an important element of noncomparability between 1936 
and 1937 and earlier years is introduced by the different treatment 
of dividends received through fiduciaries and partnerships. Never- 
theless, it is still possible to use these data to obtain a rough idea of 
changes in the concentration of dividend income over the period from 
1927 to 1937. 

For each of the years from 1927 through 1935 the amount of cash 
dividends received by domestic individuals was approximated by 
subtracting from total cash dividends paid by corporations dividends 
received by corporations ^ and estimated dividends received by 
foreigners and institutions. 21 The dividends reported on income tax 
returns by the largest individual dividend recipients 22 were then 
expressed as percentages of this amount. In 1937 it was necessary 
to resort to a few modifications of this procedure. Whereas in the 
years 1927 through 1935 dividend income received by a fiduciary and 
passed on to the beneficiary was classified as dividend income on the 
income tax return of the beneficiary, such income was classified as 
fiduciary income in 1937. 23 Consequently dividends received by 
nontaxable fiduciaries 24 were deducted from the amount of cash 
dividends received by domestic individuals in 1937, and dividends 
reported on income tax returns by the largest individual dividend 
recipients were expressed as percentages of this residual amount. 25 
This results in a satisfactory adjustment for dividends received 
through nontaxable fiduciaries only on the assumption that such 
dividends were distributed among dividend recipients in the same 
proportion as reported dividend income. Furthermore, it is not pos- 
sible to make any adjustment for dividends received through taxable 
fiduciaries, which were included in the total amount of dividends 
received by individuals in 1937 but were not reflected in the dividend? 

,c Statistics of Income for 1927, p. 312, and comparable tables for subsequent years. 
81 Both rough estimates but possible error small. 

88 Statistics of Income for 1927, p. 10, and comparable tables for subsequent years. 

''• This was also true of dividend income received by partnerships, which, however, is believed to be a 
negligible factor. 
'' Statistics of Income for 1937, pp. 173 and 176. 
'•'■ Throughout the period, taxable fiduciaries were necessarily treated in the same manner as individuals. 



196 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



reported by the largest individual dividend recipients. It cannot be 
ascertained precisely to what extent the percentages indicating the 
concentration of dividend income in 1937 are affected by the treat- 
ment of dividends received through fiduciaries, but the effect is prob- 
ably a small understatement of the degree of concentration of dividend 
income in 1937 as contrasted to prior years. Also in 1935 and 1937, 
unlike earlier years, it was necessary to estimate the amount of 
dividends received in the various dividend income classes, 26 but again 
the possible error resulting from this approximation is quite small. 

The following table shows that though there is some evidence of a 
sxnaller degree of concentration of stock ownership in the hands of a 
few persons at the end of the period than at the beginning, the differ- 
ence is not very substantial. Furthermore, there is no suggestion 
of a continued trend in this direction, as the only indication of diminu- 
tion in the concentration of stock ownership appears in the first part 
of the period and there is even some evidence of a slight reversal of 
this tendency in the second part. 27 



Largest individual dividend recipients reporting on income tax 
returns 



Largest 1,000.. 
Largest 25,000. 
Largest 100,000 



Percentage of all cash dividends 
received by domestic individuals 



1927 



12.5 
43.5 
66.0 



11.7 
39.5 
59.4 



12.7 
39.1 

56.5 



13.1 
42.2 

58.0 



13.0 
41.2 
00.0 



10. 4 
37. 6 



The same results are presented somewhat differently below in 
another table which shows for each year the number of stockholders 
and the proportion of the population of the United States necessary 
to account for one-half of the total cash dividends received by domestic 
individuals. 





1927 


1929 


1931 


1933 


1935 


1937 


Percent of population... 


38,000 

0. 032 


51,300 

0. 042 


59, 500 

0. (lis 


45, 000 
0. 036 


47, 000 
0.037 


01,000 

0.047 



It is not impossible that the apparent shift in corporate ownership 
indicated by income tax data may simply reflect differences in report- 
ing on income tax returns, tax evasion devices, or other mechanical 
factors. However, in conjunction with the smaller average propor- 
tion of the total capitalization of American corporations held by indi- 
viduals at the end of the period, and the substantial purchase balance 
of odd-lot transactions on the New York Stock Exchange over 1 this 
period, these data do appear to indicate a somewhat wider diffusion 
of ownership in 1937 than a decade earlier. 

Very little is known about changes in the distribution of ownership 
of corporate stock for earlier periods. Prior studies, based on divi- 
dends received by individuals in different net income classes as 
reported in Federal income tax data, suggest that there was a consider- 

28 See appendix I, note 2, p. 149. 

27 The apparent decrease in the concentration of dividend income from the end of 1935 to the end of 1937 is 
partly, and mav be entirely, due to such changes in reporting methods as could not be adjusted for. How- 
ever, 'it may be noted that 'the direction of the change is in accord with the substantial purchase balance in 
odd-lot transactions on the New York Stock Exchange from 1935 through 1937. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 1Q7 

able shift in corporate ownership from larger to smaller stockholders 
during the period 1916 to 1921, with little change in the subsequent 
years up to 1927. 28 

C. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP IN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS 

It is possible to investigate in a summary fashion changes in the 
distribution of ownership from the end of 1927 to the end of 1937 in 43 
of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations studied in this report, 
insofar as such changes are reflected in the total number of share- 
holdings and shares outstanding. 29 No data, however, are available 
on changes, if any, in the size distribution of shareholdings in more 
than a very few corporations. 30 

The number of book shareholdings in these 43 corporations rose 
from 1,491,000 at the end of 1927 to 2,819,000 at the end of 1937, an 
increase of 89 percent. The relative change in the number of share- 
holdings varied greatly among individual companies. Six companies 
showed small losses in the number of shareholdings. At the other 
extreme, the number of shareholdings more than quadrupled in 
7 companies. However, the companies as a whole reported, rather 
uniformly, substantial increases in the number of shareholdings 
with a median increase of 82 percent. 31 The fact that these companies 
show a higher percentage increase than the estimated increase of 
about 50 percent in shareholdings of all corporations over this period 
is not surprising, in view of the nonrandom selection of this sample 
which was based on the largest companies at the end of 1937. 32 

Accompanying the aggregate increase of 89 percent in the number 
of shareholdings in the 43 corporations there was a considerably 
smaller rise of 67 percent in the number of shares outstanding. The 
median increase in the number of shareholdings was 82 percent com- 
pared to a median increase of 42 percent in the number of shares 
outstanding. The smaller increase in the number of shares out- 
standing compared to the number of shareholdings characterized 32 
of the 43 companies. Consequently it appears that each share- 
holding in 1937 represented on the average a smaller proportion of 
the total capitalization of the average company than it did in 1927, 
a result in conformity with the findings of sections A and B. This 
conclusion is strengthened by the fact that many of the increases in 
the number of shares outstanding represent mechanical changes, such 

■■ II T. Warshow in The Distribution of Corporate Ownership in the United States covered the years 
1916-22 while Gardiner O. Menns In The Diffusion of Stock Ownership extended this study to the end of 
1927. 

28 American Telephone & Telegraph Co.; Atchison, Topeka <fe Santa Fe Railway Co.; Atlantic Refining 
Co.; Brooklyn Union Gas Co.; Cudahy Packing Co.; Delaware & Hudson Co.; Delaware, Lackawanna & 
u tern Railn id Co.; Detroit Edison Co.; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Eastman Kodak Co.; General 
Motors Corporation; Goodyear Tire <t Rubber Co.; Gulf Oil Corporation; Illinois Central Railroad Co.; 
International Business Machines Corporation; International Shoe Co.; International Telephone & Tele- 
graph Co.; Kennecott Copper Co.; S. S. Kresgc Co.; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.; National Lead Co.; 
New York Central Railroad Co.; Ohio Oil Co.; Pacific Lighting Co.; Paramount Pictures Inc.; Peoples 
Gas, Light & Coke Co.; Phillips Petroleum Co.; Pittsburgh Plate (Mass Co.; Pullman Inc.; Socony-Vacuum 
Oil Co., Inc.; Southern Pacific Co.; Standard Oil Co. of California; Standard Oil Co, (N. J.); Texas Cor- 
poration: I'nion Carbide & Carbon Corporation; Union Oil Co. of California; Union Pacific Railroad Co 
United States Steel Corporation; United states Rubber Co.; United states Smelting. Refining A: Mining 
Co.; Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.; Wheeling Steel Corporation; and F W. Woolworth 
Co, I he data were obtained from Moody's Manual of Investments for the end of 1927 and from question- 
- filled out by the companies for the end of 1937. 

Notably the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. See "Report of Ownership of the American 
Ti lephone .V Telegraph Co.," Federal Communications Commission, June 8, 1936. pp. 32-33. 

31 There were considerable differences among industry groups with respect to changes in the number of 
shareholdings: railroads experienced either actual losses in shareholdings or very small gains; while there 
were large increases in the Dumber of shareholdings in certain industrial groups. 

■ It may be noted that the increase in the number of book shareholdings in these corporations is rather 
to the increase of about 100 percent in the number of book shareholdings indicated by .the series dis- 
cussed supra, pp. 187-8. which were also based on large companies. 



198 CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 

as split-ups and stock dividends. The increase in contributed capital 
of the 43 companies over the period 1927-37, therefore, is even smaller 
proportionately compared to the rise in the number of shareholdings 
than the above figures indicate. 

III. Previous Estimates of the Number of Stockholders and 

Shareholdings 

A discussion of previous estimates of the number of stockholders 
and shareholdings is of interest for two reasons: first, to study the 
reliability of the various approaches; and second, to obtain a rough 
idea of the number of stockholders and shareholdings in other periods 
for comparative purposes. Only four such attempts will be con- 
sidered m any detail as they appear to be the most comprehensive 
of the estimates examined, and since in addition they are probably 
the best known and most widely quoted. 

A. WARSHOW'S ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

The first known attempt at a comprehensive statistical estimate 
of the number of shareholdings in American corporations was made 
by H. T. Warshow in 1924, and the results published in the November 
1924 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. This study, 
which also covers various other aspects of the distribution of corporate 
ownership, indicates that the number of book shareholdings increased 
from 4,400,000 in 1900 to approximately 14,400,000 in 1923. The 
estimate for 1923 was obtained by dividing the sum of the par value 
of the total capital stock of all corporations filing a capital stock tax 
return for the year 1922 33 (plus new capital issues for the year 1923 
given in the Commercial and Financial Chronicle) by the average 
par value of the investment per shareholding for a group of 66 large 
companies obtained by direct correspondence or from published 
statements. For 1900 (and for 1910, 1913, 1917, and 1920 for which 
estimates were also made) the average par value of the investment 
per shareholding was obtained in the same manner and from almost 
the identical corporations. Since the total par value of the capital 
stock of all corporations was not directly available as in 1923, a rough 
estimate was made by subtracting from the total par value in 1922 the 
issues of new capital stock from 1919 to 1922, given in the Commercial 
and Financial Chronicle, and the new listings on the New York Stock 
Exchange from 1900 to 1918. 

The estimates of the number of book shareholdings for all the years, 
from 1900 through 1923, would seem to be too high, since the average 
par value per shareholding in the companies used in the sample was 
probably smaller than in the average corporation. 34 The upward bias 
in the estimates is even greater for the years prior to 1919 as a result 
of overestimating the value of all capital stock, which was derived 
for those years by deducting from the total par value of all capital 

33 This figure was assumed to represent the total capital stock of all the corporations in the United States 
for that year. 

3< Even apart from this bias, the assumption that the average par value of holdings tended to remain 
relatively stable from one corporation to another is onen to question. Such an assumption would be even 
more dangerous in later, years. However, quite different basic figures compiled by the Federal Trade 
Commission for 1922 (National Wealth and Income, pp. 145, 146, and 213) giving the average par value per 
shareholding by industries for a sample of 4,367 representative corporations suggest that the result obtained 
by H. T. Warshow for 1923 is relatively accurate. See Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation and 
Private Property, pp. 66 and 57. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER \ 99 

stock in 1922 the listings on the New York Stock Exchange for the 
intervening years. These listings were probably an understatement 
of the actual new issues of capital stock.'"' In spite of these deficien- 
cies, it is probably true, as stated by the author, that the resulting 
estimates "give a fairly trustworthy picture of actual tendencies." 

No distinction was drawn, in arriving at these figures, between the 
number of book shareholdings, or record shareholdings, and the 
number of beneficial shareholdings. From National Wealth and 
Income it appears that in 1922 brokers accounted for 1.7 percent 
of the number of book shareholdings in common stock of corporations 
in general, representing 11.9 percent of the common stock outstanding; 
and 1.4 percent of the book shareholdings in preferred stock, repre- 
senting 8.7 percent of the preferred stock outstanding. Comparable 
figures for banks are not available. No attempt has been made to 
adjust Mr. Warshow's estimate for 1923 on this basis, in view of the 
range of probable error in the figures he ob tamed, and since his 
estimates appear already to have an upward bias. 

b. means' estimate of number of shareholdings 

The results of a second comprehensive attempt to estimate the 
number of stockholdings in American corporations, made by Gardiner 
C. Means as part of a detailed analysis of diffusion of stock ownership 
in the United States, was published in the August 1930 issue of the 
Quarterly Journal of Economics. In tins study, the estimates made 
for earlier years, i. e., 1900 to 1923, by H. T. Warshow were extended 
to cover the year 1928 and supplemented bv other relevant data. 
This estimate for 1928, indicating that the™ were 18,000,000 book 
shareholdings in that year, was obtained as before by dividing the 
estimated capital stock of all corporations by the average holding per 
stockholder in the sample companies. It is subject to the same 
typo of error, i. e., an apparent upward bias, that characterized Mr. 
Warshow's estimate for the year 1923. However, this approach must 
be regarded as even less reliable for the year 1928 than for the earlier 
years in view of the much greater prevalence of no-par stock and the 
fact that the implicit assumption of the relative stability of the aver- 
age par values of holdings from one corporation to another is more 
than ever open to question. Mr. Means qualified his estimate in the 
same manner that Mr. Warshow did but did not point out the probable 
upward bias in the figure obtained for 1928. The validity of the 
estimate for 1928 was rather well summarized by Mr. Means: "The 
figure obtained is comparable to those of Mr. Warshow, but it is in 
no sense the author's estimate of the number of book stockholders in 
that year. It is an additional figure in an index of growth and can be 
construed as only the most approximate measure of book stockholders." 

In this study by Mr. Means, as in that of Mr. Warshow, no refer- 
ence was made to the difference between record shareholdings and 
beneficial shareholdings. Though no data on nominee holdings are 
available for the end of 1928, data obtained from the Pecora hearings 36 

35 Both typos of error were mentioned by the author. However, it appears that he erroneously considered 
the two types of bias compensating in character. Thus he asserts "An element that offsets tho upward 
weighting for the earlier years is the method of adjusting the capital stock by deducting the listings on the 
New York Stock Exchange." 

» Hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency, U. S. Senate, 73d Cong., 2d sess., on Stock 
Exchange Practices, pt. 17, pp. 7931-7936. 



200 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

for a group of 30 large corporations show that on July 1, 1929, 31 
percent of the common stock of the companies was held in the names 
of brokers. Again no comparable data are available for banks. No 
adjustment for this factor has been made in Mr. Means' estimate 
for 1928 in view of the magnitude of the range of error, the apparent 
upward bias already present in the estimate, and the fact that the 30 
companies for which some information on brokerage holdings is avail- 
able most likely have a much higher proportion of these shares held in 
brokers' names than all corporations. 

c. means' estimate of number of stockholders 

The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means, 
published in. 1932, contains the first careful and apparently reasonably 
accurate estimate of the number of actual stockholders. In this study 
it was estimated, on the basis of data appearing in Statistics of Income, 
that the total number of stockholders in the country at the end of 1927 
was between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000. The method of approach was 
not unlike that described in. appendix I (p. 150), for 1937, 37 but there 
are certain, differences largely reflecting the smaller amount of data 
available in. 1927. No information was available for years prior to 
1937 on the number of individuals with incomes less than $5,000 report- 
ing receipt of dividends on their Federal income tax returns, and there 
were practically rto data on the average amount of dividends received 
by persons in income classes under $5,000. In addition, though the 
necessary data were available, no adjustment was made in the 1927 
estimate for dividends received by nonprofit institutions which prob- 
ably amounted to close to $50,000,000. Notwithstanding these and 
other differences the probable range of 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 as 
ascribed by Berle and Means to the number of persons owning stock 
in 1927 seems reasonably accurate, though there was no independent 
check on the estimate (as provided, for example, by section II, D, 
p. 166, of appendix I for 1937). Assuming that these limits are reason- 
able and that, as estimated by Mr. Means, the number of book share- 
holdings was in. the vicinity of 18,000,000, 38 the average individual 
stockholder held shares in three to four and one-half different issues 
in 1927. 39 

D. TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND'S ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF STOCKHOLD- 
ERS AND SHAREHOLDINGS 

A later comprehensive study of the distribution of ownership of 
stocks in the United States was made by N. R. Danielian, in collabora- 
tion with M. J. Fields and Aaron Goldstein, for the Twentieth Century 
Fund and published in 1935 in The Security Markets. 40 This was ap- 
parently the first attempt made to obtain an estimate of the actual 
number of stockholders for a scries of years. Estimates of the actual 
number of stockholders for each of the years 1927 to 1930, ranging 
from 5,000,000-6,000,000 in 1927 to 9,000,000-11,000,000 in 1930, 
were based on Federal income tax data. The method of approach was 

37 This approach, consequently, is subject to all the limitations discussed in appendix I. p. 150 et serj. 
3 - Mr. Means uses his estimate for the end of 1928 to cover the end of 1927 also (see note 19). 

38 Though 1927 was the only year for which an independent estimate was made by these authors, they 
stated their belief that in 1929 the outside limits of the number of persons owning stock wo.ild be 4,000,000 
and 7,000.000. 

19 The Security Markets, pp. 35-62 and 723-737. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 201 

similar to that outlined in Berle and Means, namely allocation of 
dividends to the various types of stockholders and to the different in- 
come levels. These estimates are subject to the same deficiencies 
arising from lack of data for income classes under $5,000 noted in the 
discussion of the Berle and Means estimate. 41 

The assumptions made for these years in arriving at the number of 
dividend recipients for persons with net income under $5,000 appear 
to be at variance with certain known relationships in 1937 and to give 
unduly high figures for the number of stockholders. The most im- 
portant of these is the assumption of an average dividend of $100 for 
dividend recipients not filing Federal income tax returns. This seems 
somewhat too low a figure and its use results in unduly high estimates 
of the number of stockholders for the years 1927-30. The estimates, 
therefore, seem closer to being upper limits than to most probable 
values. There is, of course, no independent check on these estimates. 42 

In the study of stock ownership in The Security Markets, the authors 
also gave estimates of the number of book shareholdings in each of the 
years 1927-32, and further estimates of the number of actual stock- 
holders in 1931 and 1932, arriving at estimates of 26,000,000 book 
shareholdings in 1932 and 10,000,000-12,000,000 actual stockholders 
in that year. The estimates of the number of shareholdings were 
based on Gardiner C. Means' estimate of 18,000,000 for 1928, to which 
was added quite arbitrarily, on a percentage basis, half of the relative 
increase in book shareholdings "in 69 large companies for which the 
information was available. The makeshift nature of such an approach 
is obvious. Nevertheless, it appears that the results are roughly in 
conformity with the estimate for 1937 obtained by the Commission 
by an independent, and much more reliable, approach (page 198). 43 
The estimates of the number of actual stockholders for 1931 and 1932 
were simply guesses based on the estimate for 1930 and the estimated 
increase in the number of book shareholdings during 1931 and 1932. 

" However, they are adjusted for dividends received by nonprofit institutions. 

'• The average number of stockholders for the period 1927-30 as a whole seems to be more reliable than the 
annual figures given in the Security Markets since the annual figures were arrived at by arbitrarily adjusting 
"slightly" the assumed average dividend of $100 to obtain estimates which would "appear reasonable in 
comparison with the estimates for other years." 

43 This statement is based on the fact that the estimate for the number oi book shareholdings in 1932, as 
given in The Security Markets, is not much different from the estimate for 1937 given on pp. 194-7 of this re- 
port, w hich is in accordance with data compiled on a quarterly basis by the New York Stock Exchange for 
50 common stocks and 27 preferred stocks indicating that the number of book shareholdings in these issues 
increased by only a negligible amount over this period. 



APPENDIX III 

BASIC STATISTICAL DATA ON EACH OF 408 EQUITY 
SECURITY ISSUES OF 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL 
CORPORATIONS 



203 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



APPENDIX III 

BASIC STATISTICAL DATA ON EACH OF 408 EQUITY SECURITY ISSUES 

OF 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 
Section Page 

I. General information 206 

II. Distribution of record shareholdings by value at December 31, 1937__ 232 

III. Distribution of record shareholdings by size of holding within the 

period 1937-39 242 

IV. Beneficial ownership of officers and directors and principal stockholders 

as of September 30, 1939 243 

V. Legal and beneficial holders and holdings derived from "20 largest 

holders of record" 254 

VI. Dividends paid to foreigners and value of holdings, 1937 270 

205 



APPENDIX 

BASIC STATISTICAL DATA ON EACH OF 408 ! EQUITY 

CORPORA- 



section I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Allied Chemical & 
Dye Corporation. 

Allis-Chalmers Man- 
ufacturing Co. 

Aluminum Co. of 
America. 

American Can Co 



American Car 
Foundry Co. 



American Cyanamid 
Co. 



American & Foreign 
Power Co., Inc 



American Oas & Elec- 
tric Co. 

American Metal Co., 
Ltd., The. 



American Power & 
Light .Co. 



American Radiator & 
Standard Sanitary 
Corporation. 

American Rolling 
Mill Co., The. 



American Smelting & 
Refining Co. 

American Sugar Re- 
fining Co., The. 

American Telephone 
& Telegraph Co. 

American Tobacco 
Co., The. 



Title o'f issue 



Common 

do 

do. 

6 percent cumula- 

tive preferred. 
Common _-. 

7 percent cumula- 

tive preferred. 

Common 

7 percent non- 
cumulative pre- 
ferred. 
Common, classA_ 
Common, class B . 

5 percent cumula- 

tive converti- 
ble preferred. 

Common 

$7 cumulative 
preferred. 

$6 cumulative 
preferred. 

$7 cumulative 
2d preferred, 
series A. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common.. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative convert- 
ible preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 

preferred. 
$5 cumulative 

preferred. 
Common 

7 percent cumula- 

tive preferred. 

Common 

A l A percent cu- 
mulative con- 
vertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumula- 
tive preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumula- 
tive preferred. 
Common. 



do 

Common, class B 
6 percent cumula- 
tive preferred. 



Voting 
status 



Voting. 
do.. 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
do.. 



..do. 
.,do. 



do 

Nonvoting. 
Contingent. 



Voting 

Nonvoting.. 



do 
.do. 



Voting. 
do. 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting 

do 

do 



do 

No l voting.. 



Voting.. 
do... 



.do. 
.do 



.do. 
.do. 



do 



...do 

Nonvoting. 
Voting 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Oct. 11,1937 
Dec. 1, 1939 



Dec. 11,1939 
Nov. 20, 1939 



Jan. 25,1938 
Dec. 20,1937 



June 14,1938 
.---do.. 



June 15, 1938 

do. 

....do. 



Oct. 
Apr. 



8, 1937 
4, 1938 



.do- 
do 



Mar. 7,1938 
Jan. 8, 1938 

Dec. 17,1937 
—do 



Dec. 1, 1939 
....do 

....do 

Nov. 26, 1937 
do 

Nov. 15, 1937 
Dec. 20,1937 



May 6, 1938 
Apr. 8, 1938 

Dec. 6, 1937 
....do 



Dec. 15,1937 

Feb. 10,1938 

....do... 

Dec. 10,1937 



Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 



162*4 

4 



76 
105 



70?6 
16556 



2356 
45 



27 

22?6 

10*4 



3*4 
18 2 4 



2m 

109 



31 
105 



5 5 6 
36 2 6 



29«1 



1256 
161 



mi 



46 

124 2 6 

109 
144*5 

61 

63} 6 
138*6 



Price 
per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 



187 
4556 



13496 
113*4 



114 
156J6 



3956 
60 



32*6 
33*4 
12?6 



2*4 
23? 



3756 
114 



112 



5*6 
47?6 



10 s 
145 



21*4 
799* 



56*4 
137*4 

26*4 
92J6 

161^6 

75 

75*4 
135*4 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



2, 214, 099 
1, 776, 052 

1, 472, 625 

1, 252, 581 

2, 473, 998 
412, 333 

599, 400 
289, 450 



65, 943 

2, 438, 951 

170,453 



2, 009, 338 
478, 995 



387, 021 
2, 610, 286 



4, 480, 254 
355, 623 



1,224,580 
66, 670 



3, 006, 376 
793, 555 



978, 444 



10, 158, 738 
47, 864 



2. 868, 546 
450, 000 



2,191,669 
500, 000 

450,000 
450, 000 

18, 686, 794 



2, 700, 242 



1,598,496 97,508 

2,976,549! 189,011 

526, 997! 72, 989 



i Although data for 408 issues are presented in this appendix, the maximum number of issues outstanding 
at the end of 1937 or at Sept. 30, 1939, was 404. 

206 



Ill 



SECURITY ISSUES OF 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL 
TIONS 



INFORMATION 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
.(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 

($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


15, 697 


141 


22, 913 


13, 950 


88.9 


347, 215 


15.7 


56, 422 


1,747 


11.1 


1, 866, 884 


84,3 


303, 369 


18,092 


98 


4,630 


16, 099 


89.0 


514, 791 


29.0 


24, 324 


1,993 


11.0 


1, 261, 261 


71.0 


59,594 


3,063 
5,311 


481 
236 


36,556 
24, 780 


2,599 
4,680 


84.9 
87.2 


69,589 
141, 656 


4.7 
11.3 


5,289 

14, 874 


464 

681 


15.1 
12.8 


1, 403, 036 
1,110,925 


95.3 
88.7 


106, 630 
116,647 


29,349 
5,817 


84 
71 


5,901 
11, 759 


27, 108 
5,334 


92.4 
91.7 


728, 435 
146, 009 


29.4 
35.4 


51, 173 
24,183 


2,241 
483 


7.6 
8.3 


1, 745, 563 
266, 324 


70.6 
64.6 


122, 625 
44, 110 


9,566 
5,951 


63 
49 


1,496 
2,205 


•8, 851 
5,550 


92.5 
93.3 


237, 165 
134, 920 


39.6 
46.6 


5,633 
6,071 


715 
401 


7.5 
6.7 


362,235 
154,530 


60.4 
53.4 


8.603 
6,954 


197 
18,286 
5,052 


335 
133 
34 


9.045 

3,042 

357 


161 
16,540 
4,914 


81.7 
85.0 
97.3 


4,370 

610,018 

39, 138 


6.6 
25.0 
23.0 


118 

13, 954 

411 


36 

2,746 

138 


18.3 
15.0 
2.7 


61,573 

1, 828, 933 

131.315 


93.4 
75.0 
77.0 


1,662 

41,837 

1,379 


11,812 
4,342 


170 
110 


595 
2,007 


10.819 
4,001 


91.6 
92.1 


323, 979 
98,084 


16.1 
20.5 


1,134 
1,790 


993 
341 


8.4 
7.9 


1, 685, 359 
380,911 


83.9 
79.5 


5,899 
6,952 


2,418 


160 


2,400 


2,217 


91.7 


51,611 


13.3 


774 


201 


8.3 


335,410 


86.7 


5,031 


3,880 


673 


5,805 


3,523 


90.8 


72, 246 


2.8 


623 


357 


9.2 


2, 538, 040 


97.2 


21, 891 


14, 771 
6,094 


303 

58 


8,029 
6,322 


11,422 
5,685 


77.3 
93.3 


358, 370 
147, 551 


8.0 
41 5 


9,497 
16, 083 


3,349 
409 


22.7 
6.7 


4, 121, 884 
208, 072 


92.0 
58.5 


109, 230 
22. 680 


2,24? 

52. r , 


545 
127 


16, 895 1, 677 
13, 335 427 


74.6 
81.3 


59, 163 4. 8 
15,159, 22.7 


1,834 
1,592 


571 
98 


25.4 
18.7 


1,165,417 
51,511 


95.2 
77.3 


36, 128 
6,408 


14,625 
8,891 


206 
89 


1,189, 12,536 
3, 226 7, 958 


85.7 
89.5 


492,504' 16.4 
226,786 28.6 


2,770 
8,221 


2,089 
933 


14.3 
10.5 


2, 513. 872 
566, 769 


83.6 
71.4 


U, 141 

20,545 


9,312 


105 


3, 124 8, 522 


91.5 


238,350, 24.4 


7,091 


790 


8.5 


740, 094 


75.6 


22, 018 


49, 743 
737 


204 
65 


2.524 1 42,403 
10, 46o! 653 


85.2 
88.6 


1,533,772 15.1 
14,230 29.7 


18, 980 
2,291 


7,345 
84 


14.8 
11.4 


8, 624, 966 
33,634 


84.9 
70.3 


106, 734 
415 


31,298 
9,316 


92 
48 


1,598 
3,108 


27. 964 
8,814 


89.3 
94.6 


896, 295 
251, 124 


31.2 
55.8 


15, 573 

16, 260 


3,334 
502 


10.7 
8.4 


1, 972, 251 
198,876 


68.8 
44.2 


34,268 
12, 877 


20,049 
7,537 


109, 

66 


5,014 
8,200 


17,064 
6, 979 


85.1 
92.6 


515,058 
192,826 


23.5 
38.6 


23, 693 
23, 959 


2,985 
558 


14.9 
7.4 


1,676,611 
307, 174 


76.5 
61.4 


77,124 
38, 166 


8,864 
114,600 


51 
31 


1,262 8,206 92.6 
3,379 14,049 96.2 


201,553 
291, 198 


44. 8 
64.7 


4, 988] 658 
31, 741 551 


7.4 
3.8 


248, 447 
158,802 


55.2 
35.3 


6.149 
17,309 


641, 308 1 


M l 


4,190 614,383 95.8 


10,065,695 53.9 

| 


1, 454, 493 26, 025 


4.2 


8, 621, 099 


46. l' 


1, 245, 749 


18, 597 
39, 952 
7,808 


86 
74 

67 | 


5, 246 
4.699 
9,279 


16, 487 
36,206 
7,154 


88. 7i 
90.6 
91.6 


487, 215 
952, 152 
195, 433 


30.5 
32.0 
37.1 

1 


29, 720 
60,462 
27, 067i 


2,110 
3, 746, 

654 


11.3 
9.4 

8 - 4 | 


1,111,281 

2, 024, 397, 

331, 564 


69.5 
68.0 
62.9. 


67,788 
128, 549 
45, 922 



1 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 
268445— 41— No. 29 15 



207 



208 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 



Price 
per 

share 

Sept. 

30, 

1939 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



American Water 
Works & Electric 
Co., Inc. 

American Woolen Co 



Anaconda Copper 

Mining Co. 
Anderson, Clayton & 

Co. 



Armour & Co.. of 
Delaware. 



Armour & Co. (Illi- 
nois). 



Atchison, Topeka & 
Santa Fe Ry. Co., 
The. 

Atlantic Coast Line 
R. R. Co. 



Atlantic & Pacific 
Tea Co. of America, 
The Great. 



Atlantic Refining Co. 
The. 



Baltimore & Ohio R. 
R. Co., The. 



Bethlehem Steel Cor- 
poration (Dela- 
ware) . 



Borden Co., The 

Boston Edison Co 

Boston & Albany 

R. R. Co. 
Brooklyn Union Gas 

Co., The. 
California Packing 

Corporation. 



Common 

$6 cumulative 1st 
preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 



_._.do.__. 

4 percent partici- 
pating 1st pre- 
ferred. 

4 percent partici- 
pating 2d pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative guaran- 
teed preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 
convertible 
prior preferred. 
7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 
Common 

5 percent noncu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

5 percent noncu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred. 

Common, voting 

Common, non- 
voting. 

7 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

4 percent cumu- 
lative converti- 
ble preferred, 
series A. 

Common... 

4 percent noncu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred 

5 percent eumu- 
- lative preferred. 

Common 

.—do....... 

do... 



.do. 



.....do.. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 
Common 



Voting 

Contingent 

Voting 

do 



...do. 



.do. 
do 



Nov. 19, 1937 
Dec. 17, 1937 

Mar. 1, 1938 
do 

Mar. 19, 1938 

Dec. 31,1939 
do. _ 



.do... 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
do.. 



.do- 



Mar. 10,1938 
do 



Mar. 26. 1938 
do 



..do. 



do 
do 



.do. 
.do. 



....do 

Nonvoting. 

Contingent 



Voting 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
do.. 



do. 

do. 



Nonvoting. 



Voting. 
....do.. 
.....do.. 



...do- 



Dec. 31,1937 
....do 



Nov. 29, 1937 
Apr. 5, 1937 



Dec. 29,1939 
....do 



.do. 



do 



do 

Contingent. 

Voting 



Feb. 21,1940 
Jan. 5, 1940 



Oct. 14, 1939 
do 



Mar. 4, 1938 
do 

do 

Mar. 23, 1938 
Mar. 15, 1937 
Nov. 30, 1937 

Dec. 31,1937 

May 25,1938 
do 

Jan. 10,1938 



11?$ 
87 



4 

27}$ 



*38 

1(10 



100 

574 
94? 

59 
58*6 

90 

35 
68 



222$ 
100 



347 
347 



120>$ 



34 J-s 



3 38 
U00 



20 

1049$ 107 



3 100 



3 579?$ 
102 



656 

51 



65 



33 



26?$ 
100 



3 99H 

399: 

L28 

24?$ 



58H 
92)4 

145$ 

17 

120 
92«$j 

18 

18}$ 



10*$ 



93?$ 
117 

18*/$ 

21?$ 

1512$ 
90 



26 \\ 
51 



84 H 



2, 352, 950 
200, 000 

400, 000 
366, 700 

8, 674, 270 

71, 778 
273, 146 



53, 475 



100, 000 
535, 270 



4, 047, 292 
532, 996 



33.715 



2, 427, 060 
1, 241, 728 



823, 427 
1,967 



1,150,000 
935,812 



260, 362 



2, 663, 998 
148, 000 



2, 562, 953 
600, 000 



3,175,418 
930, 560 

930, 500 

4, o96, 704 1 

617,161 
250, 000! 

745,364' 

965, 073 
60, 607 



Carolina, Clinchfield 
& Ohio Railway. 

2 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 

« Price assigned on basis of book value, or, in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



209 



of 200 largest non financial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 



10, 642 
4,808 



10,507 
10,799 



109, 377 



25. 335 



41, 574 
5,612 



37, 749 
19,007 



5,876 
8,340 



29,137 
4,603 



34, 479 
9,221 



46,665 

26,664 

25,430 

47. 595 
16, 197 
7,698 

8,254 

11,070 
6,103 

2,661 



Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 



22] 
42 



Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 



Holdings of 100 shares or less 



Holdings 



Num- 
ber 



2, 514 9, 109 

3, 654 4, 556 



152 

935 



2,330 



2, 393 90, 934 
11,381 1,138,100 



786 



100,000 
21 



39 



78,600 



57, 400, 000 
1,990 



10,017 
10, 373 



100, 803 



45 




24, 862 



36, 223 
14,971 



1,150,000 
159 



3.510 823 95.0 



2,288' 34,296 90.9 
4,420l 17.498 92.1 



Per- 
cent 
of 
total 



85.6 
94.8 



95.3 
96.1 



92.2 



50.0 
20.8 



87.1 
95.9 



Shares 



Number 



3, 604 1 4,277 
3, 100 62 



54, 050, 000 
7,473 



3,724 



1,820 
3,352 





5.658 



8,208 



25,453 
4,442 



84.1 
96.9 



322, 875 
107, 174 



183, 083 
105, 446 



2, 694, 016 



653 

27(1 



3,363 




375, 263 



1,432,041 
320, 343 



15, 864 



783. 800 
473, 449 



Per- 
cent 
Of 

total 



125,236 15.2 
1,242 63.1 



13.7 
53.6 



45.8 
45.1 



31.1 



6.3 




70.1 



35.4 
60.1 



32.3 
38.1 



Market 
value 



Amount 
($000) 



740 32, 127 
780l 8, 535 



3,969' 44,071 

3.242 25,708 

541 24,354 

1,664 42,393 

4,560| 15,291 

2,968} 7,345 

1,620 7,310 

1,609 9,583 

6, 032 

7, 990 2, 388 



73, 434 
60, 430 



87.4 
96.5 



93.2 
92.6 



94.4 
96.4 

95.8 

89.1 
94.4 
95.4 

88.6 

86.6 
98.8 



870, 107 
87, 577 



799, 502 
198, 738 



1, 042, 985 
440, 675 

436, 216 

1, 310, 031 
305, 670 
143,042 

210, 978 

317, 458 
41,901 

78,016 




7.8 



23.2 



32.7 
59.2 



31.2 
33.1 



32.8 
47.4 

46.9 

29.8 
49.5 
57.2 

28.3 

32.9 
69.1 

31.2 



3,673 
9,324 



732 
4,550 



79, 473 



3'M 




35, 556 



8,234 5,351 
18, 740 641 



Holdings of over 100 shares 



Holdings 



Num 
ber 



1,533 
252 



490 
426 



8,574 



1 

473 



1,428 



28,021 
32, 195 



2,787 
124 




3,451 



7,259 



17,402 
9,174 



7,995 2,352 
2, 385 686 



Per- 
cent 
of 
total 



14.4 
5.2 



4.7 
3.0 



7.8 



50.0 
79.2 



100.0 
1.9 



12.9 
4.1 



Shares 



Number 



2, 030, 075 
92, 826 

216,917 
201, 254 

5, 980, 254 

71, 125 

272, 876 



50,112 



100,000 
160,007 



3, 453 9. 1 
1, 509 7. 



Sll 
2 



1 
218 



132 



Per- 
cent 
of 
total 



86.3 
40. 4 



54.2 
54.9 



99.1 



93.7 



100.0 
29.9 



Market 
value 



Amount 
($000) 



2,615,251 64.6 
212,653 39.9 



17,851 52.9 



1.643,260 67.7 
768,279 61.9 



60,884 
40, 818 

6,380 

22, 271 
36,680 
13,267 

3,798 

5,873 
2,090 

6,631 



2,594 
956 

1,076 

5,202 
906 
353 

944 

1,487 
71 

273 



15.9 
3.1 



100.0 
3.7 



1.6 



12.6 
3.5 



6.8 

7.4 



5.6 
3.5 

4.2 

10 
5.6 
4.6 



13.4 
1.2 



8,191 
725 



1, 150, 000 
862, 378 

199, 932 



1, 793, 891 
60, 423 



1,763,451 
401, 262 



2, 132, 433 

489,885 

494, 344 

3, 086, 673 
311,491 
106,958 

534, 386 

647, 615 
18, 706 

171,984 



100.0 
92.2 



76.8 



67.3 
40.8 



67.2 
52.6 

53.1 

70.2 
50.5 
42.8 



67.1 
30.9 



23,092 
8,076 



5,534 
176, 418 



2,703 
27,28a 



5,011 



57,400 
15, 161 



15, 038 
12,440 



1,606 



58,746 
52, 243 



15, 534 
73 



54,050 
40,532 



24, 017 



35,878 
6,329 



69. 8 17, 635 

66. 9 4, 815 



124, 481 
45, 375 

7,229 

52, 473 
37, 379 
9,920 

9,619 

11,981 
933 

14, 619 



210 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 J equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Central R. R. Co. of 
New Jersey, The. 

■Central & South 
West Utilities Co. 



Chesapeake & Ohio 
Railway Co., The. 



Chrysler Corporation 

Cincinnati Gas & 

Electric Co., The. 



Cities Service Co. 



Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Co., 
The. 

Climax Molybdenum 
Co. 

Coca-Cola Co., The.. 



Title of issue 



Colgate-Palmolive- 
Peet Co. 



Columbia Gas & 
Electric Corpo- 
ration. 



Commonwealth Edi- 
son Co. 

Commonwealth & 
Southern Corpo- 
ration. 

Consolidated Edison 
Co. of New York, 
Inc. 

Consolidated Gas 
Electric Light & 
Power Co. of Balti- 
more. 



Common. 



....do 

$7 cumulative 
prior lien pre- 
ferred. 

$6 cumulative 
prior lien pre- 
ferred. 

$7 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$4 noncumula- 
tive preferred, 
series A. 

Common. 

do 

5 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series A. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 
preferred . 

$0.60 cumulative 
preferred, series 
B. 

$6 cumulative 
preferred, series 
BB. 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 



....do 

$3 cumulative 
preferred, class 
A. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series A. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative convert- 
ible preferred. 

Common 



Voting 
status 



....do 

$6 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

4'/> percent cu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred series 
B< 

5 percent cumu- 
lative p r e - 
ferred. 



Voting. 



....do 

Contingent. 



do 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Jan. 1, 1938 

Mar. 31,1938 
do 



.do 



.do. 



..do. 



Voting Dec. 31,1937 

.do .do 



do. 

do 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
do.. 



...do_ 
...do. 



..do. 

..do 



do. 



do 

Contingent 



Voting 

Contingent 



Voting 

Contingent 



.do. 



Voting. 



.do 



...do. 
...do. 



.do 

.do 



Mar. 29, 1938 
Dec. 15,1937 
....do... 



Mar. 15,1938 
....do 



...do. 
...do. 



Dec. 10,1937 
Dec. 20,1937 



Dec. 16,1937 



Nov. 26, 1937 
do 



Dec. 6, 1937 
do 



Jan. 20, 1938 
Apr. 20,1937 



.do. 



.do. 



do 

Contingent. 



.do.... 



Oct. 13,1939 

Dec. 31,1937 
do '. 

Feb. 11,1938 
do 

Dec. 31,1937 



Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 



m 

95}6 



3 100 

30 
33*6 



4756 
3 50} 6 

mi 



38 



3% 
33 



3B6 
106 



372£ 



114 

58 



Hi 
73 



261/1 



m 

Wi 



21U 
96' 

65 



.do.... 



114*6 



Price 
per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 



10?,6 



1% 

105?6 



4596 

87 



91 U 

3 283/i 

101?6 



52 

4J6 

46*6 



40 
108 



109 f 6 
59^6 



13 
104 



83 

82*6 

64*6 

l 5 /6 
64 

30}6 

102J6 

73 4 ,6 
111?6 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



274, 368 



3.371,486 
117,400 



11,500 



133, 250 



7, 657, 674 
152,095 



4,351,132 
750, 000 
400,000 



37, 136, 051 
927, 527 

129, 045 
23,208 



2, 324, 564 
254, 989 



2, 520, 000 



3,991,900 
600,000 



1,962,807 
244,817 



12,304,282 
947, 845 



40, 466 



123,860 



10,464,588 

33, 652, 862 

1, 499, 362 

11,476,527 

2, 186, 792 

1, 167, 397 



223, 003 



2 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 

a Price assigned on basis of book value, or in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



211 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 


Average 
number 

of shares 


Market 
value of 


Holdings of 100 shares or less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


, Market 
value 


share- 
hold- 
ings 


held per 
share- 
holding 


average 
share- 
holding 


















Per- 




Per- 






Per- 




Per- 






(dollars) 


Num- 
ber 


cent 
of 


Number 


cent 
of 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


cent 
of 


Number 


cent 
of 


Amount 

($000) 










total 




total 






tota! 




tota 




1,172 


234 


2,311 


972 


82.9 


29,447 


10.' 7 


291 


200 


17.1 


244, 921 


89.3 


2,418 


5,898 


572 


1,072 


4,645 


78.8 


216,511 


6.4 


406 


1,253 


21.2 


3, 154, 975 


93.6 


5,916 


3,094 


38 


3,629 


3,066 


99.1 


40, 665 


34.6 


3,884 


28 


.9 


76, 735 


65.4 


7,328 


1 


11,500 


1,150,000 

















1 


100.0 


11,500 


100.0 


1,150 


4,157 


32 


960 


4,088 


98.3 


53, 212 


39.9 


1,5% 


69 


1.7 


80, 038 


60.1 


2,401 


46.560 


164 


5,494 


40, 425 


86.8 


1, 408, 533 


18.4 


47, 186 


6,135 


13.2 


6, 249, 141 


81.6 


209, 346 


12,729 


12 


1,075 


12,6SJ 


99.3 


55, 177 


36.3 


4,945 


94 


.7 


96, 918 


63.7 


8,687 


51,403 


85 


4,048 


44,194 


86.0 


841, 142 


19.3 


40, 059 


7,209 


14.0 


3, 509, 990 


80.7 


167, 164 


1 


750,000 


37, 875, 000 





.0 





.0 





1 


100.0 


750,000 


100.0 


37, 875 


9,843 


41 


3,956 


9,196 


93.4 


204, 935 


51.2 


19, 776 


647 


6.6 


195,065 


48.8 


18, 824 


488,988 


76 


142 


426,002 


87.1 


11,630,291 


31.3 


21,807 


62, 986 


12.9 


25, 505, 760 


68.7 


47, 823 


63,782 


15 


570 


63,001 


98.8 


637, 674 


68.7 


24,232 


781 


1.2 


289,853 


31.3 


11,014 


2,540 


51 


178 


2,388 


94.0 


62, 252 


48.2 


218 


152 


6.0 


66, 793 


'51.8 


234 


1,687 


14 


462 


1*663 


98.6 


13,208 


56.9 


436 


24 


1.4 


10,000 


43.1 


330 


1,953 


1,190 


37, 187 


1,271 


65.1 


51, 075 


2.2 


1,596 


682 


34.9 


2, 273, 489 


97.8 


71,047 


4,407 


58 


6,148 


4,132 


93.8 


96,402 


37.8 


10,219 


275 


6.2 


158,587 


62.2 


16, 810 


2,798 


901 


33,562 


2,109 


75.4 


87,549 


3.5 


3,261 


689 


24.6 


2, 432, 451 


96.5 


90,609 


9,011 


443 


50,502 


6,947 


77.1 


200,971 


5.0 


22,911 


2,064 


22.9 


3, 790, 929 


95.0 


432, 166 


4,964 


121 


7,018 


4,190 


84.4 


132,000 


22.0 


7,656 


774 


15.6 


468,000 


78.0 


27,144 


10,626 


185 


1,665 


9,249 


87.0 


349, 745 


17.8 


3,148 


1,377 


13.0 


1, 613. 062 


82.2 


14, 517 


6,588 


37 


3,552 


6,300 


95. 6 


115,267 


47.1 


11,066 


288 


4.4 


129,550 


52.9 


12, 436 


59,262 


208 


1,638 


47, 926 


80.9 


1,713,782 


13.9 


13,496 


11,336 


19.1 


10, 590, 500 


86.1 


83,400 


12, 792 


74 


5,402 


11,463 


89. 6 


284, 193 


30.0 


20,746 


1,329 


10.4 


663, 652 


70.0 


48, 447 


1,211 


33 


2,128 


1,159 


95.7 


22, 973 


56.8 


1,482 


52 


4.3 


17, 493 


43.2 


1,123 


12,005 


10 


580 


11,847 


98.7 


80,825 


65.3 


4,688 


158 


1.3 


43, 035 


34.7 


2, 496. 


83,820 


125 


3,266 


71,563 


85.4 


2, 078, 722 


19.9 


54,307 


12,257 


14.6 


8, 385, 866 


80.1 


219,080 


164,849 


204 


382 


137, 392 


83.3 


5, 273, 021 


15.7 


9,887 


27, 457 


16.7 


28, 379, 841 


84.3 


53,212 


18,308 


82 


3,136 


16,805 


91.8 


421, 162 


28.1 


16, 109 


1,503 


8.2 


1,078,200 


71.9 


41,242 


95,338 


120 


2,625 


81,938 


85.9 


2, 404, 042 


20.9 


52,588 


13,400 


14.1 


9, 072, 485 


79.1 


198, 461 


26,220 


83 


8,009 


23,812 




623, 761 


28.5 


60,193 


2,408 


9.2 


1,563,031 


71.5 


150, 832 


13,640 


86 


5,590 


11,872 


87.0 


357,684 


30.6 


23,249 


1,768 


13.0 


809, 713 


69.4 


52, 632 


7,461 


30 


3,424 


7,206 


96.6 


111,146 


49.8 


12,685 


255 


3.4 


111,917 


50.2 


12, 772 



4 Holders of 5 percent cumulative preferred offered 4M percent cumulative preferred series B in ex- 
change in April 1939; balance of 5 percent cumulative preferred outstanding redeemed in June 1939. 



212 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Consolidated Oil Cor- 
poration. 
Consumers Power Co. 



Continental Can Co., 
Inc. 

Continental Oil Co... 
Corn Products Re- 
fining Co. 

Crane Co 



Crown Zellerbach 
Corporation. 



Cudahy Packing Co.. 



Deere & Co. 



Delaware & Hudson 
Co., The. 

Delaware, Lacka- 
wanna & Western 
R. R. Co., The. 

Detroit Edison Co., 
The. 

Duke Power Co 



E. I. du Pont de Ne- 
mours & Co. 



Duquesne Light Co. 



Eastman Kodak Co. 



Electric Power & 
Light Corporation. 



Common 

$5 preferred. 
Common 

$5 cumulative 

preferred. 
$4.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

do. 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 
Common 

5 percent cumu- 
lative convert- 
ible preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative 
convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common.. 



.do. 



Capital stock 
(common). 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative deben- 
ture stock. 

$4.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

5 percent cumu- 
lative, 1st pre- 
preferred. 

Common. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

$7 cumulative 

preferred. 
$6 cumulative 

preferred. 
$7 cumulative 

2d preferred 

series A. 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information J 



Voting.. 

do... 

do... 

....do... 



.do. 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting 

do 

do. 



.do. 
do. 



do 

Contingent 



Voting 

Contingent 



do.. 

Voting. 
do.. 



.do. 

.do. 



do... 



.do.... 
.do.... 



do 

Contingent 



.do.... 



Voting 

Contingent 



Voting . 
do- 



do 
do. 



do 

Nonvoting 



Dec. 31,1937 

..do 

Dec. 20,1937 
....do. 

....do 



Jan. 25, 1938 
Dec. 10,1937 

Apr. 11,1938 
Jan. 3, 1938 
do 



Dec. 1, 1937 
do 



Dec. 13,1937 
Feb. 14,1938 



Dec. 20,1937 
do 



do 

Mar. 29, 1938 
do 



Nov. 30, 1937 
Jan. 21,1938 

Dec. 31,1937 

Sept. 15,1939 
do... 

Dec. 31,1937 
do 

do 

Feb. 1,1938 
Dec. 31,1937 



Dec. 5, 1937 
do 

Oct. 21,1937 
do. 



do 

Jan. 16, 1940 



Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 



100 

3 2446 

92% 



38 

105* £ 

29 
59 
166*4 

24 

92% 



14*4 
60 

3 51% 

21 % 
22*4 

14 

6% 

93% 

65% 
■MOO 

112 

131% 



3 40J6 
112% 



160* i 
156 



11% 
36 



33 
29% 



Price 
per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 



O) 

3 25% 



92!-$ 

48^6 
109% 

29=4 
62% 
155 

27 
98? 

156/6 
88% 

16J.6 
68 

3 58% 

23?6 
23% 

26% 

8% 

116% 

67% 
8 100 

184?6 
129% 



3 401.6 
116% 



155*6 
156)6 



34 

29% 

20 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



13, 915, 167 

54, 491 

1,686,716 

191, 924 

547, 788 

2, 853, 971 
200, 000 

4, 682, 387 

2, 530, 000 

245, 738 

2, 315, 628 
192,113 



2, 261, 199 
528, 758 



467, 489 
65, 505 

20,000 

3, 004, 362 
1, 543, 000 

515, 739 

1, 688, 824 

1, 272, 260 

1,010,048 
2,837 

11,065,708 
1,092,948 

500,000 

2, 152, 828 
275, 000 



2, 250, 921 
61, 657 



3,421,187 
514, 162 



255, 427 
78,289 



Value 
of issue 

Dec. 
31. 1937 

($000) 



123, 497 

5,449 

41.325 

17, 705 

45,329 

108, 451 
21,100 

135. 789 
149, 270 
40, 915 

55, 575 
17, 722 



20, 351 
33, 047 



6,779 
3,930 



63, 467 
34, 717 

7,220 

11,188 

118, 638 

66, 158 
284 

, 239, 359 
143, 586 

55,000 

87, 997 
31,041 



361,273 
9,618 



38, 061 
18,510 



8,429 
2,310 



3 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 

» Price assigned on basis of book value, or, in the absence of a book value, at ! 



per share. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



213 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares oi 


less 


Holdings of over400 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 

total 


Per- 

Number ce f 

total 


Amount 
($000> 


78, 251 

1,552 

1 

14,342 


178 

35 

1,686,716 

13 


1,580 

3,500 

41, 325, 000 

1,199 


65, 874 

1,421 



14, 219 


84.2 

91.6 

.0 

99.1 


2, 429, 781 

27, 250 



140, 031 


17.5 

50.0 

.0 

73.0 


21, 564 

2,725 



12,918 


12, 377 

131 

1 

123 


15.8 

8.4 

100.0 

.9 


11, 485, 386 

27, 241 

1,686,716 

51, 893 


82.5 
50.0 
100.0 
27.0 


101, 933 
2,724 

41,325 
4,787 


19, 553 


28 


2,317 


19, 024 


97.3 


341,525 


62.3 


28,261 


529 


2.7 


206, 263 


37.7 


17,068 


34, 537 
2, 429 


83 
82 


3,154 
8,651 


30,114 
2,230 


87.2 
91.8 


867, 649 
68, 558 


30.4 
34.3 


32, 971 
7,233 


4,423 
199 


12.8 
8.2 


1, 986, 322 
131,442 


69.6 
65.7 


75, 480 
13, 867 


30,001 
16,861 
2,641 


156 
150 
93 


4,524 
8,850 

15, 484 


25, 387 
13, 957 
2,374 


84.6 
82.8 
89.9 


920, 531 

433, 925 

76,011 


19.7 
17.2 
30.9 


26, 695 
25, 602 
12, 656 


4,614 

2,904 

267 


15.4 
17.2 
10.1 


3, 761. 856 

2, 096, 075 

169, 727 


80.3 
82.8 
69.1 


109, 094 
123, 668 
28, 259 


7,152 


324 

72 


7, 776 
6,642 


5,874 
2,421 


82. 1 
90.3 


215,938 
66, 303 


9.3 
34.5 


5,183 
6,116 


1,278 
261 


17.9 
9.7 


2, 099, 690 
125, 810 


90.7 
65.5 


50, 392 
11,606 


14. 029 
8,658 


161 
61 


1,449 
3,812 


12, 042 
7,815 


85.8 
90.3 


350, 864 
171,046 


15.5 
32.3 


3,158 
10,690 


1,987 
843 


14.2 
9.7 


1,910,335 
357, 712 


84.5 
67.7 


17, 193 
22, 357 


4, 759 
859 


98 
76 


1,421 
4,560 


4,385 
786 


92.1 
91.5 


126, 319 
23,638 


27.0 
36.1 


1,832 
1,418 


374 
73 


7.9 
8.5 


341, 170 
41,867 


73.0 
63.9 


4,947 
2,512 


19 


1,053 


54,098 


4 


21.1 


200 


1.0 


10 


15 


78.9 


19,800 


99.0 


1,017 


3,598 
5,333 


835 
289 


17, 639 
6,502 


2,144 
3,809 


59.6 
71.4 


94,777 

169, 487 


3.2 
11.0 


2,002 
3,813 


1,454 
1,524 


40.4 
28.6 


2, 909, 585 
1,373,513 


96.8 
89.0 


61, 465 
30, 904 


7,958 


05 


910 


7,305 


91.8 


171,450 


33.2 


2,400 


653 


8.2 


344, 289 


66.8 


4,820 


9,153 


185 


1,226 


6,654 


72.7 


155, 143 


9.2 


1,028 


2,499 


27.3 


1, 533, 681 


90.8 


10, 160 


14,299 


89 


8,299 


13, 175 


92.1 


278, 585 


21.9 


25,978 


1,124 


7.9 


993, 675 


78.1 


92,660 


1,025 
33 


985 
86 


64,517 
8,600 


827 
28 


80.7 
84.8 


25, 667 
638 


22.5 


1,681 
64 


198 
5 


19.3 
15.2 


984,381 
2,199 


97.5 
77.5 


64, 477 
220 


56, 577 
13,357 


196 

82 


21,952 
10, 773 


50, 948 
12,203 


90.1 
91.4 


1,186,243 
257, 927 


10.7 
23.6 


132, 859 
33, 885 


5,629 
1,154 


9.9 
8.6 


9, 879, 465 
835, 021 


89.3 
76.4 


1,106,500 
109, 701 


7,859 


64 


7,040 


7,364 


'13.7 


198, 685 


39.7 


21, 855 


495 1 6.3 


301,315 


60.3 


33, 145 


1 
2,438 


2, 152, 828 
113 


87,997,000 
12,755 



2,227 




91.3 


C 
70,240 



25.5 



7,928 


1 
211 


100. 
8.7 


2, 152, 828 
204, 760 


100.0 

74.5 


87, 997 
23,113 


37,431 
1,306 


60 
47 


9, 630 
7,332 


34,683 
1,212 


92. 1 
92.8 


722, 561 
28,627 


32.1 
46.4 


115,971 
4,466 


2,748 
94 


7.3 
7.2 


1, 528, 360 
33, 030 


67.9 
53.6 


245, 302 
5,152 


12,021 
8,095 


285 
64 


3,171 
2,304 


10, 850 
7, 626 


90.3 
94.2 


314,459 

172.110 


9.2 
33.5 


3,498 
6,196 


1,171 
469 


9.7 
5.8 


3, 106, 728 
342, 052 


90.8 
66.5 


34, 563 
12,314 


3,024 


84 


2,772 


2,764 


91.4 


66,188 


25.9 


2,184 


260 


8.6 


189, 239 


74.1 


6,245 


627 


125 


3,687 


558 


89.0 


17,775 


22.7 


624 


69 


11.0 


60,514 


77.3 


1,786 



» Redeemed in October 1938. 



214 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 

stockholder 

information * 



Price 


Price 


per 

share 

Dec. 

81, 

1937 


per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 


M394 


M396 


36*4 


61Ji 


35 


61 


33*4 


60^6 


33*4 


60*6 


4*6 
52 


11*6 
91 


48 


80*4 


45 


74 


»1 


»1 


25 


26 


23*6 


24 % 


21*4 


21*4 


16*4 


13 


m 


m 


19 
90*6 


24 
103J6 


'181 


3 175H 


a 181 


«175^ 


40*6 


62 


41 H 

30*6 


41 H 
40 


( 8 ) 


109*6 


30 
11294 


55*6 
121*6 


45 


16 

49*4 


50 


954 
5094 


1396 
4696 


9 
23 

64 M 


17*4 
73*6 


29J6 
103 % 


21*6 


31J4 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



Value 
of issue 

Dec. 
31. 1937 

($000) 



Empire Gas <b Fuel 
Co. 



Engineers Public 
Service Co. 



Federal Water Serv- 
ice Corporation. 



Firestone Tire & 
Rubber Co., The. 

Ford Motor Co 



General American 
Transportation 
Corporation. 

General Electric Co.. 

General Foods Cor- 
poration. 



General Motors Cor- 
poration. 

General Telephone 
Corporation. 



Gimbel Brothers, Inc. 



Gien Alden Coal Co 
B. F. Goodrich Co., 
The. 

Goodyear Tire & 
Rubber Co., The. 



Great Northern Rail- 
way Co., The. 



Common 

8 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

6H percent cum- 
ulative pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 
preferred. 

$5.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

$5 cumulative 
convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common, class 
B. 

$7 cumulative 
preferred. 

$6.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

$6 cumulative 
preferred. 

$4 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common, class 
A. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 

. lative preferred, 
series A. 

Common, class 
B. 

Common, class 
A. 

Common 



Voting 

Contingent 

do 

do 

do 



Voting 

Contingent 



....do 

— .do 

Voting 

do 

do 

do 

....do 

....do 



do 

Contingent 



Voting 

Nonvoting. 
Voting 



do. 

do- 

$4.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$3 cumulative 
convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

$6 c u m u 1 a t i ve 
preferred. 

Common 

do 

$5 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative 
convertible pre- 
ferred. 

$6 noncumulative 
preferred (no 
common out- 
standing). 



do. 

do 

Contingent- 



Voting 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
do. 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting 

do 

Contingent. 



Voting 

Contingent. 



Voting. 



Mar. 10, 1938 

—do 

. — .do 

do 

.....do. 

Dec. 14,1939 
do 

.....do 

—do 

Apr. 29,1938 

do 

—do. — .. 

do - 

—do. 

do. 

Jan. 5, 1938 
Feb. 15,1938 

Dec. 31,1938 

do. 

Feb. 25,1938 



Nov. 24, 1939 
Jan. 30,1939 

Jan. 10,1939 

Dec. 31,1937 
—do 

Dec. 10,1937 
Dec. 15,1937 



Mar. 15,1938 
Jan. 10,1938 

Dec. 11,1939 
Mar. 11,1938 
Dec. 17,1937 

Mar. 31, 1938 
....do 



Dec. 1, 1937 



750,000 
132, 536 
305, 066 
34,000 

72,645 

1,909,968 
73,183 

193, 831 

156,001 

542,450 
15,296 
69,888 
71, 706 
2,370 

570, 195 

1, 934, 548 
466, 134 

172,645 
3, 280, 255 
1,032,915 



28, 844, 042 
5, 251, 440 

150,000 

43,500,000 
1, 835, 644 

698, 650 
73, 513 



971, 400 
197, 974 

1,750,487 

1, 303, 255 

412, 031 

2, 054, 403 
650,648 



2, 498, 894 



32, 812 
4,838 

10,677 
1,139 

2,434 

8,356 
3,806 

9,304 

7,020 

542 

382 

1,642 

1,551 

39 

855 

36, 756 
42,302 

31.249 
593,726 
41, 833 

,186,211 
160, 169 

16,350 

,305,000 
206, 969 

7,772 
3,308 

6,678 



17,920 
19, 262 

35, 952 
47, 985 



53, 726 



' Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 

1 Price assigned on basis of book value, or in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



215 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or 


less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 

($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 

total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


1 


750,000 


32, 812, 000 

















1 


100.0 


750,000 


100.0 


32, 812 


2,866 


46 


1,679 


2,774 


96.8 


43, 217 


32.6 


1,577 


92 


3.2 


89, 319 


67.4 


3,261 


6,286 


49 


1,715 


6,181 


98.3 


94, 819 


31.1 


3,319 


105 


1.7 


210, 247 


68.9 


7,358 


877 


39 


1,306 


870 


99.2 


10, 698 


31.5 


358 


7 


.8 


23, 302 


68.5 


781 


3,021 


24 


804 


2,989 


98.9 


35,394 


48.7 


1,186 


32 


1.1 


37, 251 


51.3 


1,248 


17,620 
1,186 


108 
62 


472 
3,224 


16,253 
1,103 


92.2 
93.0 


351, 975 
25, 740 


18.4 
35.2 


1,540 
1,338 


1,367 
83 


7.8 
7.0 


1, 557, 993 
47,443 


81.6 
64.8 


6,816 
2,468 


2,902 


67 


3,216 


2,675 


92.2 


65, 125 


33.6 


3,126 


227 


7.8 


128, 706 


66.4 


6,'l78 


2,240 


70 


3,150 


2,047 


91.4 


66,702 


36.3 


2,552 


193 


8.6 


99,299 


63.6 


4,468 


1 


542,450 


542,000 

















1 


100.0 


542, 450 


100.0 


542 


685 


26 


650 


566 


96.8 


9,547 


62.4 


239 


19 


3.2 


5,749 


37.6 


143 


2,212 


32 


752 


2,135 


96.5 


41, 953 


60.0 


986 


77 


3.5 


27, 935 


40.0 


656 


2,798 


26 


562 


2,719 


97.2 


39,444 


55.0 


853 


79 


2.8 


32,262 


45.0 


698 


414 


6 


99 


412 


99.5 


2,105 


88.5 


35 


2 


.5 


274 


11.5 


4 


10, 635 


54 


81 


9,760 


91.8 


229,264 


40.2 


344 


875 


8.2 


340, 931 


59.8 


511 


16,088 
12,334 


120 

38 


2,280 
3,448 


14, 934 
11,796 


92.8 
95.6 


462, 445 
280, 768 


23.9 
60.2 


8,786 
25,480 


1,154 
538 


7.2 
4.4 


1, 472, 103 
185,366 


76.1 
39.8 


27,970 
16, 822 


3 


57,548 


10, 416, 188 

















3 


100.0 


172, 645 


100.0 


31, 249 


4 


820,064 


148,431,584 

















4 


100.0 


3, 280, 255 


100.0 


593, 726 


9,424 


110 


4,455 


8,139 


86.4 


249, 262 


24.1 


10,095 


1,285 


13.6 


783,653 


75.9 


31,738 


209. 732 
67,049 


138 

78 


5,675 
2,379 


18Q.713 
62, 697 


86.2 
93.5 


5, 597, 473 
1,845,651 


19.4 
35.1 


230, 196 
56,292 


29,019 
4,352 


13.8 
6.5 


23, 246, 569 
3, 405, 789 


80.6 
64.9 


956, 015 
103, 877 


2,222 


68 


7,412 


2,068 


93.1 


54, 601 


36.4 


5,952 


154 


6.9 


95,399 


63.6 


10, 398 


363,005 
20,819 


120 
88 


3,600 
9,922 


334,946 
18, 591 


92.3 
89.3 


8, 167. 046 
494, 939 


18.8 
27.0 


245,011 
55,804 


28,059 
2,228 


7.7 
10.7 


35, 332, 954 
1, 340, 705 


81.2 
73.0 


1,059,989 
151, 165 


6,876 
1,388 


102 
53 


1,135 
2,385 


5,841 
1,298 


84.9 
93.5 


193, 621 
40, 157 


27.7 
54.6 


2,154 
1,807 


1,035 
90 


15.1 
6.5 


505,029 
33,356 


72.3 

45.4 


5,618 
1,501 


3,525 
2,138 


276 
93 


1,897 
4,650 


2,967 
1,861 


84.2 
87.0 


110,309 
42,998 


11.4 
21.7 


758 
2,150 


558 
277 


15.8 
13.0 


861,091 
154, 976 


88.6 
78.3 


5,920 
7,749 


6,126 

20,651 

6,148 


286 

63 
67 


1,573 

866 

3,132 


4,717 
19, 168 
5,463 


77.0 
92.8 
88.9 


188,448 
470, 512 
137, 205 


10.8 
36.1 
33.3 


1,036 
6,470 
6,414 


1,409 

1,483 

685 


23.0 
7.2 
11.1 


1,562,039 
832, 743 
274, 826 


89.2 
63.9 
66.7 


8,592 
11,450 
12,848 


40,028 
21,177 


51 
31 


892 
2,286 


36,223 
19,725 


90.5 
93.1 


513, 432 
332, 439 


25.0 
51.1 


8,985 
24, 517 


3,805 
1,452 


9.5 
6.9 


1, 540, 971 
318,209 


75.0 
48.9 


26,967 
23,468 


31, 370 


80 


1,720 


28,591 


91.1 


755, 623 


30.2 


16,246 


2,779 


8.9 


1, 743, 271 


69.8 


37,480 



• Not outstanding at December 31, 1937. 



216 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Price 


Price 


per 
share 
Dec. 

31, 

1937 


per 
share 
Sept. 

30. 

1939 


37?$ 
3 1 
16 


44 

3 206,$ 

45$ 


5 


l 4 s 
46$ 


9?$ 
17 H 


16'$ 
30}$ 


69}$ 
132 


97 
165}$ 


62 
1429$ 


69-')- 
150}$ 


31 

3 1 

15 


3 1 
3 1 
16}$ 


m 


6 


7 
31?$ 


13?$ 
49; s 


31}$ 


395$ 


6 


5?$ 


30 
70 


465$ 
80 


3 58?i 
118 


3 53?$ 
1195$ 


7 
19 


102$ 

22 ' s 


35?$ 


42^$ 


3 25?4 

100}$ 


3 259$ 
79 


100 


100 


15}S 

23 

121.$ 


251$ 
25?$ 

12?$ 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



Gulf Oil Corporation. 

Hearst Consolidated 

Publications, Inc. 



Hudson & Manhat- 
tan Railroad Co. 



Illinois Central R. R. 
Co. 



Inland Steel Co ----- 
International Busi- 
ness Machines Cor- 
poration. 
International Har- 
vester Co. 



International Hydro- 
Electric System. 



International Paper 
& Power Co. 



International Shoe 
Co. 

International Tele- 
phone & Telegraph 
Corporation. 

Jones & Laughlin 
Steel Corporation. 

Kansas City Power 
& Light Co., The. 



Kansas City South- 
ern Railway Co. 



Kennecott Copper 

Corporation. 
Koppers United Co. 8 . 



S. S. Kresge Co... 
S. H. Kress &. Co. 



Common 

do 

7 percent, class A 
cumulative 
participating 
preferred. 

Common 

5 percent non- 
cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

6 percent non- 
cumulative 
convertible pre- 
ferred, series A. 

Common.. .. 

do 



---_do 

7 percent cumu 
lative pre 
ferred. 

Common. 

Class B 

$3.50 cumulative 
convertible pre- 
ferred. 
$2 cumulative 
participating, 
class A. 

Common 

5 percent cumu- 
lative convert- 
ible preferred. 
Common 



Voting 

.-..do 

Contingent- 



Voting 

do 



._._do_ 
....do. 



._do_.. 
..do... 



.do,., 
.do... 



do 

Nonvoting. 
Contingent- 



Voting. 



.do. 



..do.. 
..do.. 



.do 

-do 



do... -.. 

7 percent cum- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative first pre- 
ferred, series B. 

Common.-- 

4 percent non- 
cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
.— do- 



do 

..._do 



do. 



do 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

4 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

do.. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative special 
preferred. 



_do. 



Contingent. 
Nonvoting. 



Voting 

do 

Contingent. 



Dec. 1, 1939 
Nov. 15, 1939 
do 



Mar. 23, 1938 
do 



Mav 4. 1938 
do 



Feb. 15,1938 
Dec. 15,1937 



Apr. 11,1939 
do 



Apr. 5, 1938 

do 

do 



.do. 



.do 

_do 



Mar. 15, 1938 
Nov. 19, 1937 



Mar. 25, 1938 
do._ 



Feb. 15, 1938 
do 



Dec. 31, 1937 
.-..do 



Feb. 26,1938 

Dec. 14, 1939 
do 

..-.do 



Apr. 8, 1939 
Apr. 11, 1938 
do -. 



9, 076, 202 
2, 000, 000 
1, 930, 736 



399, 926 

52,415 



1, 357, 978 
186, 453 



1, 576, 070 
775, 013 



4, 244. 852 
816, 724 



'40,000,000 

1, 000, 000 

144, 799 



1, 825, 573 
929, 762 



3, 340, 300 
6. 399, 002 



576, 320 
587, 139 



525, 000 
40, 000 



299, 599 
210, 000 



10.820,660 

2, 758, 280 
200, 000 

25, 000 

5, 489, 866 

2, 351, 826 

720, 508 



2 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and HI only. 

3 Price assigned on basis of book value, or, in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share, 
' Reduced to 2)i million shares in 1939. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



217 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 



Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 



Holdings of 100 shares orless 



Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 



Holdings 



Num- 
ber 



Per- 
cent 
of 
total 



Shares 



Per- 

sr <*§*■ 

total 



Market 
value 



Amount 
($000) 



Holdings of over 100 shares 



Holdings 



Shares 



Num- 
ber 



Per- 
cent 
of 

total 



Number 



Per- 
cent 
of 
total 



Market 
value 



Amount 
($000) 



14, 390 

1 

45,963 



4,465 
946 



15, 891 
3,767 



6,752 
7,973 



24,649 
10,900 



630 

1 

42 



233 

97 



23,782 

2,000,000 

672 



146 

275 



786| 
8641 



11,791 



42,264 



3,985 
864 



14, 637 
3,662 



16.1931 5,537 
12, 804 6, 466 



10,664 21,570 
10,706 10,341 



1 40, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 

1 1,000,0001 1,000,000 

1,277 113 1,695 



7,986 



17, 474 
12, 764 



7,039 
76,741 



856 

,471 



739 



1,301 
2,190 



78,382 



121 
4,149 



23, 337 
1,149 



107 



478 

83 



673 
91 



728 
2,281 



14, 962 







1,061 



6,924 



16,250 
11,957 



5,584 
65,380 



20, 190 628 
6,370 6,031 



525,000 
54 



230 
96 



138 

22,796 
48 

3,571 

235 

1,046 

627 



30,647 
6, 372! 



1.610 
1,824 



4,864 



586, 997 

4,824 



357, 1001 




693 



1,052 
1,979 



68,275 

42 
3.835 



81.9 

92.0 



89.2 
91.3 



92.1 
97.2 



82.0 
81.1 



87.5 
94.9 



II 

83.1 



93.0 
93.7 



365, 325 



988,230 



129, 026 
23,590 



327, 512 
43, 597 



166, 797 
138, 220 



4.0 

51.2 



32.3 
45.0 



24.1 
23.4 



10.6 
17.8 



674,455 15.9 
159,632 19.5 







34, 738 



201,216 



308, 272 
234, 672 



79.3] 179,483 
85.2 1,267,877 



3,642 20,047 

- 1,622 

7. 602 925 



73.4 
93.21 




93.8 



80.9 
90.4 



87.1 



34.7 
92.4 



85 9 
72.1 
80.5 



23, 322 4. 
116,533 19.8 






24.0 



23.4 



16.9 
25.2 



5.4 
19.8 




13, 221 



39, 996 
54, 376 



2, 225, 354 



3,890 
106, 082 



705, 440 
54,950 
21,290 




33.1 



13.3 
25.9 



20.6 

.1 
53.0 



12.8 
2.3 
3.0 



13, 791 



15, 812 



210 
US 



3,029 
768 



2,605 

1 

3,699 



180 
82 



1,254 
105 



18.1 

100.0 

8.0 



8, 710, 877 

2,000,000 

942, 506 



10. 8 270, 900 
8. 7 28, 825 



7.9 
2.8 



11,592 1,215 18.0 
18,245 1,507 18.9 



41,816 
22, 787 



521 



1,232 



2,168 
7,333 



5,654 
7,607 



700 
8,157 




1,560 



1,033 



78,444 



100 
10, 661 



10, 934 

1,264 

258 



12.5 
5.1 



100.0 
100.0 
16.9 



13.3 



7.0 
6.3 



3,079 
559 



1 

1 

216 



1,062 



1,224 
807 



1,455 
11,361 



22S 
410 



4i; 



2 19 
211 



10,107 12.9 



1,030,466 
142, 856 



1, 409, 273 
636, 793 



3, 570, 397 
657, 092 



96.0 
100.0 
48.8 



67.7 
55.0 



75.9 
76.6 



89.4 
82.2 



328, 836 
2,000 
15, 080 



440 

144 



9,532 
2,518 



97, 945 
84,057 



84.1 221,365 
80. 5 93, 800 



656,979 



1,517,301 
695, 090 



20.7 3,160,817 

14.8 5,131,125 



552, 998 
470, 606 



100.0 
6.2 



79 
314 



3,290 
627 

224 



65.3 
7.6 

100.0 

14.1 
27.9 
19.5 



525,000 
26, 779 



259, 603 
155, 624 



8, 595, 306 

2, 754, 390 
93,918 

25,000 

4, 784, 426 
2, 296, 876 

699, 218 



40, 000, 000 100. 40, 000 
1,000,000 100.0 1,000 
110,061 76.0 1,651 



76.6 



83.1 
74.8 



94.6 
80.2 



96.0 
80.2 



100.0 
66.9 



74.1 



79.4 

99.9 
47.0 

100.0 

82.2 
97.7 
97.0 



4,024 



10, 621 
21, 722 



99,565 
30, 787 



16,590 
32, 943 



30, 647 
3,160 



1,817 
2,957 



302, 984 

70, 926 
9,439 

2,500 

74, 159 
52, «28 
8,478 



8 Consolidated with Koppcrs Co. 



218 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Price 


Price 


per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 


per 

share 

Sept. 

30, 

1939 


3% 


4 


5% 


5% 


mi 

90 
165 


95% 
96 
155 


45 
105% 


31% 

102% 


7% 

112 


8% 

(.0) 


1% 

38 


1% 
32% 


30 


28% 


51 


62 


26 


33% 


7% 
116% 


16% 

(") 


80% 


98% 


18 


16% 


5% 


8% 


2% 

8 


2% 
7% 


31% 

138% 


54% 
147 


36% 


34% 


17% 
157% 


22% 
150 


14% 

108 


15% 
110% 


106% 


110% 


20% 


23% 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



Lehigh Coal & Navi- 
gation Co., The. 

Lehigh Valley R. R. 
Co. 



Liggett & Myers 
Tobacco Co. 



Loew's, Inc. 



Lone Star Oas Cor- 
poration. 

Long Island Lighting 
Co. 



Louisville & Nash- 
ville R. R. Co. 

R. H. Macy & Co., 
Inc. 

Marshall Field & Co. 



Mid-Continent Pe- 
troleum Corpora- 
tion. 

Middle West Cor- 
poration, The. 

Missouri - Kansas - 
Texas R. R. Co. 



Montgomery Ward 
& Co., Inc. 

Morris & Essex R. R. 
Co. 



National Biscuit Co. 



National Dairy Prod- 
ucts Corporation. 



National Distillers 
Products Corpora- 
tion. 



Common. 



do 

10 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 9 

Common 

Common, class B. 
7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

$6.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

6J.S percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series A. 
6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series B. 
Common. 



.do 



do 

7 percent cumu- 
lative prior pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative converti- 
ble preferred. 

Common 



.do... 



do 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series A. 

Common 

$7 cumulative, 
class "A". 

1 3 A percent non- 
cumulative 
g uarantee d 
capital stock. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
class A. 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
class B. 

Common 



Voting. 



..do 

..do 



do 

Nonvoting. 
Voting 



do 

do 



do 

Contingent- 



Voting 

Nonvoting. 



do 



Voting 

do 



.do. 
do 



.do 
.do 



...do 



...do 

...do 



.do. 
.do. 



....do 



....do 

....do 



do 

Contingent. 



do. 



Voting. 



s Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 
• No information available. 
io Retired in November 1938. 



Mar. 7, 1938 
June 30, 1937 



1, 929, 127 
1, 210, 034 



Dec. 31,1937 
Feb. 15, 1938 
do 



Dec. 11,1937 
Jan. 29,1938 



Nov. 22, 1937 
Jan. 19, 1938 



Dec. 31,1937 
Dec. 15, 1937 



do 



Jan. 31,1938 
Jan. 14,1938 



Mar. 21, 1938 
do 



.do. 



Nov. 8,1937 



Apr. 20,1938 

Mar. 8,1938 
do.._ 



Mar. 20, 1939 
do 



Dec. 3, 1937 



Feb. 7, 1938 
-...do... 



June 1, 1939 
do 



do. 

Jan. 15,1938 



859, 856 

2, 277, 083 

208, 741 

1, 599, 053 
136, 722 

5, 538, 347 
79, 775 

3, 000, 000 
74,750 



179, 123 

1, 168, 620 

1, 654, 818 

1, 644, 057 
8,965 

287, 225 

1, 857, 912 

3, 244, 133 

808, 939 
666, 853 



5, 217, 147 
201,554 

300, 000 



6, 289, 448 
248, 045 

6, 263, 880 
57, 339 



41, 370 
2, 036, 851 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



219 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares oi 


less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


5,994 


322 


1,167 


3,409 


56.9 


116,940 


6.1 


424 


2,585 


43.1 


,\ 812, 187 


93.9 


6, 569 


6,635 


182 


933 


5,332 


80.4 


109,231 


9.0 


560 


1,303 


19.6 


1, 100, 803 


91.0 


5,641 


3,694 
17, 517 
3,448 


233 
130 
61 


20,387 
11,700 
10,065 


2,994 
15, 384 
3,153 


81.1 
87.8 
91.4 


99,856 

472, 604 

79,643 


11.6 
20.8 
38.2 


8,737 
42, 534 
13, 141 


700 

2,133 

295 


18.9 
12.2 
8.6 


760,000 

1, 804, 479 

129,098 


88.4 
79.2 
61.8 


66, 50O 
162, 40» 
21, 301 


14, 793 
3,320 


108 
41 


4,860 
4,325 


13, 133 
3,151 


88.8 
94.9 


448, 486 
82, 515 


28.0 
60.4 


20,182 
8,705 


1, 660 

169 


11.2 
5.1 


1, 150, 567 
54,207 


72.0 
39.6 


51, 775 
5,719 


15, 379 
739 


360 
108 


2,565 
12,096 


10, 373 
636 


67.4 
86.1 


394, 118 
19, 169 


7.1 
24.0 


2,808 
2,147 


5,006 
103 


32.6 
13.9 


5, 144, 229 
60,606 


92.9 
76.0 


36, 653 
6,788 


3,207 
3,779 


935 
20 


1,636 
760 


2,402 
3,712 


74.9 
98.2 


118,967 
60, 013 


4.0 
80.3 


208 
2,280 


805 
67 


25.1 
1.8 


2,881,033 
14, 737 


96,0 
19.7 


5,042 
560 


5,459 


33 


990 


5,259 


96.3 


113,063 


63.1 


3,392 


200 


3.7 


66,060 


36.9 


1,982 


7,175 


163 


8,313 


6,268 


87.4 


181, 726 


15.6 


9,268 


907 


12.6 


986, 894 


84.4 


50, 332 


11,815 


' 


3,640 


10, 177 


86.1 


275. 564 


16.7 


7,165 


1,638 


13.9 


1, 379, 254 


83.3 


35,860 


7,767 

59 


212 
152 


1,643 
17, 670 


6,854 
48 


88.2 
81.4 


245, 951 
1,967 


15.0 
21.9 


1,906 
229 


913 
11 


11.8 
18.6 


1,398,106 
6,998 


85.0 
78.1 


10,835 
813 


67 


4,287 


345, 103 


49 


73.1 


1,977 


7 


159 


18 


26.9 


285,248 


99.3 


22,963 


15, 821 


117 


2,106 


13,669 


86.4 


425, 715 


22.9 


7,663 


2,152 


13.6 


1, 432, 197 


77.1 


25,779 


32,794 


99 


544 


3u, 890 


94.2 


337, 793 


10.4 


1,858 


1,904 


5.8 


2, 906, 340 


89.6 


15,985 


4,507 
7,872 


179 

85 


447 
680 


3,844 
7,188 


85.3 
91.3 


161, 590 
191, 281 


20.0 
28.7 


404 
1,530 


663 

684 


14.7 
8.7 


647, 349 
475, 572 


80.0 
71.3 


1,618 
3,805 


60,000 
1,575 


87 
128 


2,730 
17,728 


53, 870 
1,393 


89. S 
88. . 


133, 805 
47,204 


27.5 
23.4 


44, 986 
6,538 


6,130 
182 


10.2 

11.6 


3, 783, 342 
154, 350 


72.5 
76.6 


118,702 
21, 377 


3,777 


79 


2,864 


3,368 


89.2 


105, 028 


35.0 


3,807 


409 


10.8 


194, 972 


65.0 


7,068 


48,331 
5,234 


130 
47 


2,275 
7, 397 


42,242 
4,891 


87.4 
93.4 


1,401,301 
112,319 


22.3 
45.3 


24,523 
17, 676 


6,089 
343 


12.6 
6.6 


4, 888, 147 
135, 726 


77.7 
54.7 


85,542 
21, 360 


72, 182 
1,112 


87 
52 


1,229 
5,616 


65,297 
1,052 


90.5 
94.6 


2, 050, 103 
25,655 


32.7 
44.7 


28,958 
2,771 


6,885 
60 


9.5 
5.4 


4, 213, 777 
31, 684 


67.3 
55.3 


59, 519 
3, 422 


570 


73 


7,784 


528 


92.6 


13,404 


32.4 


1,429 


42 


7.4 


27,966 


67.6 


2,982 


15,712 


130 


2,681 


13,800 


87.8 


543,647 


26.7 


11,213 


1,912 


12.2 


1,493,204 


73.3 


30, 797 



" Called in September 1939. 



220 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 



Price 
per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



Value 
of issue 

Dec. 
31, 1937 

($000) 



National Lead Co. 



National Power & 
Light Co. 

National Steel Cor- 
poration. 

National Supply Co., 
The. 



New England Gas & 
Electric Associa- 
tion. 



New England Power 
Association. 



New England Tele- 
phone & Telegraph 
Co. 

New Jersey Zinc Co., 
The. 

New York Central 
R. R. Co., The. 

New York, Chicago 
& St. Louis R. R. 
Co., The. 

Niagara Hudson 
Power Corporation. 



Norfolk & Western 
Ry. Co. 



North American Co., 
The. 



Northern Pacific Ry. 
Co. 



Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative class A 
preferred. 
6 percent cumu- 
lative class B 
preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 

preferred. 
Common. 



Voting 

..do 



.do. 



do 

6 percent cumu- 
lative prior pre- 
ferred. 
5}4 percent cumu- 
lative converti- 
ble prior pre- 
ferred. 

$2 10-year cumu- 
lative converti- 
ble preferred. 

Common 

$5.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

$7 cumulative 2d 
preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
preferred. 

$2 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 



.do. 
,do. 



....do. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred, series A. 

Common 

5 percent cumu- 
lative Tst pre- 
ferred. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative 2d pre- 
ferred, series A. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative 2d pre- 
ferred, series B. 

Common 

4 percent adjust- 
able preferred. 

Common... 

Cumulative seri- 
al 6 percent 
preferred. 

Cumulative seri- 
al 5% percent 
preferred. 

Common 



do 

Nonvoting. 

Voting 



.do 

.do 



.do 



Mar. 18, 1938 
Feb. 25,1938 



Apr. 22, 1938 



June 2, 1938 
Mar. 28, 1938 

Mar. 25, 1938 

Feb. 15,1938 
do 



do 



do 



.do 



do 

Nonvoting. 



Mar. 31, 1938 
do 



do. 



Voting 

Contingent. 



...do. 



Dec. 31,1937 
do 



....do. 
Voting. 

....do. 



do. 



do. 

Contingent. 



Voting. 
....do.. 



.do 

do 



.do. 

do 



do 
do 



.do. 



.do. 



.do. 
.do- 



No v. 20, 1939 
Dec. 31, 1937 



.do 
-do. 



Mar. 5, 1938 
....do 



.do. 

do 



Feb. 
Feb. 



Dec. 
Dec. 



1, 1938 
28, 1938 



6, 1939 
11,1939 



do....... 

Mar. 10, 1939 



26% 
156% 



136% 

7% 
60 



18% 
75 



23% 
153% 



136 



9 

82% 



79 



12% 
46% 



67%| 46 



21% ! 16% 



31 I 

22% 1 



13 
60% 

19 

100% 

58 

16% 

19 
33 



13 

72% 



23% 



3, 095, 100 
213, 793 



77, 462 



5,456,117 
279, 716 



2, 167, 877 



1, 068, 392 
64, 687 



219, 429 



200, 000 
99, 994 



155,000 



932, 597 
656, 440 



19. 388 



114% 1,333,458 



1,960,000 
6, 447, 400 



24%| 337, 420 
42%! 360, 525 



61% 



191% 
105 



19% 
50 



53% 
10% 



7% 
83% 



216 
106 



22% 
55% 



54% 



9, 577, 261 
378, 875 



90.281 
15, 649 



1,406,483 
229, 633 



8, 571, 708 
606, 359 



696, 580 
2, 479, 984 



2 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 

3 Price assigned on basis of book value, or, in the absence of a book value, at 



per share. 



CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 



221 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or 


less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


8,682 
3,977 


356 
54 


9,567 
8,431 


5,909 
3,657 


68.1 
92.0 


230, 860 
89, 974 


7.5 
42.1 


6,204 
14, 047 


2,773 
320 


31.9 
.8 


2, 864, 240 
123, 819 


92.5 
57.9 


76, 977 
19,331 


1, 915 


40 


5,460 


1,803 94.2 


38, 162 


49.3 


5,209 


112 


5.8 


39, 300 


50.7 


5,365 


21, 970 
3,364 


248 

83 


1.798 
4,980 


19, 624 
3,046 


89.3 
90.5 


724, 616 
84, 259 


13.3 
30. 1 


5,253 
5,056 


2,346 
318 


10.7 
9.5 


4, 731, 501 
195,457 


86.7 
69.9 


34, 304 
11, 727 


6,572 


330 


19, 305 


5,530 


84.1 


208, 807 


9.6 


12,215 


1,042 


15.9 


1, 959, 070 


90.4 


114,606 


2,256 
365 


474 

177 


8,769 
13, 275 


1,518 
325 


67.3 
89.0 


57, 634 
8,339 


5.4 
12.9 


1,060 
625 


738 
40 


32.7 

11.0 


1,010,758 
56, 348 


94.6 
87.1 


18, 699 
4,227 


1,486 


148 


9,953 


1,274 


85.7 


37, 906 


17.3 


2, 549 


212 


14.3 


181, 523 


82.7 


12, 208 


2,881 


95 


2,' 066 


2,468 


85.7 


47, 449 


17.3 


1,032 


413 


14.3 


227, 077 


82.7 


4,939 


2 
2,038 


100, 000 
49 


100, 000 
1,102 



1,923 



94.4 



44,941 



44.9 



1,011 


2 

115 


100.0 
5.6 


200, 000 
55, 053 


100.0 
55.1 


200 
1,239 


2 


77,500 


77,500 

















2 


100.0 


155, 000 


100.0 


155 


1, L56 

15, 452 


807 
42 


10.491 
2,541 


1,055 
14,754 


91.3 
95.5 


19. 236 
289, 257 


2.1 
44.1 


250 
17,500 


101 
698 


8.7 
4.5 


913.361 
367, 183 


97.9 
55.9 


11,874 
22, 215 


1,469 


13 


247 


1,463 


99.6 


18, 174 


93.7 


345 


6 


.4 


1,214 6.3 


23 


14, 055 


95 


9,547 


13,315 


94.7 


265, 766 


19.9 


26, 709 


740 


5.3 


1,067,692 80.1 


107, 304 


4,911 


399 


23,142 


3,611 


73.5 


152, 754 


7.8 


8,g60 


1,300 


26.5 


1,807,246 92.2 


104, 820 


61,418 


105 


1,772 


55, 950 


91.1 


1, 292, 828 


20.1 


21,816 


5,468 


8.9 


5,154,572! 79.2 


86, 984 


1,445 
4,748 


233 
76 


4,427 
2,508 


1,218 
4,298 


84.3 
90.5 


40, 472 
120, 168 


12.0 
33.3 


769 
3,966 


227 
450 


15.7 
9.5 


296, 948| 88.0 
240,357: 66.7 


5,612 

7,931 


77. 830 
2,659 


123 
142 


892 
11,324 


72, 262 
2,218 


92.8 
83.4 


1,278,394 
66, 710 


13.3 
17.6 


9, 268 
5,320 


5, 568 

441 


7.2 
16.6 


8,298,867 86.7 
312, 165 82. 4 


60, 167 
24, 895 


241 
438 


375 
36 


23,109 

2,218 


223 

413 


92.5 
94.3 


3,751 
6,800 


4.2 
43.5 


L'.-',l 
419 


Is 

25 


7.5 
5.7 


86,530 95.8 
8,849 56.5 


5,333 
545 


12,082 
1,460 


116 
157 


22, 243 
16,485 


10. 946 
1,334 


90.6 
91.4 


288,601 

42,217 


20.5 

is | 


55, 339 
4,433 


1,136 
126 


9.4 

8.6 


1,117,882 
187,416 


79. 5 
81.6 


214,354 
19, 678 


58.563 
9,431 


146 
64 


2, 865 
3,200 


49.7631 85.0 
8,544| 90.6 


1,535,611 

268, 556 


17 9 
44.3 


30, 136 
13,428 


8,800 
887 


15.0 
9.4 


7, 036, 097 
337, 803 


82. 1 
55.7 


138, 084 
16, 890 


6,202 


112 


5,992 


5,356] 86.4 


217, 898 


31.3 


11,658 


846 


13.6 


478, 682 


68.7 


25, 609 


1 30,394 


82 


851 


27, 972 


92.0 


748. 325 


30.2 


7.764 


2,422 


8.0 


1,731,659 


69.8 


17,966 



222 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 


T ,,1' 

Title of issue 


Voting 
status 


Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 


Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 


Price 
per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 


Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 


Value 
of issue 

Dec. 
31, 1937 

($000) 


Northern States 
Power Co. (Dela- 
ware.) 

Ohio Oil Co., The.... 


Common, class B. 

7 peicent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

Common, class A. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 


Voting 

do. 

do 

do 

Nonvoting.. 

Voting 

do 

.. do.... 


Mar. 31, 1938 
Dec. 31,1937 

do 

Mar. 31, 1938 
Nov. 15, 1937 
Feb. 28,1938 

Mar. 16, 1938 

Dec. 31,1937 
do.. 


31 

71*£ 

63% 

10 

12% 
109 

60 

27% 
29% 

26% 

36 


3 1 
70 

64 

mi 

8% 
102% 

63% 

mi 

31 

27% 
45% 


729,083 
391, 077 

390,263 

341, 551 

6, 554, 183 

548, 077 

2, 661, 204 

6, 261, 270 
4, 085, 319 

1, 149, 303 

1,608,631 


729 
27,962 

24,684 

3,416 
82, 747 
59,740 

159, 672 

170,620 
119, 496 

30, 169 

57, 911 


Co. 
Pacific Gas & Elec- 
trie Co. 


do 

6 percent cumu- 
lative 1st pre- 
ferred. 

5% percent cu- 
mulative 1st 
preferred. 

Common 




.do 


do 


Pacific Lighting Cor- 


'do 


Jan. 20,1938 


poration. 

Pacific Telephone & 
Telegraph Co., 


$5 cumulative 
preferred. 12 

$6 preferred...... 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative p r e - 
ferred. 




do 

do.. 

...do.. . 


Dec. 31.1937 

do 

do 


104% 

110 

134 

9% 

84% 

10% 

62% 
21 

32 

n% 

34 
33 

26 M 

7 
3 10 

36 

64% 

59 
115 

% 

38 


102% 
121% 
128 

7 
75% 

8% 

87% 
27 

38% 

17% 
41 

3/% 

44 

8% 

3 10 

41% 

82% 

78% 

34% 
116% 

1 
45% 


196,665 

1, 805, 000 
820, 000 

2, 463, 229 
141,233 

554,360 

2, 543, 984 
13, 167, 754 

664, 426 

450, 460 
112,000 

124, 290 

5, 071, 260 

4, 800, 332 
1,585 

491, 140 

100,000 

53,868 

10, 528, 808 
280, 051 

1, 400, 000 
4, 449, 052 


20, 551 
198, 550 

109,880 

23,709 
11,969 

5,821 

159,635 
276, 523 

21, 262 

5,124 
3,808 

4,102 

132, 487 

33,602 
16 

17,681 

6,450 

3,178 

327, 709 
32,206 

•700 
169, 064 


The. 


do.. 

do.... 


May 12,1938 
do... 


Inc. 


6 percent cumu- 
lative 1st con- 
vertible pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative 2d con- 
vertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common o._ 

Cfapital stock 
(common). 


J. C. Penney Co . 
Pennsylvania R. R. 

Co. 
Peoples Gas Light & 

Coke Co., The. 
Pere Marquette Ry. 

Co. 


do 

do _ 

do 


do 

Dec 13,1937 
.... Jo. 

Feb. 8,1938 

\pr. 23,1938 
...do 

do 


.....do 

5 percent cumu- 
lative prior 
preferred. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 


do 

dc 

.. do 


Phelps Dodge Cor- 
poration. 


do 

do 


Mar. 21, 1938 

Dec. 31,1937 
Feb. 10,1938 

Oct. 1, 1937 

Dec. 1, 1937 
do 


do 




5 percent noncu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

$6 cumulative 

preferred. 
$5 cumulative 

preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative 

preferred. 
Common 

do 


do. 

Contingent 

do 

do .. 


'hiladelphia Electric 
Co. 

hiladelphia & 
Reading Coal & 
Iron Corporation, 
hillips Petroleum 
Co. 


Voting 

Contingent. 

Voting...... 

do 


Jan. 10,1938 
.....do. 

Dec. 15,1939 
Mar. 25, 1938 







2 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 

'Price assigned on basis of book value, or in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



223 



of 200 largest nonfinancialc orporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


HoIdLigs 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
tota' 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


1 
31, 755 


729,083 
12 


729,000 
858 



31,518 



99.3 



333,833 



85.4 


C 
23,869 


1 
237 


100.0 
.7 


729,083 
57,244 


100. 
14.6 


729 
4,093 


36,206 


11 


696 


36, 056 


99.6 


360, 747 


92.4 


22, 817 


150 


.4 


29,516 


7.6 


1,867 


3,708 
29, 495 
3,769 


92 
222 
145 


920 

2,803 
15,805 


3,250 
24, 335 
3,274 


87.6 
82.5 
86.9 


92, 481 

837, 326 

91, 301 


27.1 
12.8 
16.7 


925 

10, 571 
9, 952 


458 

5,160 
495 


12.4 
17.5 
13.1 


219, 070 

5, 716, 857 

456, 776 


72.9 
87.2 
83.3 


2,491 
72,176 
49, 788 


8,118 


328 


19,680 


5,716 


70.4 


215, 784 


8.1 


12,947 


2,402 


29.6 


2, 445, 420 


91.9 


146, 725 


35,202 
40,692 


178 
100 


4,850 
2,925 


29,910 
32,269 


85.0 
79.3 


986, 768 
1,200,315 


15.8 
29.4 


26, 889 
35, 109 


5,292 
8,423 


15.0 
20.7 


5, 274, 502 
2, 885, 004 


84.2 
70.6 


143, 731 
84, 387 


16, 810 


68 


1,785 


14,806 


88.1 


468,602 


40.8 


12,301 


2,004 


11.9 


680,701 


59.2 


17,868 


12,006 


134 


4,824 


10,463 


87.1 


340, 379 


21.2 


12,254 


1,543 


12.9 


1, 268, 252 


78.8 


45, 657 


4, .504 
4,723 
2,716 


44 
382 
302 


4,598 
42,020 
40,468 


4,245 
4,270 
2,441 


94.2 
90.4 
89.9 


113,822 
109,834 
72,412 


57.9 
6.1 
8.8 


11,894 
12, 082 
9,703 


259 
453 
275 


5.8 
9.6 
10.1 


82, 843 
1,695,166 

747, 588 


42.1 
93.9 
91.2 


8,657 
186, 468 
100,177 


28,067 
2,552 


88 
55 


847 
4,661 


26, 066 
2, 365 


92.9 
92.7 


581,457 
44,233 


23.6 
31.3 


5,597 
3,749 


2,001 
187 


7.1 
7.3 


1, 881, 772 
97,000 


76.4 

68.7 


18, 112 
8,220 


9,112 


61 


640 


8,505 


93.3 


16-1, 469 


29.7 


1,727 


607 


6.7 


389, 891 


70.3 


4,094 


16, 301 
215,600 


156 

61 


9,789 
1,281 


14,254 
186,900 


87.4 
86.7 


459.611 
3, 657, 432 


18.1 
27.8 


28,841 
76,806 


2,047 
28,700 


12.6 
13.3 


2, 084, 373 
9, 510, 322 


81.9 
72.2 


130, 794 
199, 717 


14, 215 


47 


1,504 


13.411 


94.3 


180, 539 


27.2 


5,777 


804 


5.7 


483, 887 


72.8 


15, 485 


1,319 
1,363 


342 
82 


3,890 

2,788 


1,156 
1,222 


87.6 
90.0 


34, 008 
35, 870 


7.5 
32.0 


387 
1,220 


163 
141 


12.4 
10.0 


416, 452 
76, 130 


92.5 
68.0 


4,737 
2,588 


951 


131 


4,323 


820 


86.2 


23,152 


18.6 


764 


131 


13.8 


101, 138 


81.4 


3,338 


17,590 


288 


7,524 


14,061 


79.9 


-537, 869 


10.6 


14, 052 


3,529 


20.1 


4, 533, 391 


89.4 


118, 435 


1,104 
14 


4,348 
113 


30, 436 
1,130 


834 
12 


75.5 

85.7 


33,450 
460 


.7 
29.0 


234 

5 


270 
2 


24.5 
14.3 


4, 766, 882 
1,125 


99.3 
71.0 


33, 368 
11 


7,561 


65 


2,340 


6,858 


90.7 


216,263 


44.0 


7,785 


703 


9.3 


274, 877 


56.0 


9,896 


2, 395 


42 


2,709 


2,276 


95.0 


57,950 


58.0 


3,738 


119 


5.0 


42,050 


42.0 


2,712 


1.589 


34 


2,006 


1,518 


95.5 


33,841 


62.8 


1,997 


71 


4.5 


20,027 


37.2 


1,181 


2,832 

7,741 


3,718 
36 


115,723 
4,140 


2,436 
7,515 


86.0 
97.1 


92,663 
120, 559 


.9 
43.0 


2,884 
13,864 


396 
226 


14.0 
2.9 


10, 436, 145 
159, 492 


99.1 
57.0 


324, 825 
18, 342 


10,642 


132 


66 


9,033 


84.9 


323, 193 


23.1 


162 


1,609 


15.1 


1, 076, 807 


76.9 


538 


38,496 


116 


4,408 


32, 421 


84.2 


1,039,991 


23.4 


39,520 


6,075 


15.8 


3, 409, 061 


76.6 


129,544 



11 $5 cumulative preferred offered in exchange for $6 preferred in May 1939 and unexchanged portion of 
$6 preferred redeemed in July 1939. 



224 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Pittsburgh Coal Co. 



Pittsburgh Plate 

Glass Co. 
Procter & Gamble 

Co., The. 



Public Service Cor- 
poration of New 
Jersey. 



Pullman Inc 

Pure Oil Co., The.. 



Radio Corporation of 
America. 



Reading Co. 



Title of issue 



Voting 

status 



Republic Steel Cor- 
poration. 



R. J. Reynolds To- 
bacco Co. 

Richfield Oil Corpo- 
ration. 



Common ' Voting. 

6 percent cumu- do .. 

lative partici- 
pating pre- I 
f erred. 

Common do.. 



....do- 

8 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative series 
Feb. 1, 1929, 
preferred. 

Common 

8 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 
7 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred . . 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

$5 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common.. - 

_ ..do 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative convert- 
ible preferred... 

Common .. 

$3.50 cumulative 

convertible 1st 

preferred. 
$5 cumulative 

preferred series 

B." 

Common.. 

4 percent non- 
cumulative 1st 

preferred. 
4 percent ncn- 

cumulative, 2d 

preferred. 
Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative conver- 
tible prior pre- 
ferred, scries A. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative conver- 
tible preferred. 

Common, class 
B. 

Common 

do 



...do 

do 

Contingent 



Voting. 
do . 



.do- 
do 

do. 

.do. 
.do. 
.do 

.do. 



do 

.do 



Contingent 



Voting . 
do.. 



.do. 



.do 

.do 



do 



...do. 



Nonvoting, 
ting 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Price 


Price 




per 


per 


Number 


share 


share 


of shares 


Dec. 


Sept. 


out- 


31. 


30. 


standing 


1937 


1 1939 





Value 
of is-qie 

Dec 
31. 1S37 

($uo0) 



Mar. 2,1938 
....do. 



Mar. 10, 1938 



Oct. 25, 1937 
do 



do. 



Nov. 20, 1937 
....do 



.do. 



.do- 



_do. 



Feb. 25, 1938 
Nov. 10, 1937 
Dec. 10, 1937 



do 



Mar. 14, 1939 
Mar. 8, 1939 



Jan. 13.1938 
Feb. 17, 1938 



Dec. 23, 1937 



Mar. 14,1938 
do 



.do. 



Jan. 25, 1938 



. do 
Dec. 10. I'.'37 



25 



859.x 



46 
213 



nm 



32H\ 

136 



95 7 „ 

30 
11 
93 



65-s, 
46 



96-!* 



\ 29 



16^s 
60' 



65^8 



8-1 s 397,332 
30 349, 470 

i 



2, 483 

8.737 



98 2, 144, 023 183, S50 



61JSJ 6, 325.087. 
230 ! 22, 500: 

I 
llS^s 1 169.517 

i 



3S9s; 5, 503. 193; 
151 i 215,312 



nOH: 289,080 
115 T /g 538,864 

1029* 518. 497 

40 i 3,827.598' 
lots! 3,982. 031 j 
'82 I 282. 328 



290. 951 
4. 792! 



20. 088' 



17?/; 854| 

29. 282, 



35, 846 


63, 


779 


49. 


711 



2m 

28^$ 



1.400,000 
560, 000 



27H< 5,810,485 
82* s ! 281,057 



8756 117,998 



43< s' 3 6 i, 8 ! 9,000,000 



532 s ; 1,000,000 
SH 3,986.639 



584 s 



111.828 
43. S02 
26. 257 



77 4 s 442,434 39,266 

' ! ! 

6 2 6 13,841,313i 84,778 

5691! 900.766 41,435 



26, 425 
10, 240 



840, 000; 20, 160 



95, 873 
17. 004 



7, 685 



391,500 



58,500 
20,930 



2 Refers to information in sees. I, II, and If I only. 

3 Trice assigned on basis of book value, or, in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



225 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or 


less 




Holdings of over 


100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 
of 

total 


Amount 
($000) 


835 
2,607 


476 
134 


2,975 
3.350 


656 
2,252 


78.6 
86.4 


24, 524 

54, 986 


6.2 
15.7 


153 
1,375 


179 
355 


21.4 
13.6 


372, 808 
294, 484 


93.8 
84.3 


2,330 
7,362 


6,357 


337 


28,898 


4,781 


75.2 


186, 528 


8.7 


15, 995 


1,576 


24.8 


1, 957, 495 


91.3 


167, 855 


32, 094 
592 


197 
38 


9,062 
8,094 


27,304 
557 


85.1 
94.1 


879, 643 
10, 975 


13.9 

48.8 


40,464 
2,338 


4,790 
35 


14.9 
5.9 


5, 445, 444 
11,525 


86.1 
51.2 


250, 490 
2,454 


1,933 


88 


10,428 


1,783 


92.2 


42, 499 


25.1 


5,036 


150 


7.8 


127,018 


74.9 


15,052 


32,662 
8.628 


168 

25 


5,460 
3,400 


29, 574 
8,449 


90.5 
97.9 


834, 598 
98, 975 


15.2 
46.0 


27, 124 
13, 461 


3,088 
179 


9.5 
2.1 


4, 668, 595 
116,337 


84.8 
54.0 


151,730 
15, 821 


18, 818 


15 


1, 860 


18,584 


98.8 


185, 860 


64.3 


23, 047 


234 


1.2 


103, 220 


35.7 


12, 799 


23,776 


25 


2,662 


23, 170 


97.5 


345, 530 


57.7 


36, 799 


606 


2.5 


253, 334 


42.3 


26,980 


22, 319 


23 


2,205 


21,808 


97.7 


285, 068 


55.0 


27, 331 


511 


2.3 


233, 429 


45.0 


22, 380 


35, 440 

26, 081 

7,153 


108 
153 
39 


3.240 
1,683 
3,627 


30, 761 
22, 096 
6,691 


86.8 
84.7 
93.5 


924, 952 
765, 318 
126, 240 


24.2 
19.2 
44.7 


27, 749 
8,418 
11,740 


4.679 

3,985 

462 


13.2 
15.3 
6.5 


2, 902, 646 

3. 216, 713 

156, 088 


75.8 
80.8 
55.3 


87, 079 
35, 384 
14,517 


356 


1,243 


110,316 


304 


85.4 


3,678 


.8 


326 


52 


14.6 


438, 756 


99.2 


38,940 


233, 079 
13,556 


59 
66 


361 
3,036 


216,253 
12, 230 


92.8 
90.2 


4, 653, 539 
345, 829 


33.6 
38.4 


28,503 
15,903 


16, 826 
1,326 


7.2 
9.8 


9, 187, 774 
554, 937 


66.4 
61.6 


56, 275 
25, 527 


4,325 
2,108 


324 

266 


(5,115 

7,714 


3,737 
1,783 


86.4 
84.6 


113,810 
64,000 


8.1 
11.4 


2,148 
1,856 


588 
325 


13.6 
15.4 


1, 286, 190 
496,000 


91.9 
88.6 


24, 277 
14, 384 


1,871 


449 


10, 776 


1,556 


83.2 


58, 025 


6.9 


1,393 


315 


16.8 


781, 975 


93.1 


18, 767 


46, 371 
8,825 


125 

32 


2.062 
1.936 


42,291 
8,469 


91.2 
96.0 


1,231,405 

131,048 


21.2 
46.6 


20, 318 
7, 928 


4,080 
356 


8.8 
.4 


4, 579, 080 
150, 009 


78.8 
53.4 


75, 555 
9,076 


1,741 


68 


4,428 


1,537 


88.3 


43, 775 


37.1 


2,851 


204 


11.7 


74,223 


62.9 


4,834 


57, 435 


157 


0,829 


51,058 


88.9 


1,701,929 


18.9 


74, 034 


6,377 


11.1 


7, 298, 071 


81.1 


317,466 


2,438 
13,844 


410 
238 


23, 935 

1.512 


1,774 
8,324 


72.8 
60.1 


47. 470 
285, 519 


4.7 
7.2 


2,777 
1,499 


664 

5,520 


27.2 
39.9 


952, 530 
3, 701, 120 


95.3 
92.8 


55,723 
19,431 



• No information available. 



226 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information 2 



Price 


I 
Price 


per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 


per 

share 

Sept. 

30, 

1939 


20*6 
100 


42J6 
112 


88 


110*6 


72 


10396 


23*6 
74 


13*6 
65 


54 


77*6 


16^6 
9696 


1496 
9896 


229 


140 


15 


1396 


2196 
36 


2596 

38?6 


26?6 


28*6 


2496 


25*6 


1896 
11*6 
1896 


18*6 
2096 
33 


8 
107*6 


6 
9596 


4?6 
2196 


3*6 
2396 


17 


18 


896 


8 


29 


30 


33*6 


28*6 


4596 


4896 


47 
121*6 


57*6 
12136 


1696 
39*6 
27?6 


22 

47*6 

36J6 


14?6 
73 


12^6 
9196 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



Value 
of issue 

Dec. 
31, 1937 

($000) 



Safeway Stores, Inc. 



Schenley Distillers 
Corporation. 



Sears, Roebuck & 
Co. 

Shell Union Oil Cor- 
poration. 



Singer Manufactur- 
ing Co. 

Socony Vacuum Oil 
Co.. Inc. 

Southern California 
Edison Co., Ltd. 



Southern Pacific Co. 
Southern Ry. Co 



Standard Brands Inc 



Standard Gas & Elec- 
tric Co. 



Standard Oil Co. of 
California. 

Standard Oil Co. (In- 
diana). 

Standard Oil Co. 
(New Jersey). 

Sun Oil Co 



Swift & Co 

Texas Corp., The 

Texas Gulf Sulphur 
Co. 

Tide Water Associ- 
ated Oil Co. 



Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

5 percent cumu- 
lative pre- 
ferred. 

Common. 

5*2 percent cu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred. 

Common 



....do. 

5*i percent cumu- 
lative converti- 
ble preferred. 

Common 



Capital stock 



Common 

5 percent cumu- 
lative partici- 
pating original 
preferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series B. 

5*£ percent cumu- 
lative preferred, 
series C. 

Common 

do 

5 percent noncu- 
mulative pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

$7 cumulative 

priorpreferred. 

$6 cumulative 

prior preferred. 

$4 cumulative 

preferred. 
Common 



do. 
.do. 



do 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

do-------- 

do ,— ... 

do_ 

$4.50 cumulative 
convertible pre- 
ferred. 



Voting 

Contingent 



...do. 



Mar. 18, 1938 
....do. _. 



.do. 



.do 



.do. 



Voting 

Contingent 



Voting. 



Mar. 25, 1938 
....do 



do 

Contingent 



Voting. 
do- 



.do. 
do 



.do 



Feb. 11,1938 



Dec. 9, 1937 
Dec. 15,1937 



Dec. 9, 1939 

Feb. 21,1938 

Dec. 31,1938 
do 

....do 



do 



.do. 



do. 
.do. 
.do. 



Mar. 21, 1938 
Sept. 20, 1937 
do 



.do 
.do. 



....do 

..-.do 



June 6, 1938 
June 1, 1938 

Mar. 31, 1938 
do. 



.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 



do. 

Contingent 



do _. 

do 

Dec. 31,1937 

Nov. 15,1937 

Dec. 30,1939 

Feb. 15,1938 
do. _ 



Voting 

do. 

do 

do 

do 



Aug. 1, 1937 
Dec. 10,1937 
Dec. 1, 1937 

Dec. 26,1939 
do 



806, 560 
76, 230 



54, 325 



23, 042 



1, 260, 000 
176, 250 



5, 744, 234 

13, 070, 625 
370, 042 



900, 000 
31,150,610 



3, 1§2, 805 
160,000 



1, 907, 256 



1,399,601 



3, 772, 763 

1, 298, 198 

600,000 



, 647, 034 
200,000 

, 162, 607 
368, 348 

100,000 

757, 442 

102,900 

266,066 

250, 633 



315,607 
100,000 

, 906. 508 
, 875, 222 
, 840, 000 

, 368, 300 
500,000 



16, 534 
7,623 



4,781 



1,659 



29,610 
13, 042 



310, 189 



217, 299 
35, 802 



206, 100 
467, 259 



69, 226 
5.760 



50, 304 



69, 325 
14,442 
11,250 



101, 176 
21,500 

9,191 

7,827 

1,700 

6,628 

379, 984 

505, 688 

, 233, 091 

108, 834 
12, 150 

98, 196 
426, 852 
104,640 

90,748 
36,500 



8 Refers to information in sections I, II, and III only. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



227 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Number 


Per 
cent 

of 
tota 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per 

cent 

of 
tota 


Number 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


9,248 
2,341 


87 
33 


1,783 
3,300 


8,526 
2,254 


92.2 
96.3 


232, 076 
48, 197 


28.8 
63.2 


4,758 
4,820 


722 

87 


7.8 
3.7 


574, 484 
28,033 


71.2 
36.8 


11,776 
2,803 


1,377 


39 


3,432 


1,312 


95.3 


30, 459 


56.1 


2,680 


65 


4.7 


23, 866 


43.9 


2,101 


2,433 


9 


648 


2,402 


98.7 


14,623 


63.5 


1,053 


31 


1.3 


8,419 


36.5 


606 


5,319 
3,562 


237 

49 


5,569 
3,626 


4,648 
3,338 


87.4 
93.7 


171, 495 
77, 734 


13.6 
44.1 


4,030 
5,752 


671 
224 


12.6 
6.3 


1, 088, 505 
98, 516 


86.4 
55.9 


25,580 
7,290 


48, 414 


119 


6,426 


40,396 


83.4 


789, 157 


13.7 


42, 614 


8,018 


16.6 


4, 955, 077 


86.3 


267, 575 


17, 270 
2,808 


757 
132 


12,585 
12, 771 


14,805 
2,500 


85.7 
89.0 


438, 390 
75,729 


3.4 

20.5 


7,288 
7,327 


2,465 
308 


14.3 
11.0 


12, 632, 235 
294, 313 


96.6 
79.5 


210.011 
28,475 


2,986 


301 


68,929 


2,593 


86.8 


57,836 


6.4 


13,244 


393 


13.2 


842, 164 


93.6 


192, 856 


111,712 


279 


4,185 


91,558 


82.0 


3, 326, 922 


10.7 


49,904 


20,154 


18.0 


27, 823, 688 


89.3 


417, 355 


46.110 
1,361 


69 

118 


1,501 
4,248 


41, 151 
1,201 


89.2 
88.2 


1,217,004 
48, 219 


38.2 
30.1 


26, 470 
1,736 


4,959 
160 


10.8 
11.8 


1, 965, 801 
111,781 


61.8 
69.9 


42,756 
4,024 


30, 475 


63 


1,662 


26,567 


87.2 


715, 160 


37.5 


18, 862 


3,908 


12.8 


1, 192, 096 


62.5 


31,442 


20,148 


69 


1,673 


17, 812 


88.4 


520, 822 


37.7 


12, 630 


2,336 


11.6 


878, 779 


62.8 


21, 310 


47,796 
10,314 
5,556 


79 
126 

108 


1,452 
1,402 
2,025 


44, 078 
9,103 
4, 869 


92.2 
88.3 
87.6 


1, 142, 539 
245, 892 
141,280 


30.3 
18.9 
23.5 


20,994 
2.736 
2,649 


3,718 

1,211 

687 


7.8 
11.7 
12.4 


2, 630, 224 

1, 052, 306 

458, 720 


69.7 
81.1 
76.5 


48,331 
11, 706 
8,601 


120, 392 
3,570 


105 
56 


840 
6,020 


108, 434 
3,389 


90.1 
94.9 


3, 790, 059 
101, 261 


30.0 
50.6 


30,320 

10,886 


11,958 

181 


9.9 
5.1 


B, 856, 975 
98, 739 


70.0 
49.4 


70, 856 
10,614 


14, 559 
7,010 


149 
53 


633 

1,126 


13, 270 
6,666 


91.1 
95.1 


353, 592 
126, 195 


16.4 
34.3 


1,503 

2,682 


1,289 
344 


8.9 
4.9 


1,809,015 
242, 153 


83.6 
65.7 


7,688 
5,145 


1,768 


57 


969 


1,624 


91.9 


40,883 


40.9 


695 


144 


8.1 


59, 117 


59.1 


1,005 


14,341 


53 


464 


13, 394 


93.4 


321, 049 


42.4 


2,809 


947 


6.6 


436, 393 


57.6 


3,819 


69, 969 


187 


5,423 


55, 971 


80.0 


1, 697, 931 


13.0 


49,240 


13,998 


20.0 


11,404,969 


87.0 


330, 744 


93,017 


164 


5,432 


78,054 


83.9 


2, 538, 644 


16.6 


84,093 


14, 963 


16.1 


12, 727, 422 


83.4 


421, 595 


130, 777 


208 


9,412 


103, 626 


79.2 


2, 301, 681 


8.4 


104, 151 


27, 151 


20.8 


24, 948, 952 


91.6 


1, 128, 940 


4.781 
1,993 


484 
50 


22, 748 
6,075 


3,788 
1,867 


79.2 
93.7 


91, 107 
53,668 


3.9 

53.7 


4,282 

6,521 


993 
126 


20.8 
6.3 


2, 224, 500 
46, 332 


96.1 
46.3 


104, 552 
5,629 


57, 081 
83,265 
30,054 


103 

131 
128 


1,712 
5,142 
3,488 


47,327 
68,585 
23,073 


82.9 
82.4 
76.8 


1, 625, 683 

2, 056, 497 

542,780 


27.5 
18.9 
14.1 


27, 027 
80, 718 
14, 791 


9,754 
14,680 
6,981 


17.1 
17.6 
23.2 


4,280,825 
8, 818, 725 
3, 297, 220 


72.5 
81.1 
85.9 


71, 169 

346, 134 

89,849 


24, 727 
7,544 


258 

66 


3,676 
4,818 


21,188 
6,988 


85.7 
92.6 


753, 295 
180, 709 


11.8 
36.1 


10, 734 
13, 192 


3,539 
556 


14.3 
7.4 


5, 615, 005 
319, 291 


88.2 
63.9 


80, 014 
23,308 



228 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Basid statistical data on each of 4.O8 equity security issues 

SECTION I. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Union Carbide & 
Carbon Corpora- 
tion. 

Union Oil Co. of Cali- 
fornia. 

Union Pacific Rail- 
road Co. 



United Fruit Co 

United Gas Corpora- 
tion. 



United Gas Improve- 
ment Co., The. 

United Light & 
Power Co., The. 



United Shoe Machin- 
ery Corporation. 

United States Gyp- 
sum Co. 

United States Rub- 
ber Co. 



United States Smelt- 
ing, Refining & 
Mining Co. 

United States Steel 
Corporation. 

Virginian Railway 
Co., The. 



Title of issue 



Common. 



Capital stock 



Voting 
status 



Voting.. 



..do... 



Pic- 



Warner Bros 
tures, Inc. 



West Penn Electric 
Co., The. 



Western Maryland 
Ry. Co. 



Western Pacific R. R. 
Corporation. 



...do. 
...do. 



do 

do 

Nonvoting. 

Voting 



do 

Contingent. 



Voting 

Nonvoting. 
do 



Date of 

stockholder 
information 2 



Mar. 18,1938 



Dec. 31,1937 



Apr. 20, 1935 
....do 



Mar. 24, 1938 
May 25, 1938 
Nov. 10, 1938 

--do— 



Nov. 29, 1939 
.—do 



Voting... 
do.... 

do.... 

do.... 



.do 

.do- 



.do., 
.do.. 



..do. 
..do. 



..do.. 
..do.. 



..._do 

Contingeit 



Voting 

Contingent. 



do 

Voting 

Nonvoting. 

Voting 

do 



.do. 



.do.... 
-de... 



Feb. 15,1938 

....do 

. — do 



Apr. 30,1938 
do 



Feb. 11,1938 
. — .do 



Price 
per 
share 
Dec. 
31, 
1937 



73*4 



Apr. 11,1938 
do 



Dec. 10,1937 
Dec. 28,1937 

Mar. 4,1939 
do 



Jan. 
Jan. 



17, 1938 
15, 1938 



Nov. 3,1937 
do 

Dec. 17,1937 
Jan. 21,1938 

.—do 

Dec. 17,1937 

....do 

Feb. 24,1938 
....do_ _. 



81*4 



57 

454 
97 

3 100 
105/4 

105 

4 

3 

21% 



70% 

3854 



165 
23 



54 
105% 



148 
113 



3 1954 
100 



97*4 

100 



3 100 



Price 
per 
share 
Sept. 
30, 
1939 



9154 



18% 



do 



Dec. 31, 1937 
.—do 



1*6 
2*6 



105 
83 



254 



3 100 

13% 
113*6 

154 

1% 

28 



75% 
40*6 



73% 
153 



4354 
105*4 



64% 
65% 



7854 
119 



162 
119% 



4 
41*6 



3 1756 
106*4 



97 

100*4 



100 



60 



10 



156 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



9, 023, 138 



4, 666, 270 



Common 

4 percent noncu- 

mulative pre- 
ferred. 

Capital stock 

Common 

$7 cumulative 

preferred. 
$7 cumulative 

2d preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative 

preferred. 
Class B common. 
Class A common 
$6 cumulative 

convertible 1st 

preferred. 
Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

$7 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common. 

8 percent non- 
cumulative 1st 
preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 
Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred 
$100 par. 

Common 

$3.85 cumulative 

preferred. 
Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

6 percent cumu- 
lative preferred. 

$7 cumulative 

class A. 
$7 noncumula- 

tive, class B. 
Common 

7 percent cumu- 
lative 1st pre- 
ferred. 

4 percent non- 
cumulative 
convertible 2d 
preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumu- 
lative convert- 
I ible preferred. 

' Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only 
Price assigned on basis of book value, or in the absence of a book value, at $1 per share 



2, 222, 910 
995,431 



2, 896, 600 

7, 818, 959 

449, 822 

884, 680 

23, 252, 010 
765, 216 

1, 056, 926 

2, 421, 192 
600, 000 



2, 292, 576 
278, 074 



1, 193, 733 
78, 222 



1, 567, 261 
651,091 



528, 765 
467, 948 



8, 703, 252 
3,602,811 



312,715 
279, 550 



3, 701, 090 
103, 107 

1,050,000 
221, 247 

120, 000 

59, 258 



532, 898 
177, 600 



61,382 



574, 273 
381,00 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



229 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 

' holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or less 


Holdings of over 


00 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shaies 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


61, 320 


147 


10, 804 


53,234 


86.8 


1, 814, 375 


20.1 


133, 357 


8,086 


13.2 


7, 208, 763 


79.9 


529,844 


25,366 


184 


3,450 


19, 399 


76.5 


727, 550 


15.6 


13,642 


5,967 


23.5 


3, 938, 720 


84.4 


73, 851 


39,596 
11,692 


56 
85 


4,564 
6.800 


37, 105 
10, 418 


93.7 
89.1 


854, 377 
296, 403 


38.4 
29.8 


69, 632 
23, 712 


2,491 
1,274 


6.3 
10.9 


1, 368, 533 
639, 028 


61.6 
70.2 


111, 535 
55, 922 


36,561 
19,210 
4,465 


79 
407 
101 


4,503 
1,781 
9,797 


30, 074 
15, 843 
4.089 


82.3 
82.5 
91.6 


825, 717 
632,119 
96,281 


28.5 
8.1 
21.4 


47, 066 
2,766 
9,339 


6,487 

3,367 

376 


17.7 
17.5 
84.2 


2, 070, 883 

7, 186, 840 

353, 541 


71.5 
91.9 
78.6 


118,040 
31, 442 
34, 294 


1 


884,680 


88, 468, 000 

















1 


100.0 


884,680 


100.0 


88,468 


106, 214 
19, 772 


219 
39 


2,327 
4,095 


82, 866 
18, 808 


78.0 
95.1 


3, 056, 764 
339,631 


13.1 
44.4 


32, 478 
35, 661 


23, 348 
964 


22.0 
4.9 


20, 195, 246 
425, 585 


86.9 
55.6 


214, 575 
44,687 


863 
10, 361 
7,203 


1, 225 
234 
82 


4,900 

702 

1,794 


644 
8,309 
6,745 


74.6 
80.2 
92.4 


24, 423 
352, 518 
169, 796 


2.3 
14.6 

28.3 


98 
1,058 
3,714 


219 

2,052 

558 


25.4 
19.8 
7.6 


1,032,503 

2, 068, 674 

430, 204 


97.7 
85.4 
71.7 


4,130 
6,206 
9,411 


21, 827 
3,583 


105 
78 


7,442 
3,013 


18, 572 
3,099 


85.1 
86.5 


554, 341 
98, 920 


24.2 
35.6 


39, 289 
3,821 


3,255 
484 


14.9 
13.5 


1, 738, 235 
179. 154 


75.8 
64.4 


123, 197 
6,920 


6,714 
1,162 


178 
67 


12,126 
11,055 


5.570 
1,052 


83.0 
90.5 


207, 335 
' 29, 055 


17.4 
37.1 


14, 125 
4,794 


1,144 
110 


17.0 
9.5 


986, 398 
49, 167 


82.6 
62.9 


67, 198 
8,113 


10, 260 
9, 155 


153 
71 


3.519 
3,301 


9,109 
8,501 


88.8 
92.9 


258, 976 
177, 436 


16.5 
27.3 


5,956 
8,251 


1,151 
654 


11.2 

7.1 


1, 308, 285 
473, 655 


83.5 
72.7 


30, 091 
22, 025 


7,047 
10,093 


75 
46 


4,425 
2,668 


6,408 
9,356 


90.9 
92.7 


181,640 
253, 057 


34.4 
54.1 


10,717 
14, 677 


639 

737 


9.1 
7.3 


347, 125 
214, 891 


65.6 
45.9 


20,480 
12, 464 


lf.7, 710 
66,808 


52 
54 


2,808 
5,683 


158, 625 
62, 349 


94.6 
93.3 


3, 042, 285 
1, 381, 821 


35.0 
38.4 


164, 283 
145, 437 


9,115 
4,459 


5.4 
6.7 


5, 660, 967 
2, 220, 990 


65.0 
61.6 


305, 693 
233, 759 


597 
1,403 


524 
199 


77, 552 

22, 487 


524 
1,276 


87.8 
90.9 


17,712 
44,900 


5.7 
16.1 


2,621 
5,074 


73 
127 


12.2 
9.1 


295, 003 
234, 650 


94.3 
83.9 


43, 661 
26, 515 


31,222 
641 


119 
161 


714 
5,917 


24, 359 
531 


78.0 
82.8 


564, 095 
11,125 


15.2 
10.8 


3,385 
409 


6,863 
110 


22.0 
17.2 


3, 136, 995 
91, 982 


84.8 
89.2 


18, 822 
3,380 


1 
6,689 


1,000,050 
33 


20, 606, 000 
3,300 



6,500 



97.2 



113,819 



51.4 



11,382 


1 
189 


100.0 
2.8 


1, 000, 050 
107, 428 


100.0 
48.6 


20, 606 
10, 743 


5,261 


23 


2,242 


5,144 


97.8 


84,822 


70.7 


8,270 


117 


2.2 


35, 178 


29.3 


3,430 


1,018 


58 


5,800 


919 


90.3 


25,080 


42.3 


2,508 


99 


9.7 


34, 178 


57.7 


3,418 


1 


165, 742 


16, 574, 000 

















1 


100.0 


165, 742 


100.0 


16, 574 


3,138 

187 


170 
950 


680 
75, 050 


2,632 
165 


83.9 
88.2 


118,964 
4,360 


22.3 

2.5 


476 
344 


506 
22 


16.1 

11.8 


413, 934 
173, 240 


77.7 
97.5 


1,655 
13, 686 


318 


193 


1,351 


238 


74.8 


11,367 


18.5 


so 


80 


25.2 


50,015 


81.5 


350 


2,638 
3,579 


218 
106 


327 
265 


2,297 
3,178 


87.1 
88.8 


74. 373 
94,992 


13.0 
24.9 


112 
237 


341 

401 


12.9 
11.2 


499,900 
286, 013 


87.0 

75.1 


749 
716 



230 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION 1. GENERAL 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Voting 
status 



Date of 
stockholder 
information * 



Price 


Price 


per 


per 


share 


share 


Dec. 


Sept. 


31, 


30, 


1937 


1939 


24% 


34% 


99% 


119% 


113 


143 


27% 


28% 


21 


33% 


58 


71 


5 


m 


mi 


52 


36% 


36% 


38 


54 


7m 


92 



Number 
of shares 

out- 
standing 



Value 
of issue 

Dec. 
31. 1937 

($000) 



Western Union Tele- 
graph Co. 

Westinghouse Elec- 
tric & Manufactur- 
ing Co. 



Weyerhaeuser Tim- 
ber Co. 

Wheeling Steel Cor- 
poration. 



Wilson & Co., Inc. 



F. W. Woolworth Co. 
Youngstown Sheet & 
Tube Co., The. 



Common. 



do 

7 percent cumu- 
lative partici- 
pating pre- 
ferred. 

Common 



Voting. 



.do. 
.do. 



.do. 



do 

$5 cumulative 
convertible 
prior preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 
preferred. 

Common 

do... 

hVi percent cum- 
ulative pre- 
ferred, series A. 



do 

do 



...do. 
...do. 



do 

do 

Contingent 



Dec. 31, 1937 

Feb. 8, 1938 
do 



Dec. 31.1939 



Feb. 16,1938 
do 



Jan. 15,1938 
do 

Nov. 10, 1939 
Dec. 31,1937 
do 



1, 045, 004 

2, 591, 235 
79, 974 



3,000,000 

662, 668 
381, 547 



1, 993, 073 
323, 259 

9, 703, 610 

1, 663, 704 

150, 000 



25,603 



257, 828 
10,637 



81, 750 



11,816 
22,130 



9,965 
16, 082 

354, 182 
63, 221 
11, 231 



'Refers to information in sees. I, II, and III only. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
INFORMATION— Continued 



231 



Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


Average 
number 
of shares 
held per 
share- 
holding 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding 
(dollars) 


Holdings of 100 shares or less 


Holdings of over 100 shares 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Holdings 


Shares 


Market 
value 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 
of 

total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


Num- 
ber 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Number 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


Amount 
($000) 


30,806 

42,259 
1,837 

803 

5,333 
3,416 

13,954 
5,669 

63, 075 
8,760 
2,579 


34 

61 
44 

3,736 

105 

112 

143 

57 

154 

190 
58 


833 

6,069 
5,852 

101, 806 

2,205 
6,496 

715 
2,836 

5,621 
7,220 
4,343 


29,665 

38,650 
1,720 

359 

4,599 
2,805 

11,939 
5,185 

56,795 
7,491 
2,332 


96.3 

91.5 
93.6 

44.7 

86.2 
82.1 

85.6 
91.5 

90.0 
85.5 
90.4 


492, 572 

952, 536 
42, 552 

18, 125 

121,488 
77, 159 

502, 636 
125, 758 

1, 737, 680 
251, 243 
61, 249 


47.1 

36.8 
53.2 

.6 

23.1 
20.2 

25.2 
38.9 

17.9 
15.1 
40.8 


12,068 

94, 777 
5,659 

494 

2,551 
4,475 

2,513 
6,256 

63,425 
9,547 
4,586 


1,141 

3,609 
117 

444 

734 
611 

2,015 
484 

6,280 

1,269 

247 


3.7 

8.5 
6.4 

55.3 

13.8 
17.9 

14.4 
8.5 

10.0 
14.5 
9.6 


552, 432 

1, 638, 699 
37, 422 

2, 981, 875 

405, 180 
304, 388 

1, 490, 437 
197, 501 

7, 965, 930 

1, 412, 461 

88,751 


52.9 

63.2 
46.8 

99.4 

76.9 
79.8 

74.8 
61.1 

82.1 
84.9 
59.2 


13,535 

163, 051 
4,978 

81,256 

9,265 
17, 655 

7,452 
9,826 

290,757 
53, 674 
6,645 



232 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



2 I 



43 (-: 

W O 

l a 

OO 
u_ * 
p 3 
cu c$ 

taOt> 



Ph 



^N©»OtOHOO>OONH biHOQONOHW CO © CO © OS *0 CO Oh^*hOOC4h 

wcococoosodocsc^Qt^ r^»o'cocoi-4cdi>^os d oi ■* »d io n d coTtJcoooo^ciod 

o>«Noo«Da)^>Oio3 co ■*« i-« eo oo co oo ?3 »o »o Tf oo ■»«> oo ^oocooooot^b-a© 

QOOtOWNNNXCiOOO ^OOJOSOOMNci hhNNX^CO NNO^HN^CQ 

TjJQC^oSQcDoQ^oQooeo »diQipada6cococd cm* as *o as t-5 co co cooptrOse*r*"eNe* 

oo»o»oco«5f-c ; *icoT} ; <"<j< wcS -<j<cou5t> .-i co co ?i t>- e*i o *ocoN50co*o*Of- 

t^ asco co© O OOCOCOCOt* O* iQ CM OJ OS « OS CM OS t"» -^ ■«*< CO »C b- b» 00 00 CO iO ■* ^ o 

co©'cdtf"ad*o»ococdrH * t-<»o*ocM"ododcico i-I os b 1 " cd i-« cd os ■^©idadooosb""^" 

CO H CN) CO ^H CO Hrt r-lCS<NTt* CO ^HCO ^H^H^^CO 

COO'VOOeOiOONH^ 00 CO ^ OS OS CO CO as ■* OS 00 00 -^ CO 00 CO O* b- 00 *o 00 CO CO 

oso6"*»ot^cooiioi-4to ' ' ei cs* * © *o" co* © ^-< cb •*< cn as ^h ■** »-'iocM'adodaso6o> 



go b- b- -^ oo as © ; 

00 00 CO CO b» OS b- 

od *oci t^-& oefi-TcouJ 



ao cn as *o ** op io 

fH sj ^ icoooco 

CO CO M CO i-» OS 00 



^t CM 1-1 



•O h »0 i-i 00 -«J< rt 



lOCOCJ-HiCOOOO^^O osoo^osioco^os 



OSCN^O»OOSOOi— I CN CO CO 

— oohcoho cM «-t 



COCOi-i00CO£Mi-<CO 
C^l tJ< tJH f-i 00 CM CO 



1 b» b- CO i-i OS *0 



) OS CS CO b- OS fH c 
) OS ^h CO T*< Ol « c 

)honoooo>{ 



■^r-li-lCM^COb-^H 



S8 



JNiOOlNOlOOlXMaO NOlHOHMNrt 



■JOiOiOiTTCO'^COO 

OOQON'Ort^^ CO i-t 

'Ot-T i-TorcNCN r* CO 



CMOlrtO— <NN« 0*OnO«)0 lOTfloOCOrfOl^'as 

S"«J< Q CO .-< t~ Op r~ OS *^ 25 f~ C» 00 CO CI i-< t~ CT> O* CN d> 00 
00 "5 CN ■* f-1 CO i-c TJ< CO id >o CN Si O O0 00 00 •* 00 !H OS OS 



•ct«oo-HO>a> 



CM— : U5 CO ■* t£> >0 m O) lO M 

HWcoacNcOHOJ oo i-H 



tQl^Q »ooooot 

^ ^ CO "O 00 00 "^ t 
,-H HNHt 



^©MCDOOirt 

h.-*-#^01CNC0 

CNCNOO •O-* 



IihWMOMOH 

ph ■-r-wfr-Tm'p-r 



N««>OOiCNCON«CNCC OsaOOi^CNcNr^O «NO)COmQ>0 
COiO**)<aiiOr~COCT>CNCNCN OlCJtOCC'-'MCOH O ~H T* t- -*J< Q T* 



St- os oo io f~ oo g> 
Tj* CO f~ CC CN © CN 
CNi-ICS^)'*00COX5 

ofr-T i-r^i-TeOi-r 



3-flJffl C3 



I o u 

: p"b"- 



-2-2 o, 

4)CB 
ftftCN 

cu cu © 

.£ •- .& 



; ,a'SpOflOOpT3 0333o 

a°.28S8S8ss8essssa 
a ^&BSSsas*sasgga 

■ o, o a o a o o ft-- o . .„ . o 



•o-o 

cu cu 

fcfc; 

.2.2 

CU CD 

J- t-l 

as 

CU CD 



•3§ 

as 



S'3 ° 

82a 

fefea 

co U< 



p'B'g 

aaa 



■ySoSEB-gB+iB 

a o 1- >- o a o a o 

CDpCUcUpCDpCUp 

savages a 

ft s ? a o fto ft o 






, o a 

oas 

1 a cu 

' o ft 
Oco 



O bfl 

5*3 a 

M p<! 
•a ^^ 



o o 

« d p 

lis ° 

^3 3 

O r/i a QJ 

s.52 a 



o * a 



a a 



d 


hJ 


* 9 


O 


°3 


° M 
















is 


•a =3 


S 




ft 


cd 


a 


p 


a 9 




























cu 


a 2 


a 


a 


a=a 


< 


< 


< < 



60 He- 1 

S ^ 6 

cp gO 





cu 


DO 


HH 


a 


a p 




- as 

















cu cu 


a 


aa 


< 


<< 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



233 



^©^"HHCOhOM IOCS h-SOlNSO^OOOoO H01MOCOOOH05 00N«ONNMOHOM05 0M 



mnnnooooho© ooco 



•*iOiCO^OHOOiO 






OONCOOOONNMOOOiONHHNOHOOv^OcO 

HTji^HCJcoioweorHCH c* o >-< ■<* *<r o o 



t-^COMNONCOCO 


OS 00 


NNWrHOOOt^OlSM 


ON^OJHOCi COiCj NNrtm^OONOCOOOrt 


«oao ntooncoo 

— 1 Tl<OSt~Ol-H 


00 


l^-C0^fC^t^QC0»O0000 

f-l hH h-I O hH 


hh rt <N-H CO O rt HON 


OHH00 00MM00OM 


COlO 


Ot- r-t^i-lOOOOOtO 


ICOOO'O'OOOtOIONNIOaJa^ClO^'N^CCO'O 




CO 


*«^OMO«NMB 


hH^CO hhO'J'hM O i-h i-hO 00 OOCO 






)N©ONOO 



(CHONM 






^* Oi CT> •— < ^ t - ** 00 *™ ' »~4 



(OCCrHNaJOOOJOONNQOkOCOO co •-< *o *o CO 



'S^g 



t*- CJ C^ •**« iO *Q »OH MfOOlN 



'MO^COON^' 



OCC WW 1 * *o 



'HiCcCOCWN-HOO 



sss 



NNh >ChO>NNiONh i-i 



iO t^- CO iO 



1-H HrtOO 



in o ~* o o i-< a> 



OOJ 



00>CNNMONON' 

•-< -33 Oi «? co CQOOJi 



h-Tt<-^cOOlO'XiOscooOb-i-HOi-HOO^"*"CO^-"OTr 

gNHOlNCOOOiCOOiCOMiOtO'H ^ .-- ^ <© t^- 

r-T »o t^"ofo"<o e<f«-Tc^ r* <o CO CO 



— • co co r-» oo 

O ■*£ f-i iOO 
C0SO i-h^ 



O* 1-H Tf CO 

CO —100 



jhC'-'-.MONO^n 



Ma^OMwoirjiCHHoajr-r-o^xoooH 

^W«NC»0C5MiC!N^NCSU5(N c0 *0 -— t CO *0 

HH«oNmwo»o^t> io e* t^ i-< co co 



CO ^ OOONONh^NON' <NiO"*M00*O"0l s -t^CJO'*f — CO OO <— iCOJ^Oi- '00 



iC^f ■**-*J*iOCO r^COOsOi OOOWttiN^' 



■n" CI iO 



t-h NOIHCONCOHN 



; t< « c w n »o — i c; an 



a -5 a*j a 
o 3 o a o 

aaesa. 

BgBSS 
o ,~ o &o 
C§OnO 



fc£ 



ft& 

*a*J fl. 

ace 

- - Q 

« o 3 



— © 



B"3 

2 a' 

as 



i a o a o 
, <d a ® c 

o a o a 
■ b a *-■ a 
> <d a © fc: 
, q,o ao 

tiOubO 



3 '. a i; 

3 a >■= 

P§I 

g > a 3 
a _ . o 
« a a*> a 
a o o a o 

saasa 
saasa 

ftO O ft O 



3 M 

a -2 



Eg 

.2.2 

© © 



c3 aJ 

"33 



.b«b- 



o a o a a o 

~ * * a o 



at- fc- rt f OT3T3 

< o n o ft co 



a o 



oj © 

££ 

ft a. 



ftftft 

© © © 

3 33 



2'S a-° © a a 

■3 t- a^ 3 ^ 3 3s 

©a i ; © o o 



Saa° 

aga 

°— ° 



£«: 



£ is 



a a 

< < 



a o a 

t- S a: 



O.S 

oo 



CJT3 

a a 

« 



H . I « 

§ .2 .2 



Eh & 

r a 

o o 

° i 

* I 

PS o 

o O 

!5 "3 

o « 

•a s 



a S 



< ^ < ^ pq 



■a- 

0& - 03 

O rg 

■ o a 
MH-Og 

O M 

5 a « Or* 



o Waa a.2 

a a a— ■-• 
» o o^S 
^ *^ *-* o ra 

!•«!■ c — 



~i ® to 

o * *j 

3"? 23 

©IS 

2c« 

co^ 

— K° 
o - M 

a « a 
^a *- i- 

£ a a 

- -. ■-- 

ooo 



234 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 








J3 t- 


CO O 


•a S 








°2 






Sn 


o.ti 
8ji 






5 = 



85 



©8 






cm *— r* oo r>- ao t- cm co co ao t^> t-~ iOr-no»oooc 



h © pi © ioV*" cm" ^ © cm* -^ cd t*-' io cd 



CO *0 CM OS CM -«*♦ 

cd w ^' « 6 co 



co co co t~- co >-i tj» i-i co *o co co -«rcococo 



COCM CM-* CM r-i Nh 



r- ■** *■* co *a ir~ 
t>". 'noom 



i-tOOOCO'^-^^oOCSObCOOOcO'— l»H 

* -h* go" co r-" co' r-< «* ^ a> co i-i 



CM ^h 04 i-l 



CO CM CO "cf i-t »0 

CO ' *o -v o> ^ 



OSHiNr-HMCwMOWHNC 



J *C COOS ^Hif 



i— 'GCOCM-— <COOiTt<i— i C3& ©CO CM *C r- CO CO CO *0 CO © 
iO CO ^f tP "*f t-» W5 •-• i-H tJ* CS »-h OS CM »0 *C © CM t- t-» CO 



OOiNw 



hhNN©i-( CO © CO CO CO •<*" CN 



»-i«^«r-(TjHOli-"fN00^'tNa>H 



) t-» co ^ © co 

jHtOCOOO 
-^ i-i H^CSTfrHOON^HNlNO CO CO t-- CO CO CO 



) CO ■* M< CO iO CO * 



3 Tf lO -rf« CO CM 



«-H HHON 



^-^cc©^cocoeMco©»occ<McoeM 

wo H©«00' " 



MtOW(OOiCSHfHiflC6>0 
""MOSiCOOtNMCN 
© ©<M©C0»O i-< 



CO CO t^- CO —i o 
CO CO »0 CM O i-l 



hhMh <N L-» iO t* COCOTf^O^O 



00^CMCSCM*OOr^©-£©^CMeOCM 
COCO H0)M^C3HA0ONh.0>»0 
CM CM r^Ni-<iJ«^H^<0>»0 "H 



co © r^» co »o ao 
co -*r co cm t^ io 

-«J< CO CO© © CO 



)NrH»O00O>TfcO^fO«O«O^00N i-"»CCC(Dif O 

i OS i-t co i-t o to o oo cm co co co o ao cn co © r- 

.Tjf «*<CO*0*OcOCNCN©<M i-H OMOHCOO 



CO»OCOOcOt^COCMcOr^'*J*'*CM 

lONwicCNt^iONOOcOONd 

t-COCOOCDcOcOGOCOI^OSCOCO 



CO^"50CN05^- i t-OOCOCOt-. 

ihiCHQiCCNtJ'mNpHQOOOS 
»O^HI>0<M^J'^J't»iOcOCOrJ«iO 



OCOC»ONOO»OCNOO«hh 
COMi-<O^COC^COCOCOCOodt- * 
i-H NO HhMHCNtP CM 



rtrP^OOOcO^'-'OOSHN'* 

cdi-icoo 'cnco^h*o6'^'«'^ ; oS 



* ^ ©CM CO CO 



> r^- CM CO CM 



^ CO -*f*CO CO o 

h CM CO »0 CO CO 

COCOOSCOTfOSCMCOUO 



WcOh <OS CO CM 



I CO CM 35 CM co *o 



»o <<$« r» co cm i-H 



COCSOiO^-OSOCOCMOCMCOCO 
kO CO CO OS ■* Q i— I "* Q OS t^ CO 
CO CO t^» t- CO CM OS CO ^ OS oo o 



CNK)h CO CO CM ^h 



CM _ _ _ 



ihOOSO^CNOO^h 
CMQOOcOcp-HCOCOiO 
^H>OOOCM^t'iCt--COCM 






- a> 
■O to 

• i a> - 

•"■ ® !s 
£ ^ -£ 

a> Co 

S: » fe 



..>et.> ',,£3 , 

aaSaasa, 
agggaga 

o • o • o 



m *v a 



CD > 03 

II s 

9 3° 



, D o a o 

ogasa 
^gasa 

~ o ao 



a b o o 3 o 

sgsaaaa 

M.0.0,0.0 o^ o 



3 S 

SB 



a- 



> « 
111 

a§s 

So a 



ic w wC«^«e 



3 

a « , 

So 3 o 3~ 

ssogggg 

So ;aoa* 



J CD 



^O 

ag 

— O 

OO 





O 


> 




a 






o 
O 






a 








Ojij 




U n = 


o 


^co 


a 

o 


W°3 


■5 

hi 


J2 


■a 



BB 

O o 
OO 



0<B 
O^ 

5^ 

3 £ 

hPh 

"5 3 

3 u. 
O O 
OO 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



235 



««Ot0OON^iOO^00NO«ONNh»nMWHO'O u 5O00<Cn»«O^«C<0Wi-t000!OOWt*H00{eO 
<^^^w©*OicOw^aO^^CNcdcD'©^cdtC"Q»OCp"l^Q^w 



OJOcCNO^w^^oojtOrt^oouj^^oot^soiOHUJNwao^NoairtNooMOJOoaeceoooooj 

HiOfS'OOC'OHiNiOOtDtOcD^ONNNHNNMOHrtHH CO CO *»* © «~< « >-H t COO ^NCO tOW b- 



codwdflOr^rt'^nda^M^^Q»ort«w^^oJQNH ' '^o6^ariortC^cs©©»«oSooco«»otjiot^ 

CO^O^CbeC^tONCOiO^tOOOJOrtOONOOJ^WOOON^HXOOMiCOt^OOOi OOrtOCOO^MHh- 

^od<HNoo^o>^NNN>OMdo'o^w^cs«»ocD6 *o to to © ' " 'oo^ voda^woNM 



Sx^"r »o co dp o> »5 ac .-^ to ao co t^ •>- r-- c* on to NOONgcoccfo « c o C » c f to oo C4 co os ^h 

— _ c^ t , ,-. *r 55 .— , — oo oo o co^^M-vtow oOrt«NMiSN(ji ^"icn^FHTTN © to -*r co co r- 



W3 00"*«-t i-> -f CS tO —< 



~CN © to »-• 



CCCCO^-OC^^MtpQ0a©QCCC^O^Q^CD«^l»OCCCCOt^^^^C0O^0i«Or^»CC0OO^O^W^^ 

Sr- ^ co ic -*r os cn «o »o e* ac *o co ao i- oo © © © Nonoo- « h- oo io •**< to ccn os iooomn®-h 

coto^ Trt-o®HH oo ^r co co ^ -* os »o *c «-* Tro-i ^wn^cq e* .-» coos© oo«©"tNN 

c*~^h i-T co oTcT^r o fhW t-T of of i-JWcflT ©*cn 

CS «-< CO 



■ M'HOi'JOWWNOM 



io ~- r- co o* os © os to co to 



>©^02©^coiotOTj«ic--'<j«©iO-«j*os-^«r*co'<*©©ioeoascOr-<eo 



w C^ GO .-< CO GO 00 "ft 1 OS 00 CN -rf CO CM CO 00 *0 CO OS ^ — « CO © ~- "3* O < 



COOS OS CO *0 CM t^» CO i-> Tf GO CO 00 CO OS 



Hr^H^iO 



cm o> oj oo co to £g 

CC* COOS' M^Os" ^ 
CO <-i o» ^_ 



. ic c <o o in : 
■ to CO t^ t^c 



I ~ CM tO CM CO CO 



MOOOOOOiCOOOCCCNiHCCtOCa' 
CM Q O 00 OS ^ tO CS »0 tO r-t x* CM * 

to »o CO ^h ^ ^-i 



, *J , OMNNOON<0 1'( 



^ CO ww 



I iO © OS CO CO 



Nh ON 



»o co *o ^* o co — r- cm ao : 



) to ^i ia 



»o -«** CM t 

i ■>•»-< c 

•>Tof 



■82' 



■^ CD 00 -^ — i C 



CN lO 00 t^ CM CM ^- 00 



a ' ~ 



CD © 

- - 

- - 
> > 
« a 

33 

SE 

3 3 
u o 



,0 



9 O 

aa<s 
> > > 



EE 
Bg 

o ^ 



C V C 3 C "' » 

a. O. o i-_: 09 



C »f 3 w 

o a o a 
S8SS 

SSEt 

z — z — 
'^ t - '-> ec 



3 o b o a 
° S o E o 
SEfeEfc 

■ o CO Q. 



3-r — •= C' 



03 a; OS 
33 S 

eeeee 



*3T3 t- T3 
_ 1 — 

^ ^ cp a> 
cv cp o. a» 

aa« a 

.1-1 

>_> -g > 

« c! 3 « 

"53 Es 
gpsg 
SSuS 

3 3^3 
° ° B ° 

e a o p c 

0> CV I- 0, C 

o o a> o B 

U k. CI t- C 

aa«; & c 

00 t^ CD to & 



a. 

T3 CD 

tat. 

u v o 

SoTSpa 

a > " CO 

* 3 cs - 

3S3S 

E S| E 

to *0 10 r ^ r^ < 



T3 t-CO 
cp as CJ <D 

t- J, *- u<5 
a>!S cp © 5 

> « > >js 



CO — 03 W - 

3|3 = g 

E5EEE 

So 3 3 3 
o »o o a C 
t^cccCTtig 



Sm^ 



E a « 
, 3u° 
3 " 3 B 3 
o c o o o , 

BgE EE 00 
EfeEEE^ 

O c c o c 

Ooooo : :»o 






E5" 

81 



o 
tf 

3 
t- 

-- 

- -_ 

r~ « — 

11^ 



-.r. 5 h 



-a 

0! 0! -J — 



g 3 






E^ 






Q Z. — 2. — u: 



— 9 tS S 

3 ci — 



C B 

cc 



o o 



236 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



is I 



"3 9 

an 
8ts 



OcNCOi-HOSCOOS^H^OS 

ococc^H , r^r>o>CNi-^o6 

- "IMC 



• (N t^ <N CN CO CM OS CO b-OrO 



Nh t-oc i>- oo 



(OHiCOON 



ocDTrr^aicdco^Hr^oQ 






C^r}«i-H-<t<,-«irH''ji— iao<M "0 O M 



CC>OMCOOOOOCD»OCD 
•^ <C t^ N ' ' i-H i-i CO CO 



lOMNONCOCOOiC 



ooo 



CO"* CO t- 



NW«^ 



03-^0^000 

CO r-i ■<*« -^ © ^H 



CBONiOiOCOOCCM 

"»oco'ocsi-io6i-Hcdc<i 



tDHONOOCOMHoO 



OlN»OrtOcO 

eo 'Ntcidd 

i-H I-H O 1-1 



CiiMNOOCD'HOOM'OO 

i-H CO i-H 



CO 0*0 Tji ^ ' 



HHH-^OOOiN iO i-i OOcO^CO oco 

OS i— ' CO CO CN CO GO r- OS 



COCOiCiCCCNCCOliC iO!DNO O-flO 



oo -— ■ as to as c* r- t- 

CCC03C1 CO CO CN UD f-« 



"8 



8°- 



r-h-o>ooco z " 



t}< as os c$ ■— < co a> t-- t-t co 

0> O GO CO 



.-i.-Hr-ooG'ft-'^o 



'OJHMOCO 



CN ,-, ^i ,-icO tM 



i-tf-COCO i-i ^ i-H CO i-H 



HiOHcooo'OHOjr* 

CO'O'OCOCO'-hOSCOVOi-h 

^Hiccor^ascocN-«*i|^.oo 



COOCS <NOCCO ^OOiOOOOOCO-H Mh1N00O(N 

^ o b-iOMO coiciott osccoas. «or' 



O CO CO as OS i— ' 



• 00 <M HiOCN>0 

c4 »rf i-h 



lOOCO OS-hOOS -HOtOOOOOCO- 
CO co a -& OS OS iO CO GO -* c 



as oo co Tt« oco 



co as -^ co 



M COM 



©(DHCNiOHtNQC 
hCNhN»C^C 



CO ^H Tji MCCNCO 

I-H CO 

00 i-H 



WOJNCHi-XOh"^ 



O i-h (NiO-il 
t-i w r-i r- (M 

^h*(N.CN ^" 






« 1-4 





F 


— 












g 


o 

a 










ChT3 


a> 


» 


-C 


i-i 






lH 


- 


t> 


D^ 


a 


pi 


n 


CJ 


J3"3 



3~ 3-^a 

o S o 3 o , 

agaeso 
agaga 

o ~z o ,„ o 

oSqSo 



>^5 



■a 3-3 3 3a 

3 o 3 S o o 

aaagoa 
gag§|a 

*o r X io co r "> 



a -s 



ca a 



og-3 a 

o ce 3 
a&o 



Q Eh 



egg„, 
» 8.5? 3 e 

a o — a o 



* « 
£ 3 



BO 



grs. 



H « 



O o 


« 


_o 


■a 


0-3 




o-y 


^ 


a-o 


H 






■o O 




SO 





S&H 



3 fe"3 

£ S3 

£ O o 



■ .a-3 3 

C O m S 3 o 

ao£^°c 



3 O C o 



l°sl! 
S^S : :gji 



Baffi 



O 



o 5 3m o o 



1! 



— CS 03 
8 3 3 
2 o o 
CO SIC 



CO O p 



a 



o o« 



ary: 



hj ^-: n o o c 



»^£ d, 

CS C3 S p>: 

CRtf -w 

•j;! 1 -' O 

c a „ « 

& <E « a 

a a o i3 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



237 



caccccaoccoi' itoocQOococco)HfHMfl«c»o nooioonh oowm«ocd^o500'-*^ 



tcSdCO-tC^MN >»0000000-rOO^HCO'^CO«0'<J*OSOS 



*0 CO (■*- r-H CN 00 « OS Tf iO 00 » 



■38 



' --i t- -* iC 00 



iO OS O <* 00 CO OS OS *o f- 00 00 CO CO 



oooooNrtoabxnN 



os-*— <o-->coh-o*ocs-*«co^HCN© 

t>i co ~j< © os © *o oi i^ re — ' co" -h cc ^ 
co co r* «0 W3 co t^ •-» cn *o co »-< os os 



*OW3COOOC | CO<-'Ot^OS-* 

i-i^d- ir^oos^oios^' 
co t^ co oo oo ^ no r*. co »o 



CNCOOOUOCN©COCNOSCOCO 

io co i-5 s> a c: r* pi t*^ ■** r-1 



K^iOO'O'OMNcCrHTj'COOONh. 

r^^co^^Q6«deot-tedco«-4C4Cj<o 



r^- co »o •-< as co o 

-* ' »-i CN 00 00 © 



CO CO CO «"~i CN CO 



-H--J CO»0 



CN CN CN CO CN 



CN-^OCC-NCN-HCN 

co*cNo6t^o6gCN'r-;co'co<--t 



iOOS00cOC0CNC0»O©00-H00r*.iCOS 

oc^"cNo6t^»ood<-<'-*'-5c5io^occ 

^ _ CS —I -H CO CN 



CN -*« 00 CN -*< CO OS 
CN ' "miCOO 



OMCShOOIiOMHOCN 
CNOO'-J'-J'^CNI^O'^i-JoO 






■OO^O-^CVf 



COX t-cO CN 



OON^fO-HQNO^>OtDNC»M 

NO^OOOmMOiOOONClO 

»0 00 -r t^ CO CO CO -> CN CN »J« CO 

CN -*T oo" CN CN CO*" CN iO -* 



-h 00 CN O CO CO CO 
OS OS t- rj» CO t^- CO 

CO CN OS ^h CD t-H 

co" ©" CO" co" -J-" i-T 



O CO -*« O IO h» OS iO O IN CO 

t- CO iC-^OiON'Ort^O'Ct^ 
"^ 00 -— ' TT »C CO CN O 



.•C-rtt-^OO:^ C"SN 

S8F 



C: CD ^ OS — ' 
-r CN — COCO 



(CC ^<COt»' 



; o io cn co 

CNCO00 CN© *C 



t* CO I s * OS r- 00 OS 0>N^(N05NTt«iO»h.O 
CNCCNTf COiO *0 -* U0 U0 Tf ■— ^h ^ o -?" O 
00 OS CN O •— --J 00 i—r^00*-i INHiO-floOiO 



-$*OCcDCNOS©C^X'-rCNCO 



iO ^ iO <-« 



CN C ^ 0C' O M i- I -H © IO CD ~> < 00 00 CO CO CO ^h 00 CO CO *C COS**COTf-J<CC^-}'TrcD 



) X Q "O iC CD OS t* © CO CN OS rf ^h CN « 00 -• « M N t 



^i*-<^t^^^COCN'-'CO-H^-OSCO 

.-Tec f-Tio ~-T< 



(N^MV^CiOOHOSO) 



)N-«j<goncc cocN^cDcoosr^r^-t"-r^os 

iO* r-T ^"CN-P 



coos^-Tp'-'oosh-^rosco 



CO CO CO CO *C IO ' 



-hnmoocooooo 

O CO CO CO OS X -h 



mNO-^Nr-dOcCtHiOio 
«DiC00H OlOO'^CNrt^ 



v t oo ^ « 



-co cot- oooo 

OS tC CO 00 I s * 
TT CN ^ 



rt Y; -J M ^ O iC [^ C O C O <0 CO 00 OOO^S-HOCft CS^INnONNC: OCN 



OCXXr-^^rtTT'J'OfNXWHH -j'fCOOSCDCN'O 



CO O I>- CN CN r- — * 



»N»iO-iOMNN 



CN CO CN CN OS 00 <-l -* ^O X CN CN CN 



e = c 

E86. 

EtE 



£.2 

i - 

— — 

Ee 

a = 

o o 
Sac 

8 9 £3 



«■ ! _o ! 9 



c E c E 
a o 3 o o 
:- a g a fe 



B_g 






a a 

"3 3 

II 

a ^— a 
o a o o 

issi 

Etta 



CO 
>> 

E l 
11 

a a 

til 



doggs 

T3X) t. 



w _, a: m -■■ ■ 



£ a 
cSa 8*3 o 
Soogg S fe~E 

o ' ' a o J" -*• " o 




w a 
a o 
i S 
t 5 
a a 

t-C 



s c a 
o. o. o 



O S 






- -r 
It 



O 03 



w «« 






J=J5 
- "^ 



« 



Ofst 



;■; .-a 



o 

"c « 9 

£|S 

a. i- t 

° 25 

£!£ 

E"-i 

~"3 



is x 

>> w 






n G 



g ■ g~ 5 giSJa o 5 to 



•- o 


•3 




•SO 




0. 03 

« a 




is 


■^ fe 


23 


o 


c a 

w. 3 


03 03 




is 


a a 

O o 


a 














03 03 






l-SZ 


Z 





238 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



!§ 



k 










o 


c3 


a 






o 










3 




■a 


* 


> 




d 


p 




9 


& 



©.-H.-tco © ONCfl ^lOco^ eot-co t-eo© go ©Wi-hos© ©©©cccnoco 

CO CO © © l>^ ©cDOWScJt^^h-'cSeDCi © © CO ^ N "*"©'© t> t^ © © t^* CN* (^ t*." 

t^^P-r- co © co © cn *o i-H oo co co <* *o ^co-* 10 osob^t^c* cn © »5 *< co *• cc 

lONHN O © i-* © CN «-H CO © *o •* CO CN ©iO© © © »o co go cn ^r © CO 00 CO t> « 

co go © «-h ©* ©*id©»oc3s^o>»oe«io© © ^< ©" cn ©* -*j © op -♦ © © co ©* oi r> ^h 

(Ciomto (N ©CN©i-t co hio r^cNcoco ©is co r-©eo^oo ©CS*i^«t*- 

fhcoooh i>. ©© © cn eN »-< © coco ©iq © 1-1 © go i-<^co«««r» © © *o (■- © r*- 1-» 

co co co to © ©* cn © ^ © ' © co to •-< go i-< cn i-h © © © *o* © r> ^H©^ci«-*r^© 

CN CN CN CN -HO© rH CO »-H CO «-* COCO CM © CO 

©CNCOi-< CN Ot^OHCftO'O'-'^Hh. lOGOCO © r» t*- CN CN © © © t^ ^ © © © 

-«* ^h © co ^" © ' © cn co" to* co ^ ■*< »o *ud»o co © © cn ■** © '-< g ' " "cot^ 



)^-<©^eNCN©©CO©© 
© ©00'- , ©CSh-I'-CO 

CN CO CN CN iO © tO t-- CN 

•h ©*i-Tcn i-T cn 



^ Hf-HOJ< 



»-h © t£ CN CO -*- CO 



O5N00NH -i OICOOCD^ 



CN i-H i-( -< 



i-i co r*- co 



©©©©©■^©■*f«cot--c 

CO ^MOOOOONIOC 



©CO CN CM CN t-i r-i CN tO © i-H r- CO" 



CN CNt* 00 



r*» cot* co co 

iO GO © CO © 

■*f CN©©r- 



> i-< ©t^. © t"- 
© to CO © © 
CO -H r^ co to 



lONHCO 



> © co t- i— ' tp © © 

J CN »-• h- © "** © 

( l-l © i-H Tf © lO 

t*T io"cn©~ i-H 



©CN ■ 

© © " 
coco 



^h cD © Tf 



COCO© t^^f< 

tj" © r- io 
iO -^coco 



tO © © © 1"*- iO CN 



O© 
*oS£ 



© 00 to t— CO 
tOCN i-i ^H 



©iO©^COCN— <COtO 



CN -H CNCNh-©CO OOCO-H CN CO C 



cot^co©r- 



QlOCOHH 



i-t CNOOtPCO 



© © © »0 CO © CN 

co o co cor- Tt< 

CN CN X CO t^ 



©CN -^ -hh 

i-h tOCO© 
© CN H 



CN CO CNVf i-H©©iOCN©CO © © Tf< 



00 CO © to I 



< CO CN CO -^ 



OOHrt r-i CStOOC 



CN i-H CO CO " 



t- -H lO©CO-H © 

© -h CN CO t^ t* 
CN CN i-i 00© 






CD a3 

>3 



ii-di 



o O o> . 

7* CD t- CD 0J — 

fl »- , >-i c 

CD CD »-. o & ca 

a..ao 



t: t 

03 > 



II 



3' O OJ *-• 






§ * r. 1 ° « 

Ssssag 
ggesga 



TJ In 1- 

©tS <£ 

H CD CD 
CD 

^CN CN 

^2 CD CD 

».£: .S 

•-a a 

c« 3 3 

"3a a 

as 3 

go o 

, o ■ • 



o 



8,"* 



O B 

a St; .2 

oat" 



. 33 a 



C O. _^ ^ T5 

sagge 

sBSSfc 



« a s ss 

o 3 3 o 
o o . 

o o □ c 

aassE 
aefe$s 

o o a &io 

OOscU 






a 

2 


t- p. 


•8 










oi 


O 




— a 
go, 


•53 

a 










co en 


*hD 






a 








c c 


W 












S 














ZZ 


53 



ot ^ •<« 

•S r « 
a o" o 

H .S ciS 
2222 





E-i 




rt 


O 


«PM 


OI 


c 
.1 


C3 '& 


o 


PhCO 


°3 


a 


a a 


Ai 


<i 






ja 


.cc 














o 


o 


o o 


X 


2 


22 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



239 



T. DO « *0 -V 



jCOiO^t 1 I s - HNOOlMHHMh.OJ'C^aOO'Ch-'^ ONtJit}< N lOOlSW «0OiOO 



CI CM CM GO t>- 

3". <D t- iO CO 



■^NCSWtO 



'CMcO^incCC0C0cOcDcOI>r- 2 CM ' 



© os -* os Tfr^oocc'ft^c 



t-* I s - 00 00 ^* 



CO CO OS — CM 

»o t-^ o> r^ os 



co os cm oo cm r^ co *o co r- co —i os oc co oo cm os oo ^ oo oo »h m oc os -^ o © os ^ 

— r^cxcdt^as^CMTrcMr^t^©^-* * os' os' co oo cc od oo ©V n d co d p n tj< 
coCM«-t — coco<ocM^H-<*«*<i'-<f<iZ5io ^j.„co ^.ooon co^co^cN^CM»o-«st< 



?*CM*r^os^ 



cMos^^asCMco"^r^oo*co'ascM''i< '^'ic'd 



■<r »c n co ^ -^ >o o -* 

XONPOO'H^OJO) 



CM CO CO — 



_ ^H ^H ^H fH "<J«r^COCM .-i — rH r-. ,-H 



t- CO CO CO CO 

— <" cd c» ^ od 



oo cor- o *-< 
i< r^ *o ' t-" 

^h CM 



NiOMOMOWiOOOOTrtNcONOMCSiO «-* CM t- UO CO CD Tf< Ol CO OS 00 "* CD 
^CMCOCMcdosOSt-* "lO-^'cOt^O * O CM* lO ^OOCDO »0 "3 CO CO CM CO <-" CO ^J* 



•3 co-r CM CM 
I- X *C 00 — < 
O O CN OS OS 

co""— coco 



; *o cm r-co co 



OS ^CMX^OOtPCOJ^^X^fCN- 
— a o ^ ?j m o -x t^ 3: iO -— CM CD CM ■ 



3 c i3 'N o 3 n *' c ic !- CN C C* -^ CO Ol 
*C OS — • X CD TT OS CD <0 t' >C 00 00 »0 r-i »C CO 



00 00 O CM CN CD OS C 

*<r co io -rf oo r- cm • 
os os oo cm os o ■* <; 

tp <-"" io" v$ t^Tio *o~ . 



35 CO CM rf -W 

J5 O CO CO CO 



CC 1- f CN N 
X 31 CC CO D 



-* r 1 

r-- co »c 

— f^cc 

— <" ci : Z 



OSOSCO>C'^CDCOI--OOcOQOCOiOOCOr*- ^INCO'* 
i-O © CO CO — < X CMOCMcOtDTp^aOCM ^NCOO 
■<*• — CM — iO — < 00»OCO»000 CM CO t- CO CM 



CD »0> O CO — — io 00 CM J-? 

o»ooccow:to 3 

OS »C 00 00 OS CM ^ SO •-< lI: 



CM — < 



iO(NiOt^t>.!0»CfH 



ro — : 



CM lO OS CM 30 CD *- h- CO N OS X — CM — « CO CD ** CO ** OS OS OS OS CO QO l> l> 



CM 31 X *C OS 



C C X C I 



)CONfOO«ON CMOS 



NCCiCN *C -^- 31 X — CC CM ~ C 



00— -OSOSOCDCD— -OS OX — OS CCftNCQ*- iCOCOOO 



"0 X O © © 



MTfCOO O ■— I CD u0 O •-< O -V 
Cm'cO r~4 OS"CO~»0'CD -<r O"' 1 



X CM CC — CM CM *0 "*« Tf« CO CO C^C'^CNTf«0'->0)'- l COCOX 

N o O n C X CD X X r- 35 -.3 tO t3 cc -r cc CD CO © — < © CO © 
iOOWK— X CD CO — CM I- I- CM CM CM CM — -< ID 



CO — rr O O ^ 



OOt'OO'fCONOih. 
3- "1 — CO u- 3. OlCOr- 



>— I "TUWV JJ T u.i o t ^ I- WJ ^ 

^** t— O — CM 3- 3i — :o u- OS OS CO »-< 

— rtO-N C -r X 31 1-iCOO! 



M © »C -« — 

3 — C ~i K 
i - ro go i- 3r 

— r i co — 



■— < OS OS CO — * © 

nt — 31 io x r- t-j .•< 

CO X 13 CM — X CO 



~ ffl — cp © 



: X * C N iC - ^t ?: CI 3 X M — iNOS't NMOXN CM CO *C CM 

OtCri MC>C'-^ >OhtI< COCMOSO Tf « CO CO O "1 CO «D «3 

CD t* «-l CM -*• osw uo CO CM r-^COOSOT'^Tt' 






30 



* ^ 



! os jy 



I i 






~ - — - 
'-^ '^r »--: w ^ ^ U -j: w o ^c C^w 



3 3 

■as 

3 3 



—a 



3.2 £ & 

-- — ■— 

= "= -- 

5 s > > 



WW-—— □— p 

C C 3 3 c 3 O 



<- ,»-i-i^ , »-i w- — ^^ t; -j o 



s d § S w , 



3 £•«■© 



c £ a 

O) 02 3 13 

»o ° 
M. © 

to O 



-3 • 

3 C » 
3 o & 



.S'g 

II 



33' 
ESE- 



b o w 

ft" oT 
® ® £2 









3-- 

1 a 3 c , 
SSESo 

^a o 

. to «jO 



E9 



OS 



* 5 



-^ '— o 



o°cj 

■ •3 .■ 



gx°S 



oCJ 

CJ a! 



Go 



O04 M 

2 8. 3 



: _ 0. i. 
09445- 



tJ 



-41— No. 29- 



O^ 



3 t - 



as 

go 



240 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



09 




ft 




V) 




73 


s 






o 














a 








- 


Bi 


> 




a 



too 

"ON 



eo «o i-I ^f CO 
■^ CD CO ^ *C 



p5o^"^^COr>^<©CDCO*CN 



»-* cn co r- 



COI"--^CCt^t^.-^»Ot^.CD'VCO CiCOTPt^- 



r- oscoosco 

CNO t^*0 

-^co-^csco 



cn od co* oi i> 

CO ^ ^ >— < CO 



cioioiooicooHCiooiai 

ddcoN'oooH'dcdd^ 



00 CO GO CO Tf OS 

cn os r-* - co cn os* 
co cocs »o COM 



odoioosco 



coo*-hoo 

os* co co* i>* co* 



XO^NpHOiOC^WOONOJ 

d w cn »c oi od co 6 n od co ^ 



COCO OS CO 



^H (- CO CN O 

O CO CD* rH OS 



2 



OS CN OS -* CO 
CN !>•' »0* tj" CO* 



*CNOWcOCNuoasOSOSOS 
CO" "*" -~< CN -O Tt* i-H O iO 1^* CN © 



-H CM 



1^, iO tfi co 

o co — ; ic 



^H^COCC 
— ' CN CO * CO* 



CD CO CN rj< O 
tJ* t^ •>. CD i-t 



CO-*0030SOSCOI^.COOSb-C 

OS OS ■— ' CN OS CN GO CN iO -^ t 



GO <-< CNiO^i^N 

ioco^o oioo cocNOcro 



<00>O«CNTpOf Nt CNGOt^CO f-( i-t cooscor^tc 
~H CN r-T <OOs"~ 



COCN 

1-H OS 

COCN 

CN CO** 



CD OS CD CN CD 
Tf4 tjh CO ^ <o 

^ CO CN CO^ 



iO COOSOCOOO-HCNOCOCNiOCN 
tT GO •— O CD .-HiOCNCNOStOCOCO^CO'OOS 

a>eOHos»o«coi--ooNi-i^ 



CN OS *0 CN 



OS »o 

Tf OS 

to" CO* 



t-» »0 CN CO CO 

t>- ^ CN OS CO 



— i CN 



CN -^00 CO CO 
Oh-CDCDN 
pH lOCN 



CO O iO CO COCO O CO M N ^ 

-^ i—i i— ' wu i" u' -r- uu lm -*j- <-^ <.->.» ■--• CN i— < CN CO CO •— < 1^- CO CO CN r- 

I>» «Dh.(NOJ<C^^»OOrHCOO) CNCNOCO .-h w CNNOOlW 

cn* of -h* t-T r-T io co** r-T io" i-T oo *o"* to •-"".-*" os"" — T 



lOCOtOGO""' CD COCO^Ht-OCOt-Os-cf'<*« 
r>. CN CO CN OS CN COOSCDCOCDOS*OTPOt- 



^-t i—( '^,-ir-icOCO'-' N^WOO 



< GO ~-> OS CN — i »OCNCO-'h- 
> CO t- »0 iO CN iO CD N C- C 



CN IO <-H CO CO 



rf r^ CO CO t- CO CO ^ os *r *** CD CO »-H CO CN COOS CN CO <-H CO -f 



COCOCDCOQOCOCNOSCDTr"OSO 



_| t^lflHH 



< r~i t^ O t- 



CN CN CO "cf CO 0)00 lOCI CO CN ■ 



CO ^H t^- OS OS 






d0 



-d 


J 






t 


u 










a) 








p. a 


+? 


— 




M 










> 


> 










3 


a 


fiti 


3 


3 






a 









q 


a 



»-«s 



« ! 00 ] 



e 



5 3^3 s o 
-"£93 

. 3 »o © O W 

OCO *" >0 r-9 



a 9 2 

ssa 



B-oS « 

3 a> 3 to 

u fcB « 

£3-3 
« ® " _ 



ft-psss^ 

ftp,— o o 
x> as DO 



> > > 

3 3 3 

EBB 

3 3 3 
o o o 

q q q o 

«> <D 0> r- 

o o o G 

»-. t- ^ r- 

a> © a} C 

aaao; 



§g Hi 

si 

IB OC 



,ȣ 






5s 3 S 



3 b boo Q) 
o o q.^f' 1 -' o 



. q 2 s 

2SB g 

fcBg 



=ea 



= Ma "So 



o 

o -? 

cjiOix; 
■B- « 
5o-g 



OQ -5 



«S 



K Sco 



2 2* 
° So 

03 03 > -' 

< ■ t, 

S qq 

MO" 

3 «S 



o 

„ o 



3 3 
D O 

T.-n 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



241 



»Ort«00^l^NWMaONh.aW^C600O»O«(»NM«:O^Nc0O»00J^0CNWW«OJOHCi0NOnOO 
^NI^^HO00W'*C v lO«00NT)<NNtC*0iH(DOXH«ONaiTl"^HPH^NOb-0)(C'(OtD00OCSO»0O«00n 

coi^^cDccas'cNcrJxt^ocNxtco^^ci^^eo^'Q^oc©^ 

cor^as«>^^^^c»xr^c»coc5^cias^oc»r^©i-«r^u3wxcci^b-Oix^cox 
'cO'^i^i^^cio^cs^xr^X'X^aJxw^'coOcDX'coc^ 

, -j -t ^^h hN«mSN MO — • CN <-HCOCO i-Hi-< C^-^-aS mOhhOO W 

©W3H©Wtf5«W^NO«OI»CCOO?OOOOTrO««M^ONOflNiCNa:iHkO(NCCOOO(DOa'NNOiO^O 

' ^ — ; ' c d s d *f ci ^i c w c ^ >c c d v - x c n c n - ^' ?: d >o uS^uSt^ <c ro c4 «c »<s ' x © c* r4 as © ' os —I 



~- <c — ro ^ oS ~- ■ Boo»«octcbc«n^x NXiccN-*-2(N«Ncwx^^ioicao o ao a» So 3* Si 

CCNNvOCOVCMMiC^TfCl-HOMONOJC 03«CC»0(Cr-(O^H<oa3^t>-CiO ^h OS <M 0>Oh CD I-h 

~r»x _r_r*^w<-C-T r^Tesf ^rco _T,_r©" i-Tei <c »o «-T io ■^*" oo *<* ^i-r«-r to ^"cs cn ^p of <n cs *-T cn 

* i-i i-i i-« i-t i-t »0 CD W 



TO us ^-T ^h~ e-" ©" © «-•* 



<003C^M^tDSiONtT'00?:OtCNX"C»ONONcDi-'W:!DXXO>CC'ONCi-m:ONOCNC»h'>COS-*U5 

^■^(ea-iOtc— ■ — — cicc:xc^r-xx© i ^*ox vxioioco-ionxc-HCCiciciooa rox© nm«o 

WiO-iOlh.X.'Oh'WCO^^tCOCWOsOt-O Xf OXMNX«"Nn(NC;r>0". ^-.-^ 0)>OH i-* 



^coco^ 



X C: ^ <<r «-« O « 



HHHC1WH 



CN MH 



^vacx^^c^-'Cc-'XX^M'.c^io^ SfiN9«>oiQ(Oi5nnniooQaiQ(Oo9 snn huso 
ocoiS^wocior-Ch-cp:iox«.':'CX»«N oow^oi , *p:M<DTfcom«a: , fl'ccww:'VN r- --r co co 



1 CN CO ^h »C N O iO W CI CO r-< CO t ^ '-' OS CD 
l«V «CN^ CN i-t »i ^ 



»C rt i-i 



J»03N«0-VOiCnXNCi-'-tCOC , Qf0XX jOOrtNM«n^^^MNN-<t' , - , XWtD^C3)^0)NM 

i-i xco^wmnxx«0}NNu:-HX co «>*<*< csc-'OH^rtiotci'iic n" ri. io i-< 

■v-^io ^rcccN-H af(N"»o~c*f C"f co"cn co* *h" ©co" 



W©C»NCO©0>^«CCWOCO«^CO^tNCNg^THNrtCO^iHiOCO^C»CO©«Ot>.NNu:tCCO^ 

pH — « 00 CN t^ CN CN Cl r- CC »C *C CN CO CN T CM CO CD CN «iHOi«OtN^»0«OtOXlHMMtN i-s i~l 

r^~ co ©"" i-T of of r»" «-T os — T »o N" cn i-T *c co 



S3 

fcfc: 

ac.£ 

t- k. © 

eg "3 

W U L. 

&aa 

q} CD CO 

> > > 



_. oo oe co _ 

O " 3 3 o 

Sn S = E o 

o o 



. , O O 

co»c 
2 3 



O O O o s 
'C'C'O o c 



SB 

IB C 



_es co 
« w a 3 3 5 

§ -see I 

® aSuo B 
3-J 3 Ok-^-S. 



t a c 
— o o 

*ee 

1 8 P 





I'd 






I* 






IS 






A 


















1 «* 


■V 




3 






', ft 


« 




TJ 






i CO 




•2 


L" 


"O 1 




! ® 

:> 

il 

;3 










■c 

1 


ft 
> 


ft 

CD 

> 


a 

> 


»1 1 

"s I 

ft . 


H 


ad 


a 




* 




* ! 3 


3 


3 


3 
g 




« 


i a 


5 


E 














* 


- a 


w 


u 


3 ; 



ftft 



> 3 



SC^C^C. 



c o 

o e 



EB 



■ OO 



W^U €^». 



D 9 



— Js w o ft o b 



S 0*3 3^ o 

3 o a o e o 

SBSBgB 



3 3 «2S 

bb?;« 

3 3~ 3 

""5b 

_ o c "3 3 U 

sassaSa 
sassg§a 

•OP. tij^ O ! 

SIOr>.co^«^Ot 



9d. 



as- 



1-g 

tr c3 t- 
.•=3,2; 

dc'o 

355 o 

it < e~ 

■strO 

Q C c _ 

dec a; 



a O — 



C 
o — 



O o o 

11° 



O 

a 

c 
•a 

3 S 



g'ai "3c 



o a» 
Oo: 



c3=« 
OCfc 
c c c 
2.2 2 
'3 '3 



C c 



£ 3 5 « 5 



♦1 r»> 



— CO OS GO 



3 B 



00 CO 
a, co » 
^ -3 "5 

811 



.2 u 



242 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



CO 




o 


-^ 


t-t-o 


t^COCN 


^ CO CO Ol CO 


ox 


8 


t>-OS 


lOOJN 


as Tt<co 


•V i-H i- 1 t-» CD 


d 




COt-00 


00 ■* w 


HCO(CON 


=3 I 












•gJS 






















£■« 




-HOS 


•^ Tf r^. 


CO CO 00 


*C00 <-H U3 CO 


li 




CN-* 


co as as 


<-< coos 


HTfOCfilO 






HiOtO 


00 CO «3 


"3 


60 






















o o 


O 


w CO 


OS CD 00 


CO^HIO 


Tf iftCO t-»o 


°2 


8 




CN"5 t>- 
CN CN 


i-H © CO 

ira-HCN 


-H CO OS COCN 


bo> 


•SO 










Ss3 






















a .-a 


o 


-H CN 


CO »C OS 


CO t^ CO 


«NcD«OJ 


CB C 

5 > 


8 




HX* 


CN CO O 


i- 1 CD CO O CO 


o 


o 




" H 


■«< .-1 


rt 


Ph 


«J 










I 


8 


■*co 


CO OS OS 


W* Tf 


as coco co ■— i 


J^ 


irso 


CN »0 CO 


OO t~-H 


CO CD Oi O •— < 


o 


«£ 


■<»<« 


OOiON 


OS 00 


OJ «-«COCOCD 


03 


o 


NCO* 


OS 00 


CN* 


i-H CN 'tjfof 


a 










i-H CN 




© 












«& 










ta- 












fl 




00 —• 


CO 00 00 


t^ t^o 


CO 1 ^ CD ^C3b 




O o 


CN lO 


CO >o-^ 


CO 00 CO 


■-HtONOCN 


* 


* J o 




OS lO CO 


>o>o 


■^ as co t— io 


rt o 




■ooo 




CO*--H 


BO 

g 










rt 


is 






















"o 

S3 

CB 

3 


o 


CM »0 


t^.OS OS 


H1DO 


»0 CO"* CO CN 




"OlO 


lOOSCO 




■-iiOCDTfN 






■HCNr- 


CN CN CN 


■* O rf O CO 

■t-Tcn oTco* 


J3 


rH<0 










CO 


«J 










o 
























o _ 


.-1 CN 


r- -*f oo 


OOOS 


r-- i-H --hh ■* b» 




~ o 




00 CO CO 


t^ Tt* (^ 


CO O 00 OS CO 


,2 


si 




■* CN CN 


COCN' 


i-H CD CN CO 


a 




t>r 




«-<■ 


3 













T3 

a 


s s 












CO 00 


CD OS CO 


CN COCO 

■* ascN 


0«« coo 


t-8 




OO t~ 


lOOOiCOM 


CBS 




■^ CO CN 


CO ~H ic 


i-H CO HO CN 


o2 




CO* 




•h/ 


K 


* 
















& 






bo 

□ 




it 








p 
















(- 
















B 










p, 








u 








CB 






09 












w . 








£ 






'o 




'C 








£ 


















p. 








hi 








u 


























CB 
> 






C3 

ft 




qJ 








a. 








G 










s 












3 




C 

o 






CB 

> 




1-4 




T) 




cy 








CB 








o 








> 




c 




> 






ca 








,CB 
CB 




a 




o 




eg 






s 




o 










5 




= 






a 




° 




ft 




s 

3 




Z 




£ 






3 




> 




■t* 








a 


a 

o 


. c 




a 


6 : 


1 

c 


c 


ic 











O Oti O cb 

5 a! s E c. 

O ft°— c 


E o 

ft o 


n o 3 o 

Sbbec 


5 

K ■ 






Occ 


O It- 


O 


€* 


o^a 


>o 












c 


























o 
























be 
























c 
















































3 










CB 






a 
o 




CB 










EH 




CD 

3 




















3 




3 










6 




o 


o 

a. 


si 










o 

o 

X! 




1 


6 










3 
Eh 




1 


« 


Is 


CB S 
CU _CD 

3 00 

•c.9 










Cm 


££ 


3 : 






'o 
CM 
c 


o o> 

aa 

a dx 


- gt» 

o ^ c 

f* CO 






Li 


S.H 




3 . b£ 






-2 


MM 


CB CB 

L — 


^3 > 3 






CO 


CB CB 


■r" - o 






pi 




& 


£ 




*a 




r" 


p= 


> 





Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations 
SECTION HI. DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 i 



Name of issuer 



Allied Chemical & Dye Corpora- Common 

tion. 
AUis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co 
Aluminum Co. of America 



Title of issue 



Number of shareholdings of— 



Over 
6,000 
shares 



American Can Co 

American Car & Foundry Co. 
American Cyanamid Co 



American & Foreign Power Co. 



American Gas & Electric Co. 



American Metal Co., Ltd., The... 



American Power & Light Co.. 



American Radiator & Standard 

Sanitary Corporation. 
American Rolling Mill Co., The... 



American Smelting & Refining Co.. 

American Sugar Refining Co., The. 

American Telephone & Telegraph 

Co. 
American Tobacco Co., The 



American Water Works & Electric 

Co.. Inc. 
American Woolen Co 



Armour & Co. of Delaware 



Armour & Co. (Illinois) . 



Atchison, Topeka A Santa Fe Ry. 

Co., The. 
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co 



Atlantic Refining Co., The.. 



Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., The. 



8 percent cumulative preferred 

Common.— 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common -- 

7 percent noncumulatlve preferred-. 

Common, class A 

Common, class B — 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common --- 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred, series 



Common. .- 

$6 cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common - 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common.. _- 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

iVi percent cumulative convertible 

preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 



.do. 



Common, class B 

6 percent cumulative preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative 1st preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred . 
Common 



.do. 



4 percent participating 1st preferred. 

4 percent participating 2d preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumulative guaranteed 
preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative convertible prior pre- 
ferred. 

7 percent cumulative preferred 



Common.. 

5 percent noncumulatlve preferred - . 

Common voting 

Common, nonvoting . 

7 percent cumulative 1st preferred . 

Common 

4 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred, series A. 
Common 

4 percent noncumulatlve preferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative preferred 



6,740 
2,617 
2,790 
17,630 



5,332 

2.209 

2,127 

3,016 

115,043 



1,813 
1,652 
30, 553 



34,296 
17, 498 
1,435 



8.939 
2,167 

11,318 
4,408 
4,497 

15,511 
3,571 



3,224 
2,124 
2,471 
11,661 



5,454 
1.772 
2,012 
3,428 
141,569 

4,551 
9,842 
1,717 
2,497 
1,105 
1.690 
2,267 
27,946 



N. A. 
N. A. 
1,152 



771 

8,518 
2,038 
11,363 
5,850 
5,352 



12,734 
2,299 
4.014 
2,708 



3,572 
3,217 
3,261 



5,288 
2,9418 
4,067 
7,605 
357,771 

6,046 
15,866 
3,094 
2.966 
2,343 
6,614 
6,554 
42,304 



3,971 
7,079 
8,461 
2,783 

14, 670 
4.330 
21,390 
15, 450 
14, 505 
15.067 
7,230 



Number of shares held in holdings of- 



Over 
6,000 

shares 



1,001 to 
6,000 
shares 



501 to 
1,000 

shares 



Percentage of total representing more than— 



75.4 
58.6 
29.9 
14. 1 
13.2 



54.6 
14.3 
64.1 
25.4 

53.9 
17.1 
34.3 
49.1 



17.3 
16.4 
40.7 

100. 
79.9 
58.9 
14.8 



41.6 
87.0 
74.3 
45.2 
32.0 
29.1 
17.0 
78.8 
44.6 
55.9 

71.9 
60.1 
70.5 
94.1 

73.7 
29.2 
82.9 
40 3 



20.6 
35.8 
30.1 
59.3 

100.0 
85.9 
64.2 
31.2 
20.3 

47.4 
38.2 
45.7 



90.5 
79.4 
63.3 
41.8 
37.2 
26.0 
84.9 
53.2 
62.4 

76.0 
66.8 
78.6 
05.4 

79.5 
36.5 
87.4 
49.3 

71.5 
48.9 
61.2 
71.6 



5Z8 
39.6 
26.9 
11.1 
21.2 

43.0 

44.8 

as. 9 

75.4 
21.0 
30 8 
34.3 
50.5 
97.2 
B9 6 



52.3 
45 8 
BO 9 
34.2 
31.7 
19 1 
24.6 



10.7 


6.4 


14.9 


7.4 


7.4 


3.8 


4.2 


11.4 


9.4 


8.4 


14.4 


5.2 


3.9 


7.8 


50.0 


79.2 


33.8 


100.0 


1.9 


12.9 


4.1 


5.0 


9.1 


7.9 


15.9 


100.0 


3.7 


1.6 


12. S 


3.5 


6.8 


7.4 


5.6 


3.6 


4.2 


10.9 


5.6 



53.6 
93.9 
75.0 
77.1 



52 9 
67.7 
61 9 
S4 8 
50 
100 
92. 1 
76.5 
67.3 
41.2 



67. 1 

52 6 

53 1 
70 .2 
50 6 



44.1 
32.8 
100.0 
15.7 



29 S 
90.1 
21 9 
43.5 



I no n 
100.0 
100. 
100.0 
65 8 



27! 6 I 80^4 



vidu^T'companiesTiTsec Ulot ttatarai mil" °' holdmg was in seTer81 cascs adjusted to conform to the standard grouping and thus the aggregates presented In appendix IV (tables 46 to 69, Inclusive) for shareholdings in specific size groups will not coincide eiactly with the data shown for 



individual companies in sec. Ill of this appendi'-. 

' Holdings of exactly 5,000 shares grouped with holdings of over 5,000 shares. 

N. A.— Indicates that holdings or holders In this size group are not available and are therefore included with the next highest group for which figures are shown. 



268445 — 41 (Face p. 242) No. 1 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 800 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
SECTION m. DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39— Continued 



Name of issuer 



Number of shareholdings of- 



Over 
6.000 

shares 



1,001 to 

5.000 
shares 



601 to 
1,000 

shares 



Number of shares held In holdings of— 



1,001 to 
6.000 
shares 



S01 to 
1,000 

shares 



Percentage of total representing more than— 



Boston * Albany R. R. Co 

Brooklyn Union Gas Co.. The 

California Packing Corporation. .. 

Carolina, ClInchAeld 4 Ohio Ry.. 
Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey, 

The. 
Central 4 South West Utilities Co 



Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., The. 



.do-. 



$7 cumulative prior lien preferred. . 
10 cumulative prior lien preferred. . 

17 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$4 noncumulatlve preferred, series A. 
Common 



do 



Cities Service Co.. 



Cleveland Electric 

Illuminating Co., The 

Climax Molybdenum Co. 
Com Cola Co., The 



Colgate-PalmoUve-Peet Co. 



Commonwealtb Edison Co 

Commonwealth & Southern Cor- 
poration. 

Consolidated Edison Co. of New 
York, Inc. 

Consolidated Oas Electric Light 
4 Power Co. of Baltimore. 



Consolidated Oil Corporation. 



Consumers Power Co. 



Continental Can Co., Inc. 



Crown Zellerbach Corporation. 
Cudahy Pocking Co 



(percent cumulative preferred, series A 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$0.60 cumulative preferred, series B. . 
$6 cumulative preferred, series BB... 

Common 

$4.60 cumulative preferred 

Common 



.do 



$3 cumulative preferred, class A 

Common 

ft percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred, series 



6 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred. 
Common 



.do . 



$6 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

Hi percent cumulative, preferred 
series B.' 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$6 preferred 



Common.. 

$5 cumulative preferred 

$4.60 cumulative preferred. 



7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative convertible preferred. 

Common _ 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 



1,624 
2,386 
3,706 



1,804 
1,810 
2,740 



2,621 

42fi, 002 
6,594 

708 
106 



661 
1,173 
1,064 
2,552 
1,604 
3,966 
1,234 
8, 824 20, 798 



1,432 



1,0 



145 

10,090 
23,067 
1,181 
10,798 
2,020 
1,496 



3,455 



676 

24,190 
62,203 
4,833 
28,800 
7,613 
4,663 



1,543 
1,189 
2,626 



22,483 
6,849 
3,461 



4,234 
2,080 
1,411 



1,453 
36,897 
1.106 



3,225 
1,395 



2,189 
2,246 
5,582 



3,827 
3,114 
3,135 
5,025 



2,965 
12,483 
11,745 
22,653 


4,275 
N. A. 
47.469 

1,214 

1,373 



2,852 
1,397 
2,667 
3.651 

N. A. 

N. A. 



7,342 
30,655 
10,450 



77.8 
37.6 
100.0 
40.6 
49.8 
38.2 
•37.0 
100.0 
2.3 



81.3 
22.0 
79.9 



83.7 
62.1 
100.0 
46.9 
61.6 
48.7 
'53.5 
100.0 
13.3 
31.1 
15.4 
9.3 
17.4 



13.1 
lli 8 
75.9 



57.3 
100.0 
50.4 
68.5 
52.6 
<59.6 
100.0 
18.5 
39.1 
18.4 
15.5 
21.7 
92.6 
40.8 
92.1 
85.9 
63.2 
69.8 
30.6 



65.8 
100.0 
59.4 
81.6 



13.1 

100.0 

12.3 

48.4 

3.2 

N. A. 

100.0 

32.2 

N. A. 

10.0 

33.9 

7.7 



47.9 
50.2 
23 1 
54.2 



97.5 

99.3 
81.2 

100.0 
76.7 
95.6 
75.0 

N. A. 
100.0 
82.8 

N. A. 



81.6 
97.0 
91 .2 



4.521 
N. A. 

N. A. 


10,725 
10,539 
10,201 



4,583 
3,102 
1,579 



Delaware & Hudson Co., The Common 

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western . do 

R. R. Co., The. 

Detroit Edison Co., The Capital stock (common) 

•Duke Power Co Common 

I 7 percent cumulative preferred . 
1 Holdings of exactly 5.000 shares grouped with holdings of over 5,000 shares 
, 5 li 8 * ° eIsctlT ''WO shares grouped with next highest size Interval 
. S <> !°! n * , °i «»»ctly 500 shares grouped with next highest size Interval. 
J Holdings of exactly 100 shares grouped with next hlchest size Interval. 

'? 001 shares udover cu,nutotlTe P" , ' e * Ted offered Hi percent cumulative preferred series B in exchange In April 1939: balance of 5 percent cumulative preferred outstanding redeemed In June 1939. 
•Holdings of exactly 25 shares grouped with next highest size interval 
■Holdings of exactly 10 shares grouped with next highest size interval. 



6.3 
3.5 
13.6 
22.0 
36.0 
37.3 
21.1 
N. A. 
7.3 

46.5 
16.5 
46.0 



42.3 
9. 1 
43.4 

49.0 



7.3 
100.0 
10.4 
13.0 
31.7 
38.0 
53.2 
56.7 
37.4 
77.6 
28.1 

62.6 
34.0 
53.5 
37.9 
80.0 
84. 1 



29.6 
61.7 
18.2 
100.0 
14.6 
20.1 
41.5 
47.6 
61.5 
65.1 



68.8 
41.8 
58.6 
42 4 
90.0 
89.3 
70.1 
46.0 
71.5 

91.6 

94.3 
33.3 



50.9 
100. 
27.1 
37.6 



44.2 
33.8 
37.5 
42.3 

100.0 
77.3 
69.6 
36.4 

N. A. 



78.5 
96.2 
80.0 
100.0 
55.2 
73.0 
92.0 
91.0 
N. A. 



11 (Face p. 242) No. 2 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 20(f~targesl nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
SECTION III. DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39— Continued 



Name of issuer 



Number of shareholdings of— 



Number of shares held iu holdings of— 



Over 

6.000 

shares 



1,001 to 

5.000 
shares 



801 to 
1,000 
shares 



Over 
5,000 
shares 



1,001 to 
5,000 
shares 



Percentage of total representing more than- 



E. I. du Pent de Nemours 6t Co.. 



Duquesne Light Co.. 



Eastman Kodak Co. 



& Light Corpora- 



Empire <vGas Fuel Co. 



Engineers Public Service Co. 



Federal Water Service Corporatic 



Firestone Tire 4 Rubber Co., The. 
Ford Motor Co ..., 



Genera] American Transportation 
Corporation. 

General Electric Co... 

General Foods Corporation 



General Motors Corporation. 
General Telephone Corporatit 



Gimbel Brothers, Inc. 



Goodyear Tire di Rubber Co., The 
Great Northern Ry. Co., The , 



Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co 
Illinois Central R. R. Co 



Inland Steel Co 

International Business Macbln 

Corporation 
Interuational Harvester Co 



Common 

6 percent cumulative debenture 
stock. 

$4. 50 cumulative preferred 

Common. — 

5 percent cumulative 1st preferred.. 
Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common. 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred series A.. 

Common 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6$ percent cumulative preferred. . . 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$5.60 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative convertible preferred 

Common class B.~ 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6.50 cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$4 cumulative preferred 

Common, class A 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred, series A 

Common, class B 

Common, class A 

Common 



-do.. 



$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common *.. 

$5 cumulative convertible preferred 



$5 cumulative preferred. 



epercentcum ulative preferred, series A 
$6 noncumulative preferred (no 
common outstanding). 



7 percent class A, cumulative par- 
ticipating preferred. 
Common 

5 percent noncumulative preferred . . 
Common 

6 percent noncumulative convertible 
preferred, series A. 

Common __. 



N. A indicates that holdings i 



7 percent cumulative preferred ...... 

Common.. 

ciassB.. ;."; ;;;;_; 

$3.50 cumulative convertible pre- 

ferred. 
$2 cumulative participating, class A. 
holders : 



3,366 
1,347 
2,249 



2,738 

'•8.581 

3,078 



191,399 
11,800 
2,297 



N. A. 
N. A. 
3,544 



rf.T 

7,376 



4,645 
4,061 
1,398 



4,542 

N. A. 
N. A. 



153, 547 
6,791 
N. A. 
N. A. 



22,905 
N. A. 
12, 777 



J therefore included with next highest group for which figures are shown. 



l this size group are not available and i 

• Holdings of exactly S,000 shares grouped with holdings of over r,,0uo 8 
- u»wn|i cf exactly ,000 shares grouped with next highest size Interval, 

5 r*f 2 !5° v f?5 s 5 ares foaveH with next highest sizt interval. 

• i 001 shares emi'ove ** BIOUped wlth neit h i8"«t size interval. 

'• include. 5.330 shareholdings and 166.835 shares representing employees stock contracts not assigned to any size group by the company. 



6,484 

843 

30 

6,191 



16.0 



71.3 
20.6 
12.9 
11.5 
100.0 
51 9 
61. 6 
60. 
42 5 
45.8 



5.7 



100.0 
100.0 
27.6 

33.0 

32.5 
73.3 

N. A. 

N. A. 



55 S 
19,2 
47.1 
17,8 



51.4 
52.1 
100.0 
100.0 
17.9 

25.4 



36.8 
100.0 
65.3 
37.0 
9.7 
82.3 
41.8 
46.9 
55.1 
100.0 

62. e 

62 6 
67.7 
42 5 
66.0 
28.8 
31.4 
31.4 
100.0 



100 
100.0 
46.4 

63.0 
43.8 
32,7 
'65.6 
'43.2 
40 2 
9 6 
73.2 
26.8 
65.5 
35.8 
28.5 
•44.2 
•10.8 
41.9 



34.0 
19 2 
M 2 

62 4 



100 

100 
34.5 



100.0 

n 2 



43.2 
100.0 
59.6 
46.6 
22 6 
84.8 
61.2 
67.7 
64.1 
100 
649 
62.6 
67.7 
46.2 
70 2 
41.1 
46.4 
39.1 
100.0 
20.0 
18 6 
26.0 


28 6 
65.5 
15.9 
100.0 
100 
64.1 

61.6 
48.8 
43.3 
69.3 
61.6 
47.6 
19.2 
79.8 
56.1 
75.0 
43.4 
38.4 
<51.3 
•17.4 
49.6 

91.1 

100.0 
12.8 



70.4 
67.8 
100.0 
100.0 
48.3 

55.8 



100.0 
100.0 

13.6 



100.0 
100.0 
16.9 



76.4 

60.2 
100.0 
74.6 
67.9 
53.2 
90.8 
66.5 
74.1 
76.9 
100.0 
66.9 
68.9 
70.6 
60.7 
81.6 
64.4 
66.6 
63.5 
100.0 
40 
40.0 
45.8 

59 8 



100.0 
100 
76 9 



80.5 
100.0 
100.0 

75.9 



40.7 
100.0 
44.1 
28.2 
32.8 
37.3 
27.4 
31.2 
43.4 
100.0 
18.6 
16.1 
10.7 
11.9 
30.3 
29.9 
31.3 
36.5 
100.0 
19.0 
22.7 
15.2 
2.7 



100.0 
10O.0 
46.2 

N. A. 
37.2 
36.6 
57.6 
67.4 
48.6 
39.0 
50.0 
35.6 



40.5 

22.9 

N. A. 



53.2 
100.0 
34.9 

42.6 
34.9 
31.4 
14.6 



44.3 
21.4 
100.0 
100.0 
49.7 

43.5 I 



88.6 
100.0 
94.2 
87.8 
83.9 
97 3 
86 8 
90.6 
93.6 
100 
84.2 
84.3 
82.4 
72 6 
93! 



100 
73.3 
72.9 
73 6 



95.5 
77 8 
100.0 
100.0 
94.0 

N. A. 
89.6 
87.3 
97.6 
97.3 
91.4 



91.8 
86.5 
92.7 



92.4 
100.0 
100.0 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of BOO largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
SECTION III. DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39— Continued 





Title of issue 




Number of shareholdings o 






Number of shares held in holdings of — 


Percentage of total representing more than— 


Name of issuer 


Over 
6,000 
shares 


1,001 to 
6,000 
shares 


501 to 
1,000 
shares 


101 to 
600 

shares 


26 to 
100 

shares 


llto26 
shares 


1 to 10 
shares 


Over 
6,000 
shares 


1,001 to 
5,000 
snares 


501 to 
1,000 
shares 


101 to 

500 
shares 


26 to 

100 

shares 


11 to 25 
shares 


1 to 10 
shares 


5,000 shares 


1,000 shares 


600 shares 


100 shares 


26 shares 


10 shares 




Hold- 
.lugs 


Shares 


Hold- 
ings 


Shares 


Hold- 
ings 


Shares 


Hold- Qho „. 
ings Sbares 


Hold- 
ings 


Shares 


Hold- 
ings 


Shares 


International Paper 4 Power Co.. 




47 
21 

113 
ISO 

27 
20 

1 


13 

2 

210 

24 

2 

72 

20 
6 

44 

■12 


167 
94 

257 
464 

27 
49 


6 

33 
16 

691 
15 
12 
2 

222 
74 
22 

267 
»87 


130 
100 

208 
635 

40 
43 


6 

39 
29 
1,072 
11 
13 
2 
285 
97 
26 

270 
■ 96 


890 
692 

' 877 
10, 112 

134 

328 

P 

36 

164 
164 

8,134 
29 
289 
1 
2,711 
436 
171 

2,014 
'1,109 


3.235 
2,429 

2,201 
19,423 

269 

1,268 



148 

430 

680 

26,066 

42 

1,321 



8,201 

686 

268 

1,789 
' 1, 734 


3,629 
2,621 

1,482 
26,012 

136 

1,091 



160 

251 
516 

18,654 



1,005 



5,746 

377 

176 

879 
' 3, 698 


9.386 
6,907 

1,901 
19,945 

223 

3,672 



395 

371 

884 

23,666 



1,509 



6,101 

660 

494 

741 

N. A. 


881 

242 

2,208 
2,225 

428 

248 

525 



119 

63 

4, 341 

2,706 



20 

3,423 

1,971 

686 

763 

'699 


362 
234 

581 
962 

82 

113 



12 

72 
32 
1,462 
32 
20 
2 
495 
149 
65 

484 
'159 


93 

80 

157 
398 

30 
35 

4 

27 
22 
831 
9 
10 
2 
218 
74 
18 

180 
«61 


201 

139 

215 
1,646 

33 
74 

11 

42 

39 

1,962 

7 

64 

1 

648 

103 

42 

385 
•181 


190 
139 

137 
821 

18 
76 

8 

32 
38 
1,679 
4 
75 

644 
43 
16 

96 
174 


66 
50 

29 
362 

3 

21 

4 

5 
10 
371 

20 

115 
8 

17 
'35 


54 
46 

13 

86 

2 
20 

2 

3 

6 

176 



11 


47 
4 
2 

5 
N.A. 


0.3 
.2 

1.6 
.2 

3.2 
.3 
100.0 


1.0 
.1 
.3 
19.8 


28.6 
.3 
.9 
.5 

.7 

'.2 


47.2 
26.0 

66.1 
34.8 

74.3 

42.3 

100.0 



39.7 
30.0 
40.1 
98.1 


80.0 
62.4 
83.8 
81.1 

39.6 

'57.8 


1.2 
.9 

5.3 
. .8 

6.3 

1.1 

100.0 

.7 

3.5 
.8 
1.2 
32.2 
.3 
67.1 
1.3 
4.2 
2.4 

5.0 
'1.6 


67.0 
51.2 

83.5 
49.8 

85.1 
61.5 
100.0 
30.0 

63.7 
45.2 
53.6 
99.3 
10.0 
88.0 
71.4 
90.1 
88.8 

84.8 
'71.0 


1.9 
1.7 

8.2 
1.6 

11.0 

1.7 

100.0 

1.4 

6.5 
2.2 
2.5 
41.3 

.6 
85.7 
2.5 
8.5 
4.6 

•9.6 
•2.9 


72.1 
69.8 

88.2 
66.0 

90.3 
67.5 
100.0 
40.0 

72.7 
56.7 
61.3 
99.6 
15.0 
93.0 
75.3 
93.3 
91.3 

74.0 
• 76.0 


7. 83. 1 
6. 3 74. 7 

20.7 94.6 

14.8 80.2 

26. 6 96. 

6. 8 80. 1 

100.0 100.0 

6.2 67.5 

19. 1 86. 7 
9.6 74.3 

12. 9 79. 4 

65. 3 99. 9 

7. 6 47. 

100. 100. 

14. 1 87. 1 

27. 9 97. 7 
19. 5 97. 1 

43.1 93.9 
•19.6 '91.0 


25.6 
25.4 

51.9 
40.1 

58.1 
26.4 
1O0.0 
26.3 

52.2 
36.1 
46.2 

100.0 
39.1 

100.0 
49.2 
58.3 
41.8 

73.0 
'45.8 


95.9 
89.7 

98.7 
93.0 

99.1 
93.0 
100.0 
87.5 

97.3 
92.4 
95.0 

100.0 
84.6 

100.0 
97.1 
99.5 
99.3 

98.9 
•97.1 


46.3 
45.9 

73.0 
74.0 

74.0 
43.3 
100.0 
46.6 

71.5 
59.6 
70.0 

100.0 
63.6 

100.0 
73.9 
75.1 
57.0 

87.6 
N.A. 




6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 


95.1 

99.6 


Interaatlonal Telephone 4 Tele-- 

graph Corporation. 
Jonas 4 Laugblln Steel Corporation 

Kansas City Power 4 Light Co., 
The. 

Kansas City Southern Railway Co 

Kenneoott Copper Corporation — 






....do „ 

7 percent cumulative preferred 


99.7 
96.6 


6 percent cumulative 1st preferred, 
series B. 


95.0 


4 percent noncumulative preferred- - 


97.1 




100.0 




4 percent cumulative preferred 


94.5 
100. 








Lehigh Coal* Navigation Co., The 


G percent cumulative special pre- 
ferred. 


99.7 
99.7 












Liggett 4 Meyers Tobacco Co 




61 

22 

4 
33 


157 

1 
49 





6 
39 
36 

6 

N. A. 

43 
17 
14 

111 

4 
3 

130 
2 

131 




50 

52 
3 



41 
3 


199 
106 
11 
156 
6 
714 
12 
128 
1 

8 

58 

112 

107 

2 

3 

'180 

132 
67 
89 

233 

28 
30 

589 

11 

440 

8 

5 

172 

452 
12 

6 

200 
37 


220 
79 
21 
200 
9 
722 
10 
130 


20 

93 

138 

104 

2 

1 

187 

195 
68 
82 

522 
28 
34 

641 
35 

630 

7 

8 

174 

422 
22 

4 

218 
30 


1,663 
493 
269 
1,271 
165 
3,413 
80 
498 
66 

172 

753 
1,349 

666 
7 
8 

1, 785 

1,534 
613 
499 

5,264 
122 
342 

4,729 

296 

5,784 

45 

29 

1,516 

1,847 
283 

102 

1,887 
248 


5,637 
1,181 

921 
6,013 

911 
5,179 

221 
1,344 

602 

1,213 

2,163 

3,243 

6,854 

48 

49 

13,669 

4,438 
1,764 
2,069 

17,470 

668 

1,380 

15, 929 

1,238 

65,297 

294 

145 

6,383 

2,806 
1,018 

439 

8,107 
974 


4,248 
673 
744 

3,698 
732 

2,929 
190 
504 
775 

1,320 

1,576 
3.645 

N. A. 

N. A. 

N. A. 

N. A. 

1,890 

940 

1,736 

17,601 

403 

1,028 

12, 179 

1,165 

N. A. 

233 

109 

3,906 

1,424 
922 

345 

5.449 
731 


6,599 
1,140 

1,488 
4,522 
1,508 
2,265 
225 
554 
2,335 

2,726 

2,639 
3,289 

N. A. 

N. A. 

N. A. 

N\ A. 

24. 562 
1,140 
3,383 

18,799 
422 
960 

14, 134 

2,488 

N. A. 

525 

274 

3,511 

1,680 
1,717 

1,019 

6,068 
1,341 


864 

320 

30 

368 



2,324 

9 

2,347 





626 
803 
909 

278 

N. A. 

2,118 
327 
103 

1,569 
42 
25 

1,960 

13 

1,653 





625 

1,183 
22 



3,656 
40 


393 

249 

19 

322 

9 

1,601 

28 

292 

1 

13 

121 
219 
242 

3 
5 

'880 

296 
146 
191 

598 
60 

66 

1,313 

25 
912 
15 

15 

370 

912 
24 

14 

431 
70 


162 
62 

17 
150 

7 
522 

7 
110 



16 

71 
99 
82 
2 
1 

140 

144 
49 
63 

422 

22 
27 

481 

27 

396 

6 

6 

124 

315 
18 

4 

179 
22 


385 
129 

63 
310 

38 
796 

18 
132 

14 

37 

169 

258 

166 

2 

2 

412 

348 
126 
119 

1,104 
31 

78 

1,134 
71 

1,253 
10 

7 

374 

455 

60 

22 

468 
64 


348 
78 
57 

343 
66 

323 
14 

104 
31 

68 

136 

192 

246 

2 

2 

426 

238 
133 
131 

979 
36 
78 

1,036 
75 

2,050 
17 



434 

190 

61 

26 

563 
60 


83 
14 
14 
72 
16 
65 
4 
11 
15 

26 

30 
61 

N. A. 

N. A. 

' N. A. 

N. A. 

32 
20 
34 

304 

8 
19 

253 

22 

N.A. 

5 

2 

80 

29 
17 

6 

112 
14 


42 
8 
9 
34 
12 
17 
2 
4 
14 

19 

16 
23 

N. A. 
N. A. 
N.A. 

N.A. 

68 
9 
26 

151 
3 
7 

112 

15 

N.A. 

4 

2 

30 

11 
12 

6 

49 
10 


.4 

.6 
.1 
.2 



1.0 
.1 

1.5 





.1 

.3 
.5 



9.0 

N.A. 

.1 
.4 
.2 

.2 

.3 
.1 

.3 


.2 




.3 

.6 
.1 



.2 
.1 


37.9 
37.2 
14.4 
23.0 


42.0 

11.3 

78.2 

.0 



53.6 
48.5 
65.3 

96.5 

N.A. 

65. 3 

40.4 
15.4 

30.1 

20.8 
8.3 

31.2 
5.2 

26.4 




30.7 

38.2 
10.3 



67.0 
14.3 


1.5 
3.5 
.4 

1.3 
.2 
5.7 
1.8 
5.6 
.0 

.2 

.9 
1.3 
1.8 
3.4 
13.4 

1.1 

.5 
19 
1.3 

.6 
2.0 
.9 

1.6 
.3 
.8 
.7 

.9 

1.4 

5.8 
.4 

.3 

1.1 
1.2 


55.2 
66.2 
23.4 
43.2 

6.6 
69.1 
43.8 
88.0 

1.3 

7.3 

63.9 
61.8 
70.0 
33 3 
98.3 

47.4 

74.4 
58.3 
44.1 

41.5 
50.6 
30.3 

52.0 
15.3 
40.9 
26.3 

36.6 

48.9 

67.7 
21.5 

18.1 

74.9 
39.3 


2.7 
5.6 
1.0 
2.6 
.4 
10.4 
3.1 
9.6 


.5 

2.2 
2.5 
3.2 
6.8 
14.0 

2.3 

1.1 
3.3 

2.4 

14 
3.8 
1.8 

2.8 
.9 
1.5 
1.4 

2.3 

2.5 

10.7 
.9 

.5 

2.1 
2.1 


62.3 
73.4 
31.6 
52.5 
11.7 
78.6 
52.5 
91.6 
1.3 

16.2 

70.0 

67.7 
75.0 
55.5 
98.6 

64.9 

78.9 
64.4 
53.5 

49.6 
61.4 
39.3 

59.7 
26.2 
47.3 
36.8 

51.2 

54.9 

77.9 
29.9 

23.4 

78.2 
47.2 


12.2 79.2 
19. 88. 4 

8.6 61.7 
11.2 71.9 

5. 1 39. 4 
32. 6 92. 9 
13.9 75.0 
25. 1 96. 

1. 8 20. 

3. 7 36. 

12.6 84.4 
13. 9 83. 3 

11.8 85.0 

18. 6 77. 7 

26.9 99.3 

77.1 13.6 

5. 8 89. 6 

14.7 80.0 

8.7 71.4 

10 2 72. 5 
11.6 76.7 

10. 8 65. 3 

12. 6 77. 7 
6.6 54.8 
9. 5 67. 3 
6.4 54.4 

7. 4 68. 3 

12. 2 73. 3 

31. 9 92. 6 
8.1 58.0 

5.9 52.0 

10. 7 86. 7 
9. 5 70. 1 


43.8 

50.9 
35.3 
45.1 
32.5 
66.2 
43.8 
67.0 
17.7 

25.9 

42.7 
41.3 

N. A. 

N.A. 

N. A. 

N. A. 

19.3 
53.9 
35.0 

39.3 
47.6 
47.4 

45.6 

30.2 

N.A. 

31.8 

32.8 

52.8 

64.3 
33.6 

28.8 

47.6 
38.4 


94.6 
97.4 
89.0 
93.4 
80.3 
98.7 
92.5 
99.5 
61.3 

74.9 

96.1 

94.9 

N. A. 

N.A. 
N.A. 

N.A. 

96.9 
96.4 
91.0 

91.3 
04.6 
91.3 

94.2 

85.1 

N.A. 

84.2 

90.2 

94.6 

98.7 
86.5 

85.7 

97.1 
91.6 


68.0 
69.1 
56.8 
69.4 
54.6 
85.3 
69.6 
82.7 
38.2 

50.1 

64.6 
72.2 

N.A. 
N. A. 
N. A. 

N.A. 

25.1 
74.7 
57.0 

68.7 
73.2 
74.6 

70.8 

52.5 

N. A. 

62.8 

51.9 

77.7 

80.7 
66.8 

46.8 

72.4 
60.1 


98.2 








7 percent cumulative preferred 


96.7 






91.2 










6W percent cumulative preferred 


97.5 
99.9 




7 percent cumulative preferred, 

series A. 
6 percent cumulative preferred, 

series B. 


81.3 
89.4 
98.6 








Marshall Field 4 Co 

Mid-Continent Petroleum Cor- 
poration. 
Middle West Corporation, The 
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. Co 

Montgomery Ward 4 Co., Inc 


do 

7 percent cumulative prior preferred . 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common „. 

do 

do. . 

7 percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 


N. A. 
N. A. 
N.'A. 

N. A. 

97 9 
98.9 
90.1 

97.1 






98.5 


Morris 4 Essex R. R. Co 

National Biscuit Co 


7K percent noncumulative guar- 
anteed capital stock. 


97.7 


National Dairy Products Corpora- 


7 percent cumulative preferred 


94.0 


tion. 
National Distillers Products Cor- 


7 percent cumulative preferred, 

class A. 
7 percent cumulative preferred, 

class B. 


93.0 
95.1 


poration. 
National Lead Co.. 






National Power 4 Light Co.. 


7 percent cumulative, class A, pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumulative, class B, pre- 
ferred. 


94.5 
93.5 




$8 cumulative preferred 


96.6 



N. A. indicates that holdings or holders in this size group are not available and are therefore included with next highest group for which figures are shown. 
' Holdings of exactly 5,000 shares grouped with holdings of over 5,000 shares. 

no dings of exactly JW shores grouped with next highest site Interval. 
■ §2 j gs °! M8ct y 5SS s 5 ares S r0 »Ped with next highest sire interval. 
, , ™?^ gs of e, " cll >' 10 ° shar «s grouped with next highest sire interval 
' 1,001 shares and over. 

I.'SISl!!^ .'^ 80 !. 1 !; S 8hares F ou Ped with next highest sire interval. 



268445 — 41 (Face p. 242) No. 4 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of BOO largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
SECTION m. DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39— Continued 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Number of shareholdings of— 



Over 
6,000 
shares 



1,001 to 
5,000 
shares 



501 to 
1,000 
shares 



Number of shares held in holdings of— 



Over 
5,000 
shares 



601 to 

1,000 
shares 



Percentage of total representing more than— 



Commo 
.do. 



New England Power Association.. 

New England Telephone 4 Tele- 
graph Co. 

New Jersey Zinc Co., The 

New York Central R. R. Co., The 

New York, Chicago 4 St. Louis 
R. R. Co., The. 



Norfolk 4 Western Ry. Co- 
North American Co., The. . 



B percent cumulative prior preferred 
51i percent cumulative convertible 

prior preferred. 
$2 10-year cumulative convertible 

preferred. 

Common 

$5.50 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred. 



6 percent cumulative preferred. 

$2 cumulative preferred 

Common.- 



.do. 



.do. 



6 percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 

Common 

5 percent cumulative 1st preferred . . 

5 percent cumulative 2d preferred, 
series A. 

6 percent cumulative 2d preferred, 
series B. 

Common 

4 percent adjustable preferred 



Northern Pacific Ry. Co 

Northern States Power Co. (Del- 
aware). 



Ohio Oil Co., The. 



Common. 

Cumulative serial 6 percent pre- 
ferred. 

Cumulative serial 594 percent pre- 
ferred. 

Common - _ 

Common, class B 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

, class A .. 



.do.. 



Pacific Lighting Corporation.. 



Pacific Telephone 4 Telegraph 

Co., The. 
Paramount Pictures. Inc 



J. C. Penney Co 

Pennsylvania R. R. Co 

Peoples Oas Light 4 Coke Co., The 
Pere Marquette Ry. Co 



6 percent cumulative 1st preferred... 
5& percent cumulative 1st preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred " 

$6 preferred 2 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred , 

Common.. 

6 percent cumulative 1st convertible 

preferred. 
6 percent cumulative 2d convertible 

preferred. 

Common _ 

Capital stock (common).. 

Common 



.do 



Philadelphia Electric Co . 

Philadelphia 4 Reading Coal 4 

Iron Corporation. 
Phillips Petroleum Co... 



5 percent noncumulative preferred . 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred _ 



7,853 
1,019 
6,400 



1,836 
4.484 
7,499 



2,871 
2.906 
1,106 
10,686 
1,209 
2,880 
12.646 
16, 694 
6,268 
4,017 



8,101 
3,889 
3,168 



12,599 

23,307 
26,988 
1,190 
7,523 
1,194 
1,302 
8,305 
7,474 
4,649 
3,278 



26.2 

100.0 
23.0 

100.0 
92.4 
17.7 

66.3 

64.0 

47.1 
66.1 



65.4 

37.2 
83.3 



47.0 
62.2 
46.3 



23 4 
49.7 
41. 2 
52 4 
54.4 



76.3 
75.6 
72.3 



67.1 

100.0 
28.0 

100.0 
05.4 
30.0 

67.7 



72.7 
60.7 
91.1 



67.4 
57.9 
17.7 



«s 1 
63.4 
19.2 

IS 5 
53.9 



et.7 

100.0 
33.0 

100.0 
96.1 
36.6 

69.9 

80.6 
64.8 
760 
417 



90.4 
94.6 
86.2 



82.9 

100.0 
66.0 

100.0 
97.9 
66.9 
5.3 
80.1 



86. 7 
82.4 
95.6 



69.8 
100.0 
14.6 
7.4 
72.8 
87.2 
83.2 
91.9 
84.3 



100.0 
31.6 

100.0 
29.1 



39.4 
49.1 
42.7 



42.2 
53.7 
45.2 
65.1 
51.0 
61.7 



98.0 
99.2 
96.4 
96.4 



100.0 
84.0 

100.0 
99.3 
80.9 
67.9 
91.9 



95.4 
95.6 
97.8 



93.8 
95.7 
95.8 
88.0 



90.9 
100.0 
49.1 
40.7 
92.7 
97.5 
95.1 
98.5 
96.4 
95.1 
91.3 
94.8 



1,378 



5,534 

'117,400 

1.946 



1,151 
1,165 
3,530 



5,094 
69,500 
9,511 



70.4 

81.9 
172.2 
72.9 
92.4 
67.0 
81.5 
89.4 
99.3 
71.0 
56.0 
42.0 
37.0 
99.1 
57.1 
78.9 



46.5 

N. A. 

19.4 



41.6 
58.4 
62.9 
50.0 
43 6 
31.8 
28.9 
64.6 
18.0 
48.3 



97.8 
90.2 
94.4 



N. A. Indicates that holdings or holders in this site group are not available and 

,' §°!5, taes °I elact 'y 5 'SS5 S J>"« grouped with holdings of over 6,000 shares 
■ 3,2. •* . 6Iact . y 100 ° shares grouped with next highest size interval. 
« Holdings o exact y 500 shares grouped with next highest size interval. 
! 3° 2. gs ° Mact !>' 10 ° shares erouped with next highest size Interval 
Holdings of exactly 10 shares grouped with next highest size Interval 



5,193 13,244 8,791 10.3 
are therefore included with next highest group for which figures are shown. 



m«us — *i <jr«e 



W>\ No S 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
SECTION III. DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39— Continued 



Name of Issuer 



Pittsburgh Coal Co. 



Title of issue 



Common. 

6 percent cumulative participating 

preferred. 
Common ... 



..In. 



8 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative series Feb. 1, 
1929, preferred. 

Common - 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

percent cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common - 



Number of shareholdings of- 



Over 

6,000 
shares 



do.. 



Radio Corporation of America. 



Republic Steel Corporation. 



R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co 



Srhcnley Distillers Corporation.. 



Singer Manufacturing Co 

Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Inc 

Southern California Edison Co., 



Standard Brands, Inc 
Standard Qas A Eleotrlc Co 



Standard Oil Co. of California 
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) 
Standard Oil Co. (Ne« fa 



Swift* Co.. 

Texas Corporation, The 
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co 



6 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common. 

$3.50 cumulative convertible, 1st 
preferred. 

$5 cumulative preferred, series B». 

Common - 

4 percent noncumulatlve, 1st pre- 
ferred. 

4 percent noncumulatlve, 2d pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
prior preferred, series A. 

percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common, class B 

Common 



do 



do. 



7 percent cumulative preferred . . . 
6 percent cumulative preferred . . . 
5 percent cumulative preferred. .. 

Common 

5W percent cumulative preferred. 
Common 



do 



5/i percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

Capital stock 

Common 

5 percent cumulative participating, 
original preferred. 

6 percent cumulative preferred series 
B. 

514 percent cumulative preferred 

series C. 
Common 



do 



5peroent noncumulatlve preferred - 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$7 cumulative prior preferred 

$6 cumulative prior preferred 

$4 cumulative preferred 

Common 



6 percent cumulative preferred 

Capital stook - 

Common 

...do 



1,001 to 
6,000 
shares 



3, 797 
2.245 



N t4 A h£ . a , th . at 1°,& to t s or holders to ,hls siu > P r °uP a«> °o' available a 
■ I iJi" 8 * ° " a " y "■""" suares Stuped with holdings of over 5,000 shares 
! IS h£ BS ° exsc y IS*' shar « grouped with next highest site iuterval. 

Ho dings o exact y 500 shares grouped with next highest si;.e interval 
' 1 OOiSes'cfnd iv arM grouped wlth neIt hl «best siie interval. 

'< N^iSorifaibir 8 grouped witb Mrt h * ta8t "" ,nu " aL 



r?.T 
N. A. 



N. A. 
N.A. 



11.279 
12,233 
23,072 



3,668 
2,734 
10, 616 
9,092 
1,487 
29 



15,585 

11,431 

23,392 
2,742 
1,580 
42,729 
1,208 
4,038 
1,213 
429 
3.425 
20,740 
32, 750 
36.200 
1,291 
647 



1,275 

7,925 
1,129 
2,450 
4,006 
3,111 
8,448 
6,870 
1,907 
82 



Number of shares held in holdings of- 



N. A. 
2,198 
1.059 

31,863 



35,231 
22, 021 
42,704 



1,270 
N.A. 
N. A. 
N.A. 

12, 306 
6,461 
14,625 
15,606 
15,963 
11,697 
7,134 
3,297 



1,647 

3,882 
1,197 



1,285 
11,640 
13,689 



6,104 
6,812 
16,884 
1,825 



.V. A. 



« 6, 279 l» 23,073 
3 therefore included with next highest group for which figures are shown. 



N.A. 
1,170 



3,732 
N. A. 
N. A. 

N.A. 

N. A. 



2,255 
2,741 
3,757 



1,831 
2,495 
'923 I 



N. A. 

N.A. 
N. A. 



Percentage of total representing more than— 



'46.6 
44.6 
62.0 
78.8 


14.6 
31.8 

N.A. 



70. 5 
66.5 
21.7 
50.0 

71,2 
HO 7 
14.2 
17.2 
20.3 
43.2 
64, 1 
16.7 



17.8 

63.0 
76.3 
>67.0 
47.8 
10.5 
13.0 
4.4 
71.3 
19.9 
60.4 



44.7 
67.6 

46 2 
45 9 

21. 5 



58 2 
73 2 
87.1 
13.0 
30.1 
49.8 
' 55. 2 



N.A. 
N.A. 



22.0 

26. S 
52. 5 



■Hi :t 
'72.7 

IS, o 

14 5 
22 2 
13.0 

77. 1 
33 5 

87, 2 
93.3 
64.1 



61 6 
65.6 
5.',. 5 
61.1 
31.5 
78, 3 



86. 4 

77.3 
39. 5 
21 
41.5 
53.1 
'61.8 



11.1 
27.2 

> 39. 9 



17. 1 
17.6 

' 2.3. 2 



17 5 
14. 5 
43 2 
50. 1 
27 3 
22. 8 



31.1 

40 9 
45 5 
43 



33 3 
40 8 
45. 4 
33 9 



49 6 
61.3 

43.4 
47.3 



96.6 
82 6 
01.7 

95.6 
77.2 
63.7 
75,6 
75.7 
93. 6 
95. 9 
83, 
99, 5 



N.A. 
91.7 
76.3 



92, 4 
85. 6 
95 2 



96 2 

97 4 
99 
86,0 
94 4 
95. 3 



268445 — 41 (Face p. 242) No. 6 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of ZOO largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
SECTION III. DISTRIBUTION OP RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE OF HOLDING WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-30— Continued 



Name of Issuer 



Tide Water Associated Oil Co. 



Unlon Carbide & Carbon Corporation. 
Union Oil Co. of California. - . 
Union Pacific Railroad Co — 



United Gas Improvement Co., The 
United Light 4 Power Co., The. . . 



United States Gypsum Co. 
United States Rubber Co.. 



United States Smelting, Refining, 

It Mining Co. 
United States Steel Corporation... 

Virginian Railway Co., The 



Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc 

West Penn. Electric Co., The. 



Western Maryland Railway Co.. 



Western Union Telegraph Co 

Westinghouse Electric & Manufac- 
turing Co. 



Wilson & Co., Inc. 



F. W. Woolworth Co 

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 
The. 



Common 

$4.50 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

Capital stock-- 

Common - - 

4 percent noncumulative preferred . . 

Capital stock -- 

Common 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred 

Common - 

$5 cumulative pr ferred -. 

Class B common 

Class A common 

$6 cumulative convertible 1st pre- 
ferred. 
Common - 



6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common ." 

$7 cumulative preferred 

Common . 

8 percent noncumulative 1st pre- 
ferred. 

Common. 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common... 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred $100 
par. 

Common — 

$3.86 cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative, class A 

$7 noncumulative. class B 

Common 

7 percent cumulative 1st preferred... 
4 percent noncumulative convertible 

2d preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred. 
Common 



do. 



7 percent cumulative participating 

preferred. 
Common 



$5 cumulative convertible prior 
preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 



Number of shareholdings of— 



Over 
5,000 
shares 



1,001 to 
5,000 
shares 



501 to 
1,000 

shares 



6,273 
4,643 
2,074 



21,442 
0,405 

17, 595 
6,117 

11,250 
7,604 
1,040 



2,054 
2,048 
38, 396 
18, 213 



1,676 
19, 542 
3,010', 



N. A. 



2,026 

56,209 
22,716 



2,777 
1,446 
16,069 
2,080 



18,558 
4,041 

10, 510 
4,301 
N. A. 
3,788 
2,163 



2,557 
3,482 
64,020 
21,420 



2,934 
2,163 
21,184 
2,302 
1,018 



Number of shares held in holdings of- 



Percentage of total representing more than- 



37.0 
29.1 
16.0 
20.2 
•9.6 
71.7 
30.0 
100.0 
41.2 
10.3 
87.3 
46.1 
21.8 



41 .9 
65 
100.0 



80.2 
64.9 
100.0 
50.6 
26.1 
91.0 
61.0 
43.8 

40.2 

15.8 
68.0 
24.4 
64.1 
45.6 



1.7 
16.3 
100. 
42.6 
94.0 
44.3 

70.2 



63.0 
62.1 
40.4 
44.2 

•39.4 
83.6 
64.0 

100.0 
68.5 
32.2 



74.8 
100.0 
32.1 



32.8 
37.6 
17.6 

9S.0 
55. S 
51.3 



■22.0 
'17.2 
100.0 



100.0 
16.1 
11.8 
26.2 



79 9 
84.4 
61.6 
70 3 

'71.5 
91.9 
78.7 

KjO. 
86.9 
55.7 
97.6 
85.5 
71.7 



65. 
45.9 
65.0 
61.6 
94.3 
83.9 



30.0 
57.6 
100.0 
77.7 
97.8 
82.0 



52.9 
63.2 
46. 3 



48.2 
60.6 

N. A. 

N. A. 

'48.5 
67.1 
31.7 

100.0 
57.8 
24.4 
61.0 



38 2 
36.5 
28.3 



N.A. 

N. A. 

100.0 
20.7 
18.0 
39.0 

100.0 
55.6 
42.8 
65.4 



N.A. 
34.2 
31.9 



95.5 
97.2 

N. A. 

N.A. 

'88.3 
08.6 
02.0 

100.0 
97.4 
84.2 



92.1 
06.7 


73.5 
76.0 


89.7 


62.0 


95.3 


60.9 


90.0 


47.6 


80.8 


62.3 


82.5 


65.5 


87.8 


61.8 


88.4 


67.9 


98.4 


71.0 


96.4 


73.3 


N.A. 


86.1 


N.A. 


72.2 


100.0 


100.0 


78.3 


40.2 


66.7 


39.7 


86.4 


61.6 


100.0 


100.0 


96.3 


77.0 


09.4 


59.0 


98.4 


80.2 


97.9 


66.4 


03.7 


63.0 


N.A. 


19.8 


87.7 


59.5 


81.3 


56.7 


99.9 


94.0 1 


94.0 


63.2 1 


04.5 


70.2 


96.2 


79.0 


86.1 


61.0 


94.0 


66.4 


96.5 


72.7 


87.3 


60.5 



N. A. Indicates that holdings or holders in this size group are not available and are therefore included with next highest group for which figures are shown. 
! S°!3i ngs °' eIactlT S. 000 shares grouped with holdings of over 5,000 shares. 
' Holdings of exactly 1.000 shares grouped with next highest size Interval. 
. Holdings of exactly 600 shares grouped with next highest size Interval. 
Ho dtogs of exactly 100 shares grouped with next highest size Interval. 
' Holdings of exactly 26 shares grouped with next highest size Interval 



41 (Face p. 242) No. 7 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



243 



n •— 



as 


c^ c 


•~ (0>fOJ^^O) (D N n 

^ooococoooM-CMCs't'imxO'OO — ieuioc 
cm cm -j> ■<»• oc -* cm co 


= = c3 = oc;03s 


If 


C w 














c_ 










o 


c «T — 


crccjceooooccM^xootooooioccMoeooooooooo — 

O CMC"CM*? , ».CX»o-* 




« f- c ■ v: 


O <D 


3 £ gg 


yi cm «r~^* i-C io ci" 




«£ #2 


CS — M 


.e-s 


> «C>- 


** 


■S" 3 






o 


gOOCOGOOCOCMQOCT«|OCOO— lOQCOOOOOOOOOSO 


L« 


<£ c « 


§ i-?*Mda * N * 


•° 3 C 


— " ef— "M"e»in so o~ t~" — " 

■o X ^h <-< 00 CM Oi 


= 3° 


3 — > 


*3 u 


3~ C 


pj 


"3 2 " 


A 














|=| 


~CCOC = OCCC— i--(«Mr<CrtO-<o- ooooeoocs — =>;;=> 


« 


55>a g 




m 


^•g 


wcnioxc-'nO)- n ^h»o a: — < — '^cfciosor^tocMecrC'-cor-CM — o;^ 


o 




S 


Ph O 




•5 


_ 


en »c i ~ r^ y. r~ to — . o ^ :m — to xxKXiriooi'tp«5*NS!£5 
i "»0":>-- o :• oc — -.ni»<r» 25 cm cm « — -r 






□ 


a, £ a.' 
3 5 a £ 




- 1 - CM X h- C» -fl"" «" B! «" -" -> 


5 


«■= *c 


!£ IOC4H 


5 


>»C~ 










t-' V) 


a -r^'.c-M c w ■- ■ cm — ■ ~ — c; c x * M-iL:s]toiM«Nic-i^fflTite 
x. 7i - r . cm — . — ..-.— KMCTP*-- r *jC-* CMrcxxe*;r~cftCMi^r- 22 
nwi"-: r • . c i *c cm -c tr? «t cm — o CE-c-TfTj-^-.coy'Orts-'C^c 

<Sob& -", "- oT^*-* o" c *c~cf to'xw —■ — —" n cMx'wTto' 

CCI Tf* X CC CM M- CM — — 




?: £ "C 


© 


.2 = 

X ~ 5 




1 


X = C 


^ I— — * ^H — CO h* 








a 




-i ,-i r-i -< -h r-, cm — — • cm — 55 — cm — — 


s 


2. c 


o 


c a 




g 


5 ^ 




•s 

a 
a 


>■-=. 


v_^^^-.v_^_. , ■• , < _^-%_^^ v _«_ v _^ v _«_^-<^»_ — v_- 


gjfS 


NC^ M : 3 O CM O O — < *-« ■"* © — O 






— 
, O . 

i ! *- 

£ ! 

. • ' c 

- i i fc i 


:-«! 




o 

s 

c. 






■d 
S 
•£ 

a 


: : 


. . , ■ 






c £ 


w 




o 




A 




























■c "c ! S> ; ;.■£ 


o 




£ 


— ' 


M 








c c *r — 






c 


s 






u h ; g u 






u 




a 


EC' E 












o 


t- 




' £ .' J -* > 


!■" 






!£ 


£ >iS * 






'. 


- • 






c ' ! 


1 s 




« ' i "2 




c 


u, 


L - i ~r~ fe 


•3 


8 "si S 


> 

5 


ft jp. ■ ; C 




— 


o 


> .^ O C/ t 


u 

,« 








E" 


S S ~ - iS S t — 


Oj 


'- ; "S « ; "-g 


3 Its IS ! !WS 








— 


3 i &a is 


s "3 3 : Vs 






| | |lll i||| 


0) 


3 ' ~ — 3 


1 ;§ :s : -Je 

, ' 3 3 ■" 3 






. , . i a ; o o o a #b "as tfl 


*3j 




S :« jo ; : .5 






• ; ^=-=- = =-C-^-^™C-^=^C^~ z— coC^c*-acc-- 


























; 1 i.'. n'. L .- '., .-' 7-./'w 5? L •; I y 5/.1 i»C t-L sUhC jOtf 






lis; 
















e 


s 






5 a to 

1 9 ^ 


3 € 1 




fc 






3 

c 


^B 8 


U 
>■ 
■ * r 

3 — 


s 




H : | 


M 


C 


r i 


3 O 

3 oi 

c 


J2 o 



_? 



- 

E a c 



| _E 






C" - 

5 2 
< < 



244 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



— 52 


21 


OOOOOOCOOOOrHOO-^OOOOO 


-H 


00 oo 


OOOOOOOOCSOOO 


eg 


iO -"** O ' «0 t-' Ol-TT 

CO >-i © >-• W CO CO n 






l| 


§5 




c-1 


P. 


*S 








c 


O V.TS'-f 


OOOOOOOhOO'fTfOOOOOOO'OtOf c 


3 3 


oooooooooooo 




«) Jo.™ 






6 © 


Jsgg 


t-T of iO 00*^*^* 




-*" 




cj£ >0 


t-H CO CO CO 






al 


>MO - 


ce 






.at? 




















° ~ 


OOOOOOCO-hOOOO— 'OOOOOQ^o < 
>CNO OQO O0 OOJS 
<M ic O OtNCM O O O -P 


S O 


00-^)000000000 








a~~"s~. 


*~ WTT 




en 


<K 0) o 








& w !2 


Hi 


OS t^ O OJ "* vO CN ' ONCO 




h-T 


°S!2 


r^. © C* © ■**« ro 




r^ 


*-• r-» <M ;o co 






•Co 


3 w o 








■a "3 2 


55 








©g^ 




















a" 5 * 

a •- 2 


OOOOOO'N'H--hO^'-i^OO-^0— — '— © © 


oooooooo^ooo 


«" 


fc-Sg 










aTs 


NM^N00«JO"5O!/)C04o«N00OOi0N CO 0C 


OO-'NOChi'iOWWOOM 

^iiOTriO'Toon-fO^oo 


£ 


OOC^OCOCOOiOtM OCOiO © ■— CO Oh-Cl CIO 


C 


So 


i-l OS 00 <-» COCM OIC3J 




irf ^ (M CO ^f — < 


© 

•3 


©<_- 


b- t-* ^f CO CI 






(X o 








V- 


tOSMNMO^OO^^CO^^vOOC-JM OCO 


iOCC!Dt)-ol--'CNCDMW 


•c 


o [n^/> 


t^ co t-^MMio ^ ^ h- cox r- © co >■ 




03 


a, © ©. OT 


W tMi-tCOCOOO CiCO I^CJt-- 




H^-t.«^M»HN 


5sg8 

as— !* O 


«• p. «. «. - .. .. - 

i-H CM CN CO >OMCl 




CO — «" 












K /I O <-^ 








© 

o 

e 

o 


> 








* M 


OJOlO'CX'f'OiOOOaOOtDO^OO'OO c 


1 CO 


MO-HH^c-onoiHN 




« CO CJ Ol 00 iO iC Ol COiOiO CO — CI © © -* OM 


^ --« o a. « m '- m - "f^ -a) 


o 


•2*2 


t-'-'^CNCOTr^OJTP rfCSCl © ■**" --h © »o © CJ «-< 

o> ■^cooscoqo r-co Hr-rt ot*o tc 


'-OrjCOiCiOCOCNr-ioeOCICN 




ii CO CO CJ CO COH CO CO t— 




r^ go ^ eo 


2 


< c 


iH Tf CO 

• 




^ 


(- *£ 


NW1'«HNti.'50*a«3')'«OCClHH iM 


CX-^-^OCCt^C-l^HioiOCCCO 












& 


.O C 








c 


B & 








"3 


B © 










£c 








© 

© 

a 










lOM^-CO <N QC TfCO O 


o 


^ o o^ooooo 






i : i i 

i i : i 
; ; ; : 

I'll 






^ : : : 
, © . i . 










■a 
s 

© 

o 
a. 












1 1 1 1 


, © © ; ft © ; 


■a 


T3 




i 


© 


•a , ; 










! ! I'd 


ill :» i^J 

££ ; 2 ; .2"S 


© 


© 




2 


! g ! J 

1 u ' I , 

'_© : -ot3 




! ! !*o ! 






CP 








© 




« , 




c 


I fl 

i£ is 


!"Ss : a ; «"i 

6IM ' M 'BC, 


t4 


01 
© 
> 




© 

p. 




© 


< © . © © 1 


1 H 1 

; J ; i-t 1 
. 1 !© 

1 1 ! & 1 

; ; ;& ; 






1 © ' © 


!.a \ © ! "C © 


rt 


od 




9 


> 


. ca 1 © © ' 


1 1 1 © 1 




— 


IE j|> 








ex > 




,— , > > , 


!!!.£; 




'£ 


i P. i-S 


! fta ' « : 9 <a 

i.s.3 ;b ;°b 


3 

E 

3 


3 

3b 


B'£ 

S3 


03 

3 

g 


3 13a ' 
, S 1 ca CO ! 
' g 133 ; 

:§ :SE : 


! ', !_ce '. 
', ', Is ! 






, © i B 


!ti- ! E ! ? a 


B 


a 53 o S 


3 


::;a; 






o 


o o o 3 


© 


, o .33 . 


1 j |fl ! 






'■S ' ° 


' o. a ; © ; -^ © 


3 


a > a © 




; b : © © ; 








B~a~B +»■£ B ~ B— £ B « O* 3 B B *J B 


H< 


B t; H-w-s H 


! ! ' -s ° 






OBoBo .BBoBoBBoBoBooao 




O B B E 


BO 






BeaSE°§SB§EESa£SoEBSE 


^ a 


EoEooEoooogS 






0iiii T !|fea|agfe0fesfeaas.E 

o ,~: o a o 'p,acao"aoaoaooao 


n.©B©B©©B • ■ i •©£ 








ao 0.0.0 


. . . ac 






OSOr-O ^^OnOwnOoUoOOnO 


T 


O^Oi-nO 


: : i«o 


















r 
o 

° 

I 






. i © 

i ^ 

i ' 6 

• : i o 


! © 

1 -B 
• C- 

ai" 

i .2 

; B 






' "© ! 

! as 

: & ! 
© ■© 

s: : 


; 1 ', >> 






K 




« ' 5 






E- 3 


'•3 •- 








o 


: : © p J. 






: a 




© 

p 

"c 

« 

s 

s 

y; 


U 


D 
be 

B O 

a 
1 1 


© * . ~ 
!^ » [j; o 
> ^ a . U 

— o fi * © 

S S « § o 

o 3 3 5 a 


© 

6 
O 

OS 

a 




^ : 

* 1 : 

«' ; 

U c 

3 © S° 


oH oj 'B 

O r S 

. O Q, „ 

>> b a 

9 9 3 ■§ 






| 1 §• M o 6 | « § 


3 
© 


1 1 «S* R | a - 
1 I III! 1 1 

o3 © OOOUiCOOS 






a a * b" .* °3 „- ° "^ 
.2 .2 9 2 3 a g 53 53 tg 


© 

3 

a) 






■< ■<• 


< 


< 




<; -< 


«! - 




»; 




< 




pq M 


ss 


eqnq 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



245 



■*■ c e-» © co t o -"j"© r~ •«*< co 

©— <MOiJ'©CCCCCT©©©©0©'»— 'C©!?. © = ©©© © © © © 
CCrCf:^ © coco — t 


© | © 

©'-©©©©oc©©oo 


©©NCuoiCOO— '©©©©c©©©©CO©©r~©CO©OCNOC©© 
ON-tO©W 00 — CO 00 OC00 

-*Mio- • -«r ■»»« r~ x— © »*o 

O CO © T — 


O 'T © ©o©©©oo ©©o 

1© 

tCO 


154,840 

2, 057, 679 

19, 520 

11.500 

72, 291 

2. 302, 033T 

750, 000 








185,932 




2,410.856 





3. 500. 000 

4,400 






O i© o© © ©o ©o©©o© 
!©" 

100 

,© 




© i-^o ©©©©©©©©©© 


3 © © — ©CO Of(NO-MC)0«'0')'rt(CI-O- © "0 © 


<o i ©co*« ao*o©©^ooca 

— t I t © CD io © M "-J" i-l tM -rr 


© © c © co © © © cin-^rtr^MMnH 


i © © co co tN © r-- 




96 

13, 807 

3 

1,433 

3 



04 

438 

<;2 

14.976 

13,912 

458 

3, 374 

207 

1,370 

I, '.ISO 

79 

103 

1,907 

411 

59 

730 

29 

471 

1 


200 

6 

20 

IS 

929 



806 

6,230 

78 

2,209 

408 

3, 665 

3,485 


— OCCOOVSOCC ©©r-Cl'CX-TX'C'W©0C©©r^O>nC-. O^tO 

as — • © co-r© ^-M-r.-- i - cv 3 c c c ci - w:ii»h 

— — co 3t a r. r. ■" r i- c--; c. co n ci cc o n oi oi ci ^ 
in" — T — -*©* — * c* '"* — " i~ oa *-" — ' co Hicri co' ©~ 

«o cm ~h— c-iior^c* <o*-ocm 

— O) CO — Cl ■-• <N 


22, 231 



201 

200 

19, 053 



27, 193 

99, 681 

500 

81,809 

4,156 

232. 720 

39, 325 


DOOS90>oeenoC4CQaOOMCeQHaasQOOpc)eoior*^<^<aoNHH 
— • c>» — — cs .— — r-i — — — ci M 


© IO«0)MO!D«HM>OMO 



© CO T 



-3-D 
, o g> 

tt 

■££ 

- -- 

- _ 

.2°-S 
0.&O 

- - z. 
>>> 

a a a • S ■ 

. 3 3 3 o g 3 ; 

JoSSSBgSo 

-~333r--^ 

- - ° £ D £ ! 

I- © r- . 9 -<r r 9 1 



f 




246 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



t^t^OO^C^ 00> Ch ifiONNOO O JO N « rt 

OJUSNeOHOpCOOt^ 'cSOhHiOoJoOOOOOM'tHO 
u*5 - O O I- N >0 O 




CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



247 



= c o c coomo— 'ooodooooo gj e o c o gj e-i CO ooodoooooo oooo 




ccooc oe o o o >ooo O 30 oo ooo o> OO OOOO OO ooooooooco oooo 



I o o oc COO — O — OOO — OOCCO CJ OO OO — ^ OO OO— 'r-iOOOOOO o o — o 



■«r ■**• xoc^oo-^aiurt^oow t- oo o»oon v h- ^* — -xn^c* 

Si 8" 



I** C CD CO <— »C W ^ —. 



CI CJ O O i-t CD 



Tf lO CD 



iC 3: O IM C C n ?l /. X iO iO X O". O CO CM N«CV 

icic :i >c t m r. ^ — x r^ n c 3- cdoo -*■ 

CO (N X>C« C "". N lO CC CI M » CM 



I CO C* T "J X ~ 



CO ~h do 



— C Ti X o 

-i rt rt -r ro 

r » t- i-*" t-T 
ro tobi^r 



X M O X l; - -r ?: C I; I; * ^ 9 |0 o O I 



lO CD — M — re — -r ».- — M CJ C» O O CD « 

oo ce — n n cj ci i- — o ;d 

~ tt ;D — cd o 



>ooo>o«ec»N 
cm co cm cd co r^- 

*CO 00 1-^ pi CD CD I-T 

. CD O^H tN "J" •**• 



O CO CD 



cw?»cnn e i- c i- c * t * c z ^ c >c oi ^ cd ft ci ocjecio ooco wonoO'-'«'-iccnn —teoo"? 



co c« o *■*• «-> 



— ' ^ o — 



= w c a C 
r =: z c c 

E : £ = = 
385650 

; c r e c 

'_ • - '_ U ■_ 



- _ - _ - 



; ; 


E 


T 


S 
8 


u. 


C 










. c— 


' o 


- 


- 





■-. - -' 5 - 






c o c .. o 

gE««c 
ac z.k c 

«o« u ; 



; o 



. ay 
' o - 

II 

« s 

> — 

CO 

> D. 



e g 



^ — v. ^ — ' 

a.c i2 ^ * c i 

| , C. w ^ *£■ U U 



ogHg 

T3 o C £ 

■ fcES 
cc a 



a £■ 



- r 5 



- ' . - a « 



c 5 - 



S a o _ 



- — «* - PQ % = 



i 2 g§g g g - g ~ - i. ^ 5 - 



* fc» 



_- C - - 



2 w 



— B 



_ ^ 



— -2 

S •/_ 

=" -r- — 

- x . S 

C ;r 

S s c O 3 

c c cr 3 

o c o a ,j 



— =c= j- ^- spa 



248 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



a 




B, 







-1 




o 




H 


c 


W 


<j 


U 


e 


O 




H 




t/J 


> 


►J 


© 


*1 


K 


Ph 




*H 


00 


u 


«3 


/- 




tf 




Pn 


© 


M 


0» 


& 




■«< 


«• 


rn 


oo 


tf 


<is 


O 




H 


CO 


< ) 




H 


S3 


« 






3 


r\ 


u 


(-1 


co 


X 


Ssj 


< 


s 


co 


o 


W 




o 



^ ° 

-« o 

§ PM 

£ co 

<=> tf 

e w 

o * 

<§ £ 

- o 

•^ IH" 

•2 E 

-v\ P5 



"3 M 










00 




OSOSH 


CO 














3 








/: 




» 


(S >- 


a 


03 






















as? 




£ 


00 


~ M 




1^00 — 


000000 iooo-^oo 




OO^ 


C33h 


•~ c> 











tCM 


»-i 01 





•o 




CO 






= 6 


a: 


£ 






















~ , C 
S- 


PL, 


s 














































o 


o co 




00 1- 


OS c^ ^ 


000000 !ooo»ooo 




00 +0 ; 




■^•m 




C 


-rt>0 


t^ as 


CM 


1 o> 




-* 




-•TO 




a> £ 


^ 






HIOH 


•c 1 - 


tJ< 







i^ 




■* 


t* 


3 co 






OS 


— "OOrH 


CO 


CD 




at 




M* 




^■S 




«ft 


W 






■ CO 










.&3 


> M 


0*^ 






















.Co 
CO X! 


























O 




OOOOOiO 


1000 1-1 


000000 '000000 




O O (N O 3> t~ ^H O 








lOClNO^'f 


CO 







OS 




•- 00 


B^ 


SS'E 




•^ CO ro O 00 00 


I- 


t^ 




•y 




^HCO 


& W i2 

° fc2 


* 5S P 

E-crs 








•Ti 3 


CM 

CD 


'• o> 




ce 






a 


T3 o 

■3o£ 


3 » 


r J 






rt * 










" 






"gs-o 




















































°f 

^ £ 3. 


ooo-< 


HpJH 




OCM 


000000 ioooi-ioo 




OONOO 




« "" 


k5-° £ 






















B 


c 


3 


lO^H 


TJ*?D 


HOcOMiOCON 


«-i ^ to ipHNfJooort 




or~cc 

cc m h 


os. t^cor^cN 


o 






MNOODNOtt 




00-^ 




NPKNCSO 


as 





6n©o 


rt "^55 


" 5 


,_; ■ 


*o ' '-^ cm ico * " 't-^ed 




CN r-i 


CN 


CO 


as 

•3 


OS 






ro 






-Cl W ^H 




t^ 






p- 

























V. 




t-»*0 


ri - 


■-1 cc 0: 


O CO c^ cc 


N C) CO » O Tf MCO^iCMN 




t^CMCDCs-^-^CNCO 


■o 




tj'? 


HOMr 




—10 


m* 1-* 


CMOOTfOO CO 1 00 H H « CC ^ 




00 OS C^ 




CN OS 
CNCN 


a 




_m 


CO i-h 


N# OS 


1— ' r- qo t- ^ 




CO CM CM 1 l-» 00 CO 




Tt* ^, 




03 


2« 


CO 

&8 


6^ 


t," — . 


51 


— ' CO 




-* CM' i-T. 1 33Tf 









o> 




3-p 




ri 7 


CM CO 








OS 










C ^ 






















cs 


r 
























o 


t. c 




00 TfH 


noomojow 


lO 40 


W 1-1 OS CD O CM iMCOhMXh 




OSOSGCOONMX 




1>T3 


£5co 


OS OS N CS C-S ^ 00 O OS 


cm *o 00 ii-f c. t n r 




— as cs os 00 t'. 


o 




Os to CO o0 tji <— 1 o0 CO OS to <-h 


coooco^ O 1 00 10 -* 10 cc 

00 CO CO ' Tf lOO 1 




lOCO^OOSOOS 

oocs^csho^ 




3 c 


Q S 


CO 


'-- '-. 






CO 


-^ N ^< icn OS cc 




M 


CM 


t^ 


s 

M 

as 

3 


A o 




•- /: 


OS CM CM 




i-H 1 CO CM CM 




CM 




~ 


H 


-M 


M0003>M.-0003X 


1-H »0 


CMlO-^CMOOl ! 00 CM CM CM CO ^h 




sccooococc»ocDsr 


Es 
















i-H i-H . —• CM rH 










-O 

























o 
"3 


E 
























<c 

OS 

a 

m 


1 








^, - 


_._ 




, / _w..__ v J , . 






^_ 


^_ 




3 a' 


10 


(M 


N rt 


IN 


rorf Tt*o co ^ i-t 


c^> >raf 


r^ 































; : 

: : 










:t3 




















■a 

as 






1 I'rt 

1 I'S- 








! ' 
1 










t: 












;<pQ 






tH 




\< 


1 1 & 








, 


















































1 0J 












1 1 1 .2 -S 








I.0S 


1 1 ? 








u 






















!•"' 1 £ as 




as a 




' t-> 


1 1 3 








IS 

Ifc 




*c 


~ 




' > 


; I'o ; 


T3 




|TD ! ." 

1 S l-C'd" 




"S-2 




|"0 


i<i| 








■^ 






1 03 




CD 




t, as as 








OS 










' 0} 












\o> I t- t-< 




a — 






! !5 « 








• I- 






3 


; 1 c> J 










0> 














a 




S. 3. 




<2 


T3 ' ih dc 








l£ 


1 CL 








0! 




'o 


. q> 






< £4 > cp o> 




.2 3 




















1 q 
1 


1 1 0. ' 


t-i 


~ '— j- 














S3 








a> 


! ! > 1 


a 


t- 1 cu . ClCU 




a 

OS 0> 




I a 

1 OS 








"3 




_> > 


1 £ 




> 




► > 












3 












a !— ■ , -D -3 










^ " 








;| 








t > c3 -«. -t- 3 




















c3 a 


1 03 


, lg .P9« 
1 la ! w 3 

1 1 3 ; 03 E 


B ,3 1 03 03 
> 1 S In "3 




co 03 




, o3 


i§5 








:| 




■3-3 


is 




3 3 




1 3 








; 




ES 


B 


^-- > _ '33 




3 E 




IS 


a Q 
1 > c 








1 




3 3 


1 c 


; ' ;*o 3 




3 3 




I 3 












d 


cs 




a' ' e d 3"-" 3 


3 j-g : 

a a s c ■" « c 




O 

^^3 






sill 








c a 





C 3 


: c 


E-§££SSS3ec3S88Soc 


3 3 


: a 


2 L j 








a oj 


B| 


§ss 


P t 


O E = 


•ss 


33—^ 

B 3 cu as 
g 3 ac 








ES 


5 


fcfcS 


" r 


s ;g.EBSsga a ssss^ 


cs a 


Xs u 
1 OS 








o 0,0 


aa.c 


; &a 


aao 


; ao/ 








Eji 


o_ 


^T,0 


> - 


^oo.-o^oiOf.so ;_ 


i^£.° 


1 r~ 


OwV- 








! 

: 

: 
: 
; 


I 










cj 1 

H 1 














3 




d 




1 


£ 




a 

1 


c 
,0 

« 
5 
S 

O 

a 



9 




c 


c 




6 
; 

3 ; 

S 

R « 


C 

Z 

c 

1 
c 

by 

3 


; 

' % 

j c 

c 


O 
C 


^as a 
^ 6 
£•3 


C 


a a 

ue 

Sc 
OS 

J3 c 

oj a 

a 


as 
| 
f 

03 

a 


a 

o _c 
^ Pi 

03 K 








5 


O 



3 a 
en ^ 


as 






33 


>> -A 

a > 








i 






^ 


^ * s .* a a s s 


03 O ^ 


3 




c* ,'i 








§ 


a 


c 
c 


, 




ft 

7i 




■S 2 
33 


i 

1 




h 


5 
1 


a; 


01 

I 


1 


3 


7 


12 


J 

^ 


S 


3 t 
e 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



249 



-M ^* -*< O&^cC OOOOh CO O OOOCO (ON O CO 

oo * cn o © o o o a> o ;o" o o o 0©cOOCCOO^COr^OCO©eoOCNl-0000000'<rOO 
r-i to CN ft CD O CN O OC CD *0 »0 i— i 00 ^ *0 O »-» 



ooocooooootc^oi-o ©or-ocoocoooaoot-tN -*o-*o^-dooosoo^oo 

MO © tCCON QOOCO © CO 00 CT» CO 00 t-- N ** 

— « o ^ r- *o oo cn 56 »-< «o »ft t-- co co -<?< cn o> 



r- co 



■<* OS CN iO Ol CO 



re - — © © © - — ■ - © t- © r* o O © »o © © - © <?■* c c ■.© © © ■ - r - ©. —. in O C O O rt ■- - S — © 



30 «C O -QOi OMQH o CM cn©*o OOh 

■^ o> cn co qcnocn r- O 00VN oco 

CNiO<~. CN ~ CO 00 t—O *D -h 



OO^h^OOOOOCNO^h^COO O^r^rH^CO^OO O-^CN-HOr-t^-OOOC^OO^HOO 



)«CCOrO^tN0O0GCNGO 



ao o-^t^Tt* as co Q— 'O-^r-air^as-p-'T'-.o mnhqcoi o •-» r- o 

O io CO r» 00 O O iSiOtTW^OOO'TOO •-» cn qo O © cn OO cn OO 



O COOCN CN 



© © t^ CN *0 r^o o 



"^cor-xroccr-yi -<?■-*■ ^ ao ac — cn '.O © tc >o 3> ^ w « o to co **< _ cK ^j< cn 

tO — CO-r^OtOCN CO © CO CO N COhM com co»c r>- co 



M ? TT CO CN OS ~ "«• CO O CNt^r^M 

31 — -» — ■ _-r ^r — *j« f^ 5 M w C35 



• x •— — • 



« CO CO © CO CO t* COcOh- 

TttS coco" as cn co'cn" i-T 



-f-w-«N«ooxco::r)C no^oi'^'NC'-'fcn'ic^HCH'OHHHKC^'-ooi': 



O M T -^ iC C 



CO "*• -x 



N i-l fH 




250 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



c » 



8 


« 


V 


w 


a. 


Q 








W 


a 


w 




O 


IS 


o 


a 


h 


s 


02 


^ 


pj 




■< 


e 


Ph 



w 


tf 


V 


l=« 


3C 


u 


O 


pEI 



C CI o G o o 



1 I f I 



CO P. 3 

So; 
i" 5 | 



c x— - 
« £ i • 

x "5 ~s 



IS! 

I" ! 



o — oooo 






to — Ol •— — i to 



&o 



O; — < SO fH CO «# 

o — -3"r o«o 



H«H .—. 



I -Z. S S 3 ft 3 • 



© ** osc o -> 



ICOOiPOO-ri^OROOOOIPOOOOCO 



WO Tf -4 U? 

OOM — 



©to SCO CO ON NSJS < 

i^oi jho o o co ex uo < 

x"c co'coo* *)* co* cf^'cft < 



-i-'OOOOOO-'-'-'O-'OOOOOft-' ONM- C C -H 



f~ co ■* c>i x tN — < — 

— . Tf to *f <C •■ 



— '— OOOXO SNM3MO — 00 •* e 

-«cie«NO © © © 3 c © »*sc 



>»«01NOC 



o:ic^-- 



«ZMCCC 

m x 3: co co 

X (N -»• -. Tf 



JCftO«SI-31C TI^?: 3 ;C NCN — '.DO 



• C C X a - M O to X O © tO © t 
•)0«NI'3lCCOI — 

co?co co" 



o^woccc 

'JDONC 
© CO Oi OC 

oo co"© coi" Tf" 

tO CO —■MX 



, cr:oi'Kr i oo?:?«-<Nn-f 



SBXVCC 



©■ © CO ■*}< tr 



© ccn -r 



to ~* © 



S a 



■a £ 

5 '5 



I V In 

i L-. ^ 

' CI •-■ 

ea 



, « 3 
■ B 3 



.Cc 



3 i*-»a-to^a 



> > 

3 3 
C O 
O O 

toS 

Cfl <D 

> > 

£ CO 

II 

3 3 



c3feopcPP o— c 

r-i ~ *0L ~ ^1 (- (i) m r- ffl r 



3-X g g g g g g 

Cw o •- O O C Ch 

..cr.ccao«o 



aa 

CB <B 
> > 

03 08 

3 3 

eg 



£ 3 o ? 



P 3 o 



o 2; 

Or ^ 

a> cv 

3-— «22<2i 
;;oo 
P co u u 

3~ aa 
o p.i.2 
*;*?■= "3 a 

3 3 3 3 o 



SoSSSBE 
- P^ fe Jr 3 3 p 

CD CD n ■Cv0v oo P 

. ca c aaocou a a o ; a a^. o 

^OtoOcccoUOO lotr.O io©^^?0 



•3 a 
II 

!i 

fee 



3 3 



a o 

oo£Pog£g 

r O"Cfc.co"3t--T!E 



O g 



«3 



■3 "S. d. 



9 g- 



x e 

a - 
o > 
;-- 
fc ! 

3 a 
P c 

CD CD 



O P c 



Pnf 



c -or 



CD — X 



D 



.2 "2 o • * 

t- 5 _, O S 

■s ^ a o ° 

o> 3 — . oj 

3^ -i § | 

a agPn •& m 

— ' — '.2 rr . *- i- 

© © ^ S2 3 j3 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



251 



iiNg ' e c c o c c c c -^ cr -.c c c cccijoocecco^cooo occccccc«i«;'o: 



5»0 — — OCCCCCOCCXi 

S r- «5 « x ": i 



C OC X CC O C C C O a> C O C O CO: 

c c 

si s 



rcccc^sgoc 



S-S'OCJUICCCOCCOO^CCO COOXCCCCCCCfCOOO CC3CCCOCCSX 
r-oo CC!^c « *-" C; o 

V00 4 O r~ X ~ CB "-< O C3 



« M O — — CCCCCC — MWCIOO COCCMCCCCCCC — COCO CCCCCCCCOCIOC 




n n ?i * t ? - .; 5 r. - — --re center; i- X o x t- -o .~oc -r m — »c«- tt ct> » 



■fN-C-NOXClCXOCNiOfS: CO*Ct-lCC3!-«N«iCOJ(CC. '— 'i-r^XCr-l^CCCO ^ 

3c^:s;5 — /-,~Tt.- — ^ jc :i ; x ?; i." u: s 5 N — — — ro c: ~- r<: ic »o <r. i — ?■ c-. f5 -r *c n ^ 

e^ci^vr*».~x''rT — cj — — © w ec •— r^ ci ■* as — — o ;c <o c>i c*» cm *c i~ ?» re ic o o >- 



< — 



I — CI C — 



^ r / u: ?i o ^ i^ re 



nW«««^«M".-.^C»«rtN« CI«OtX;£.-C«Xi 



tSir-H OiC-l-n«l»NOOC3 



c x> — 



— -r c c 



— — 

£- p 

I- I- — 

c. e e fc 

> > > t 

- 09 a £ 



is 



> e 
3 t 
z ^ 
- s 



*3 - 

s o 
> > 



■=<5.- 






= = ■ 

3 3 





- 
































■ a • ' ' 




. a> ■ . "i 






— 


>a ! ! ! 
















1 > ! ! ! 




3 i ■ i 








■ Cj . i i 


O i 


I O 1 I i 


> ' 














09 i ! I 






3 ! 


Sill 


£ . 


E 


3 ' 


; g j m ' 


a 


S Si 



-d 






























- 












> 








- 


3 



i§ 



5 M £ 3 c — - 



t- t- o 

aft S 

h b O 

O O *g 

5.5.0. 

coo 

> > > 

S c? ~ 






i ~ ~ ' r E ~- •- ^ ^ ~~ '~ - 






- f - - '£ '-* -c ■- ~ '' V c 



a c 
= — 

.3 - 



— c :. 

c a c 

— ° a 
|| 1 

— 2 5' 



^ r. ■ ■- 

>- b '-' o — 

-= c S. BO H 

« - § ■=- - 

S * P sO = 

I 1 5 11 I 

— :_ C — - — 



u 

a 
c tl 



252 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



a 


tf 




w 


5 


Q 


*. 


h-l 


o 

U 

"3 


o 

W 

M 




u 


s 


o 


w 


H 


s 


cc 


£ 


< 




(Xi 






"o« 


U 


*; 


X, 


Ca 








C 


n 


C 
©j 


£ 



"* 


W 


A 


« 




« 


u 


P 




£ 


a» 


■< 




rr 


,3 


tf 


« 


W 


00 


- 


O 


fa. 



£r— O&i-I OC »C »0 O r-l Tt*QO uo 

a>^> j © © © m< 'odeotfiOOOOOOoOOdeoOgQO'OOOOOOOOOOOiOOOO 

oC cm co rH Tt* © cm cm •—< r-- 

Ch Q I 

; _. I ©o on r^o © -* coo ooo o ©cm o » coo »n os o © o o o © oo ooo cm © o o 

5P ^ m N <^S rt< ^ O CO CM, CO CO 



« rH lO ■"# 



OS 00 ^ 



3££ 






030000000^CCCOOO<DOOMO'COOOCOOCOCOOOCOOO 
1^ CO © CM 00 00 CM CO ^ O 

f* i— " -H © CO CM H® © 

tC co" CC »rf* TjT CO ©" O*" to" 

I-- OS *0 OS CO CO © CO CO 

kd (NO t- 00 © CO CM tN 



IfeS 



OOONhOOh- <©©©©©© — ©— ih ©— '-h©0©0©0©©©©©— <© O© 



8c 



rnCNCNOl COrH-^r-iO^r-OsO — i © © ■— iNhOW««0 01>00- 'CO-fCMrHCOCMrHTf 
' 00 O « ih * V * C* *H rH " ec ' o " ' « c4 o «D ci i-* i-i * ' »c cm" CO 00 

CM rH CM CO 



aiOCO'fCCWiOOicDiO^tO^NWSSOOOOlW-t'MNIN'tSCDp-t-.MOit 



O en -rt <—- j cNoitoir: iofiOMOcoioocoSr-iC'i «on" ' «j"m5c6noo^"555o« < o ^< 
^ a) o.^ t^-OicOCO eo<-Ht--a:<M-*J«'**cO CO co CM ©CMcor-Tt*oO'"S<'-<rocoaO ' OS CO 

B, ^ 5 o ^ co oo" -<rco" co" ©"r-TTr t^" »rf" as — T r4 cm ! rH~ 



E.££ 



1 io«wcoOHrtOcr-/)'-oa»MOO^--Ny'*r -.j r. ~C'£<Dmo----aioN 

l on co -h- h- co as cm io •— < io o r^ o r -o as — < m (N i^ o -r f- o c ^ ct a> >o w. c-i oi o cc oo «o 

I CM CO CM CM iHQ0r-<0i0Jt0lN00^'O'C« ■^©©r-.iOCSOSCC©— • io as co t-- o m i— ' OS CQ 

1 Tf"kC»ocNr oo"oo"os"»ocm*co ©"co~ -hio* n cm' H nV -r© o"o ci ^'cow" n*io r^'c-i «D as* 

I CN CO r^ t^. ONfO CN 00 TfH OS 



CO r-C rH CO CM 



CO CO 



rH i— «5 CM ; 



£• I 



I O'<f(N00OO(N0)CDO^00'*! 



Oi l-H — < . 



I'fxrrwOioi' 



'0 3iu;^r.S(CCN«^c:( 



3 l- 






^ C O © <N M O t~ O — < -.C <M CC 



— r0 O 



3.U 

S3 S 

35 



o o 



ftoo 

■SEE- 



•^2S-=S?3§3k<; 



N 
















ce 
























o 

c 










.v 








a 


T) 


•e 


■a 




































































0) 


<s 




- 






















,-, 


o! 


c3 


























B 






a 


R 






3 


n 






u 




w 





53 ; C ' c 



: :poo ; :5o— oa— 0=30 = 
dossedcSsieEgSEEEEE 
^^SEe^^gE'EEfe'o.Sggag 

'0.CO ' J CCJOP.BJO. . O -Hp- 



5 5 

a 



Bg 

5S 



>feo 



a o c c c o 
§E£SSE 

<E E a3 fi ai c 

o a o co a o 



3 
3 
a o g 

1* E 00 



5 = 



«j O w 



-5^ 



000 

s -s rt 



e? 08 * 
•7 x •/. 



.2 0» 



• - c. 

:ii 

O o 3 



dt w w 






_^ O C 



:_ ° t. s 



-O 



o c _: 



cSSi b c .2 .0 S S S .r: 






K £ 



■ r-r> r- • >« fr* 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



253 



10.0 
23. 7 

7.5 

100.0 

29. P 

03. 3 

13.0 


OCOOOOCOOOCOOO ' 


18,244 

29 

449 

16, 574 

1,034 

9, 932 

80 


oooococcoc=ooo 


1,050,001) 

52,411 

300 

4, 470 

165, 742 

159, 050 

165, 544 

8,000 


coooooooccocoo 




■» 


oooc:c^oC'**rc'-2ciorccir^ai^ 



XMCOOr^C. WrH-TO^OC 



OCOCC CO Oi C CO CC CO T <M ■ 



o — c c: O iC C O M t N a -h : i ** x >r v N C ^- N 

. l^. <© ^ .-< ^ C O CI c; t - t^ '^ O "~ 

f-» COCO fiCiCCCriHiOX-^ 

-^ ■«* <N CO *C Q r-T 



OOCCO<CC:0 Ct I- © — OXOJN.XNh O — ' <M 

c T^xi-xccc-'roKXO 



- co co o i- *r ci r^ co 



OOCOO-rfCC HTf[sTrclX-X-tC05'f , tO 
<-< C* — < — C) -i CI — < 



c <m ci o 




254 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 

[Note. —The data in this section are based upon the lists of legal and beneficial holders presented in appendix 



Name of issuer 






■H 














£> O 




S~ 


OS 



Allied Chemical & Dye Cor- 
poration. 

Allis-Chalrucrs Manufactur- 
es Co. 

Aluminum Co. of America 



American Can Co 

American Car & Foundry Co. 
American Cyanamid Co 



American & Foreign Power 
Co., Inc. 



American Gas & Electric Co. - 



American Metal Co., Ltd. 
The. 



American Power & Light Co.- 



American Radiator <t Stand- 
ard Sanitary Corporation. 

American Rolling Mill Co.. 
The. 

American Smelting A: Refin- 
ing Co. 

American Sugar Refining Co., 
The. 

American Telephone & Tele- 
graph Co. 

American Tobacco Co., The 



American Water Works & 

Electric Co.. Inc. 
American Woolen Co 



Anaconda Copper Mining Co, 
Anderson. CI i> on & Co 



Armour and '' 1. of l Delaware. 

Armour & Co. ( Illinois) 



Atchison, Topeka A Santa Fe 

Ry. Co., The. 
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co 

Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of 
erica, The (ire.it. 



Common ; 

i 
do 

do j 

6 percent cumulative preferred .-.j 
Common .. ._ . . . 

7 percent, cumulative preferred. . 

Common i. 

7 percent noneumulative preferred 

Common, class A 

Common, class B. ... 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common ........ 

$7 cumulative preferred ... 

$6 cumulative preferred ... . . j 

$7 cumulative second preferred, \ 
scries A. 

Common 

$0 cumulative preferred . 

Common . .. .. ... 

6 percent cumulative convertible | 
preferred. 

Common ... 

$6 cumulative preferred ...-j 

j $5 cumulative preferred ... . . 
j Common. 

' 7 percent cumulative preferred .. 
j Common . . . 

I 1 i percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 
I Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred... 
Common . _ . 

7 percent cumulative preferred . . 
I Common.. . . ! 

!.. do ........ 

Common, class B \ 

fi percent cumulative preferred j 

' Common . .____ .. . J 

$6 cumulative 1st preferred . j 

Common. . . 

J 7 percent cumulative preferred j 

Common .. . 

I do 

4 percent participating 1st preferred 

4 percent participating 2d preferred -| 
Common 

7 percent cumulative guaranteed j 

preferred. 
Common . ... 
$6 cumulative convertible priori 

preferred. 
7 percent cumulative preferred. ... 
Common 

5 percent noneumulative preferred -j 
( oramon . 

5 percent noneumulative preferred ' 

Common, voting j 

Common, nom ol ing 

7 pera nt cumulative lsl preferred . 



22 1 



898,354 145.982 0.1465 40 55 

! i 

285, 121 j 13,472, 0. 1271! 16.05 

999, 525J 
686,790' 

530, 533 
104,114 
131,818 

44, 578 

58, 524 
336,406 
100,713 



75. 904 


0. 6856 


67.93 


72,114 


0.4142 


54.84 


37. 270 


0. 0047 


21.45 


17, 244 


0. 2922 


25. 20 


3,130 


0. 2091 


21.95 


2, 000 


0. 3361 


14.85 


1,581 


11.1075 


88.77 


7, 090 


0. 1039 


13.74 


1,057 


0. 4355 


59.11 



19 1,102.074 
17 218,0)1 

20 253. 579 
19 2.430,351 



1,657,825 
90, 259 
702, 978 
30, 080 



3,857 0.16081 54.80 

3.990 0.3915 45.02 

3,804 0.8271 65.54 

20,961 0.4897 93.12 



0. 1219 
0.3118 
1.2456 
5. 9048 



30. 99 
25. 38 

57.34 
53.97 



1.375,219! 7, 

133,575 4, 

308,044 9. 

1,395,509 17. 

19, 320 1 3, 

401,755! 8, 

47,628| 3, 



0. L368 45.73 

0.2699 16.84 

0. 1933 31.55 

0.0402 13.70 

2.7137 40.37 

0.0039 10. n 

0.2040' 10.57 



328, 935 
139.2)0 
46,310 
29, 796 



15, 



131| 0. 

301| 0. 

1461 0. 

248 i 0. 

713.487:103,099' 0. 



0798! 
2521 
2256 

1507 

0020 



15.00 
27. 81 
10.30 
6.62 
3.82 



20 ' 


327, 001 


19.983 1 


0. 1075 


20.48 


19 1 


369, 942 


23.491! 


0. 0476 


12.43 


17 


1 16, 427 


16, 120 


0.2177 


22. 07 


1« 


797, 526 


9, 072 


0: 1691 


33. 90 


19. 


33. 383 


2. 904! 


0. 3952 


16.71 


20! 


74. 323 


297; 


0. 1903 


18.57 


19 


02,219 


1,711! 


0. 1759 


16. 98 


20 


1, 001, 394 


47.241 


0.0183 


18.47 


21 


87, 141 


3.312 


70. 0000 


99.78 


201 
21 


273, 141 


27,314 


83. 3333 


99. 92 


50. 259 


. 5, 026 


30.8824 


93. 02 


1 


100, 000 


57.400 100.0000 


100.00 


19 


41. 932 


4, 257 


0. 0750 


8.41 


20' 


549, 535 


3, 160, 


0. 0481 


13. 56 


20 


55, 949 


3, 273; 


0. 1281 


10 49 


20' 


14, 190 


1,2771 


2. 3095 


42. 10 


18 


278, 304 


9, 952 


0. 0477 


11.47 


19 


221,974 


15,094 


0. 1000 


17.84 


14 


371,628 


8, 269! 


0. 2752 


45. 1 1 


20' 


1,520 


152 


31.2500 


77. 20 


1 


1, 150,000 


54,050 100.0000 


100. 00 


20 1 


773, 721 


36, 365 


0.3404 


82. 07 


20 


173. 152 


20, 799 


0. 2398 


66,51 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



255 



issues of 200 'largest nonfinancial corporations 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD" 

X. Reference, should be made to this appendix for the dates as of which the information is presented.] 









Number of positions and percent of total 


utstandinj t) 


v type of holder 






~ 


















Govern- 








Persona] 




Parent 


Other 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 
panies 


Invest- 


Banks 


mental 




Benefi- 
ciaries 

not dis- 
ci >scd 


Indi- 
viduals 


and fam- 
ily hold- 
ing coin- 
panics 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


and sub- 
sidiary 

corpora- 
lions 


corpora- 
lions 

in m fi- 
nancial 


troi Is 
and i nn 

p i i 


and hro- 

i rs as 

h nefieial 

holders 


agen- 
cics(*)— 

employ- 
ees 
welfare 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 






















plans (#) 






1 

3 


I 

Ph 


ft 

2 


V. 


a 

t 

o 

Ph 


3$ 

5 


a 
8 

u 
c 
Ph 


In 

,2 

E 
3 


g 

Ph 


£ 

S 

3 


a 

In 

O) 

Ph 


| 


a 
a 

Ph 


1 

E 

3 

'A 


1 


2 ! § 

3 ! t 


u 

-- 

i 


a 

a 
o 

a 


u 

o 

6 

3 


c 
o 

a: 
■ * 


|H 

a 

a 

1 




T 6.54 


1 


1.35 


6 


3.26 




















, 


20. 32 


oj 


_ 









8 


9. 08 


: 


3.61 








1 


0.56 








1 


0.72 








4 


2.51 





u 





1 


1.33 


9 


7.32 


13 


51.69 


1 


1.30 


4 


7.81 



















o 








1 1.36 








2 


5.71 








'J 


26.15 








8 


6.84 





11 

















o; o 








5 


21.85 








6 


8.80 








1 


0.61 














1 


0.52 


1 


0.97 


Ol 














10 


10.55 


3 


1.93 


























6 


14.03 








Oi 





o 


3 


1.91 


5 


7.39 


ii 





1 


0.50 


1 


0.33 




















2 


9.44 

















16 


11.68 


4 


2.29 








2 


0.40 














1 


0.67 


1 


4.66 








o 


1 


0.40 


11 


6.43 


17 


82.06 


3 


3.75 


1 


2.20 



































1 


0.76 








5 


3.62 


1 


0.51 














1 


0.82 








1 


1.07 


ol 














11 


7.72 


7 


36.15 

















o 








4 


6.40 








01 








4 


9.49 


7 


7.07 




















1 


43.87 



































18 


10.99 




















1 


2.77 


2 


19.37 








1 


0.73 





#1 


#3.24 








12 


19.51 


2 


1.73 


1 


1.24 








1 


17.00 


3 


29.37 








3 


1.95 





#1 


#1.55 








9 


12.70 


5 


4.69 














1 


78.84 


1 


8.05 








2 


0.21 


.0 


#1 


#0.23 





° 


9 


1.10 


6 


7.69 


1 


0.78 


1 


0.96 


1 


18.90 


1 


1.12 


1 


1.52 


1 


0.74 


01 











. 


6 


5.28 


5 


3.17 


2 


4.50 














1 


1.26 


1 


0.56 











#1 


#2.60 


1 


0.45 


8 


12.90 


9 


14.44 


1 


0.67 


2 


0.28 








4 


30.34 








2 


2.83 





o 








-o 





10 


8.78 


17 


18.35 








2 


6. 15 














3 


5.39 




















2 


6.00 


7 


18.08 


3 


3.72 














1 


31.17 








1 


0.97 


1 


0.43 




















14 


9.44 





3.67 


1 


0.44 


2 


1.27 








1 


0.47 


1 


0.63 


2 


1.05 








♦1 


•0.63 








111 


8.68 


7 


11.44 








1 


1.53 


y 


5.30 


1 


2.19 








2 


1.57 








#1 


#1.11 








5 


8.41 


7 


4.58 


1 


0.52 


4 


2.04 


o 1 











1 


0.87 




















1 


2.73 


6 


3.02 


7 


9.12 








4 


7.73 














1 


1.04 














#1 


#8.36 


2 


4.92 


5 


9.20 


3 


4. 14 








ii 









































1 


1.17 


16 


10. 8(1 


1 


0.47 








u 










1 


0.67 


3 


1.82 











#1 


#0.28 


1 


1.00 


12 


6.33 








1 


0.55 


























2 


4.03 




















13 


10.42 














1 


0.40 














7 


16.07 


1 


0.40 














2 


1.32 


8 


9.65 


5 


2.33 


1 


0.07 




















1 


0.55 


























13 


6.75 


2 


0.45 








4 


0.93 














5 


1.54 


1 


0.44 














3 


1.14 


7 


2.12 


2 


0.31 


























1 


0.63 


2 


0.38 




















12 


2.50 


8 


4.66 


1 


2.50 


3 


3.94 


1 


5.30 








1 


0.31 


1 


0.63 




















5 


3.14 


4 


3 (M 








2 


91 














1 


1. 10 


1 


0.40 




















11 


6.92 


3 


1.53 








2 


2.24 














6 


9,91 


























6 


8.39 


3 


1.39 


1 


1.30 














2 


5.32 








4 


19.17 




















8 


6.72 


1 


1.00 


1 


0.59 


1 


0.50 














2 


2.00 


2 


3.97 




















12 


8. 65 


n 



























































20 


18.57 


2 


1.11 















































o 








17 


15.87 


2 


1.31 








1 


0.64 




















2 


8.20 

















15 


8.32 


21 


99.78 












































o 


o 





o 








11 


9.96 








8 


42.74 


V 



































1 


47.22 








1ft 


79 01 


















































2 


14.01 




























100.00 









































3 


1.26 


























1 


0.22 


1 


0.20 


i) 


#1 


#0. 52 


2 


(i 62 


" 


5.59 


:. 


i SI 








X) 












































15 


8.75 


'• 


4.09 


























1 


ll '..t 




















U 


14 


5. 46 


12 


19.26 


11 





, 


0.68 





•1 



































7 


22. 16 


l) 











11 

















3 


1.57 


3 


2.72 


(i 





o 








12 


7. IK 














1 


0.42 


I) 








II 


9 


11.08 








(i 








3 


1 34 


8 


5 00 


1 


0. 49 








1 


9.01 








II 





3 




2 


27.94 

















7 


4. 15 


13 


54.60 


(I 





1 


1.52 














2 


15.06 


1 


1.32 


II 1) 





(1 


2 


2 64 


1 


1.52 


o 







100.00 






































o 














16 


19. 30 


1 


SI 77 


1 


0.64 














2 


0.96 





o 


0, 





o 














13 


13.99 


1 


36. 91 


2 


13.02 














2 


0.96 

















o- 


1 


0.38 


1 


1.25 



2G8445 — 41 -No. 29 



-18 



256 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 





1 


o 


■i 








o 








a 


o 


o 










o 


^« 




z% 


s w 


S3 


g 






Si 






o 


o 






a 


a 


o 


8 










Ph 


Ph 







Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Atlantic Refining Co., The. 



Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 

The. 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation 

(Delaware). 

Borden Co., The 

Boston EdisonCo 

Boston & Albany R. R. Co... 

Brooklyn Union Gas Co., The. 

California Packing Corpora- 
tion. 

Carolina, Clinchfleld & Ohio 
Ry. 

Central R. R. Co. of New 

J6TS6V Tll6. 

Central '& South West Utili- 
ties Co. 



Common.. 

4 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred, series A. 
Common 

4 percent noncumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

_.._do 

....do 



.do. 
.do. 



Chesapeake & Ohio Rv. Co. 
The. 



Chrysler Corporation 

Cincinnati Gas & Electric 
Co., The. 



Cities Service Co. 



5 percent cumulative preferred- 
Common... : 



.,-do. 



.do- 



Cleveland Electric Illuminat- 
ing Co., The. 

Climax Molybdenum Co 

Coca Cola Co., The 



Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co... 

Columbia Gas & Electric 
Corporation. 



Commonwealth Edison Co 

Commonwealth & Southern 
Corporation. 

Consolidated Edison Co. of 
New York, Inc. 

Consolidated Gas Electric 
■Light & Power Co. of Balti- 
more. 

Consolidated Oil Corporation. 

Consumers Power Co 



Continental Can Co., Inc. 



$7 cumulative prior lien preferred. 
$6 cumulative prior lien preferred . 

$7 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$4 noncumulative preferred series 
- A. 

Common 

....do 

5 percent cumulative preferred 
series A. 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$0.60 cumulative preferred series B 
$6 cumulative preferred series BB_. 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

$3 cumulative preferred class A 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

series A. 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred. 

Common 

....do 

$6 cumulative preferred 

Common , 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

\\h. percent cumulative preferred 

series B.' 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$5 preferred 

Common... 

$5 cumulative preferred ... 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 



299, 641 
35, 604 

760, 426 
139, 781 
652, 836 
159,070 
141,852 
605, 506 
• 92,260 
33, 245 
239, 884 
110,084 
11, 870 
83, 015 

188, 171 

2, 60Y, 366 
67, 854 
11,500 
70, 771 

3, 187, 575 
82, 610 

838, 781 
750, 000 
49, 133 



5,650, 

138, 

20, 

9, 

1, 946, 

88, 

1, 366, 

2, 284, 
248, 
624, 

56, 

3, 244, 
145, 



5,993 
3,729 

7,604 
1,677 
38, 109 
14, 734 
2,074 
10, 293 
11,071 
3,083 
4,318 
2, 037 
592 
7,056 

1,858 

4,889 
6,480 
1,150 
2,123 



0.0789 11.22 
0.4345 24 



0. 0551 
0. 2169 
0. 0386 
0. 0675 
0. 0747 
0. 0420 
0. 1235 
0. 2598 
0.2423 
0. 1807 
0. 3277 

0. 7140 

1. 7065 

0. 3391 

0. 6141 

100. 0000 

0. 4571 



106,7841 0.0408 
404 0. 1493 



39, 94 
37, 875 
4,742 



11,321 
15, 950 



2, 489, 08 

10, 554, 516 

318, 208 

1, 697, 236 
564, 875 
213,900 



61,917 
3, 602, 679 

13, 070 
1, 643. 080 

28, 779 

60, 391 
267, 677 

78,805 



10, 595 

5,276 

73 

313 

60, 841 

9,335 

50,894 

260, 431 

14, 393 

5,623 

5,436 

25,550 

10, 623 

730 
925 

05, 043 
19, 789 
12, 172 
37, 127 
54, 510 
13,904 



7,066 

31,974 

1,307 



0. 0409 

100. 0000 

0. 2032 

0. 0043 
0. 0329 

0. 7874 

1. 4226 
1.0241 

, Q. 5446 
0. 7148 
0. 2330 
0.3828 
0. 2164 
0. 3947 
0. 0253 
0.140' 

1.5690 
0. 1499 

0.0239 
0.0140 
0. 1311 
0.0199 
0. 0725 
0. 1686 



0. 2681 

0. 0230 

1. 3531 



40.255 100.0000 



29.67 
23.30 
20.56 
17.09 
15.25 
13.76 
14.95 
13.30 
32.18 
11.39 
19.58 
33.20 

68.58 

77.28 
57.79 
100.00 
53.08 
41.61 
54.31 

19. 261 
100. 00 1 
12. 28 

15.22 

14.98 

16. 

40.88 

83.74 

34.47 

54.22 

57.23 

41.35 

31.83 

23.14 

26.39 

15.34 

28.00 
12.8 

23.82 
31.36 
21. 18 
14.80 
25.83 
18.32 



2,655 
4,997 
10, 172 
8,314 



0. 1325 
0. 1023 
0. 0521 
1.0704 



27.76 
25.90 
23.98 
100.00 
14.91 
10.93 
9.30 
39.41 



i Holders of 5 percent cumulative preferred offered Wi percent cumulative preferred series B in exchange 
in April 1939; balance of 5 percent cumulative preferred outstanding redeemed in June 1939. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



257 



of tOO largest nonfinancial corporations- — Continued 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD"— Continued 





Number of positions and perceut of total shares outstanding by type of holder 






















Govern- 








i Indi- 
viduals 


Personal 
and fam- 
ily hold- 
ing com- 
panies 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


Parent 

and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 
tions 


Other 
corpora- 
tions 
nonfi- 
nancial 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 
panies 


Invest-, 
ment 
trusts 
and com- 
panies 


Banks 
and bro- 
kers as 
beneficial 
holders 


mental 
agen- 
cies(*)— 
employ- 
ees 
welfare 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 


Benefi- 
ciaries 

not dis- 
closed 


























plans (#) 








u 

3 

i 

s 
v. 

r 


a 
® 

5 

C 
a> 


1* 

£1 
5 

a 
S5 




— 
a 
I 
§ 

2- 




i- 

a 

£ 

5 

7 


1 
s 

=- 

2.08 


| 
V. 

o 


a 
g 


o 

| 
a 
Z 




a 

§ 

IS 

0- 


£ 

B 
3 
S5 






8 

O 

0* 


u 

e 

3 
2 


n 


- 

£ 

B 

a 
Z 




c 
8 

o 
0- 


Li 

£ 

5 

3 

!z 


a 

s 


u 

,2 

E 


c 
8 


Z 

B 

a 


a 
o 

o 
u 

o 


5.65 


o 








1 


0.36 

















8 


3.13 













1 


0.68 





o • 


2 


1.69 


5 


7.59 




















4 


3.32 


8 


10.80 


l 


0.39 




















1 


1.40 








1 


4.15 




















16 


23.73 


n 











1 


0.83 








1 


4.03 


2 


1.82 


1 


5.55 








*1 


♦1.90 








14 


9.17 


5 


4.78 








2 


2.83 


o 

















3 


7.41 




















8 


5.54 


4 


2.16 




















1 


1.09 


5 


6.73 


1 


0.95 




















7 


6.16 


■: 


1.50 








1 


0.47 








1 


0.54 


4 


6.30 


























11 


6.44 


s 


4.45 








1 


0.49 














1 


2.52 




















1 


2.67 


9 


3.63 


1 


0.29 








3 


0.97 








1 


2.76 


i 


1.88 


4 


6.32 








#1 


#0.81 


2 


0.62 


4 


1.30 


1 


0.32 








2 


1.29 














in 


8.89 








1 


0.28 








3 


1.33 


3 


1.19 


•'. 


2.98 


1 0.32 








3 


23.87 


2 


1.07 


1 


0.80 


























7 


3.14 


9 


4.27 








3 


1.79 


1 


0.48 






































7 


4.85 


: 


4.38 








1 


0.53 


1 


0.53 








3 


4.48 




















1 


0.82 


7 


8.84 


i 


1.01 


1 


1.23 


1 


0.70 








1 


0.80 


9 


18.74 




















3 


4.80 


3 


5.92 


3 


1.89 








2 


1.13 


2 


55.47 








2 


3.28 


























11 


6.81 








1 


0.61 








1 


61.03 


1 


4.56 














2 


4.93 














15 


6.15 


3 


2.42 


0| 


1 


0.47 


1 


37.80 


1 


4.26 








3 


1.44 








#1 


#4.26 








9 


7.14 


n 














1 


100.00 












































; 


2.28 








2 


1.27 


1 


40.86 








II 





2 


0.78 








#1 


#0.75 


1 


0.25 


5 


6.89 


' 


1.40 


1 


0.34 




















1 


027 


3 


35. 25 




















9 


4.35 


3 


0.36 


1 


0.46 














1 


0.66 


7 


3.03 


1 


39. 77 














- 1 


1.97 


5 


8.06 


3 


1.60 


1 


1.97 


























2 


1.05 








#3 


#4.01 








12 


10.60 




















1 


100.00 
































b 





O 





3 


1.30 








2 


0.75 














8 


6.67 




















2 


0.88 


5 


2.68 


-■ 


1.40 


3 


4.« 


























1 


5.93 




















12 


3.45 


i 


1.02 


2 


0.55 








1 


0.13 


1 


0.43 








2 


10.07 








#1 


#0. 43 








10 


2.35 


17 


13.67 














. 



































1 


0.39 


2 


2.06 


23 


39.16 














1 


0.69 














1 


1.03 


























12 










2 


0.37 


1 


79.49 








1 


0.22 




















2 


0.40 


2 


0.64 


ii 


























11 


22. 01 














#1 


#0.44 


2 


0.86 


7 


11.16 


:- 


37. 34 





1 


7.95 








1 


8.93 






































t 


2 24 


6 


8.34 














1 


0.45 








1 


39.06 




















9 


7.14 


3 


1.10 


• 


4.01 


1 


0.45 


s 





1 


0.25 


1 


60 


J 


31.99 














1 


0. 33 


6 


2.62 


- 


6.14 


7 


16.86 


1 


3.00 

















1 


0.96 














3 


2.57 


3 


2.30 


3 


2.43 


2 


0.62 


1 


0.41 








2 


0.82 


6 


4.01 


3 


8.29 














2 


0.82 


7 


5.74 


3 


1.43 














2 


20.30 


1 


0.55 


1 


0.69 


























8 


3.42 


■ 


2.90 


1 


0.60 


2 


3.48 


1 


0.54 


1 


0.53 


1 


0. .53 




















1 


0.50 


6 


6.26 


11 


i ;. 74 








1 


0.02 


1 


4.07 




















1 


1.24 








2 


6.18 


3 


2.15 


7 


4.21 








* 


2.80 


1 


1.63 








2 


0.80 




















1 


0.45 


5 


2.98 


n 











1 


0.47 


1 


LIS 








2 


2.00 


1 


0.61 








#1 


#0.85 








14 18.76 


1 


0.70 


3 


0.48 


2 


1. 15 








1 


2.79 








8 


24.28 




















5 


1.96 


3 


1.09 


ii 





6 


3.56 








2 


5.08 








3 


2.00 








#1 


#1.06 








9 


8.39 


n 























2 


2.20 


1 


2.50 


3 


2.79 








#1 


#0.44 








12 


6.87 


2 


0.66 


























9 


16.36 




















3 


1.53 


5 


7.28 


























2 


5.28 


7 


3.35 


4 


3.70 








#1 


#0.75 


2 


0.82 


7 


4.42 


1 


0.40 


11 





.1 


0.36 














15 


24.93 


























3 


2.07 


2 


1.42 


n 





4 


2.28 








1 


3.59 








3 


13.60 




















8 


5.01 


9 


8.25 


3 


3. 35 


2 


1.11 












































7 


11.27 


n 

















1 


100.00 








o 



































3 


1.05 











o 














9 


7.86 




















1 


0.52 


6 


5.48 












n 











1 


0.33 


8 


5.68 




















4 


1.24 


7 


3.68 


l 


0.51 














1 


26 


1 


0.26 








( 








1 


0.33 


11 


7.94 


1 


0.5O 


























11 


28.76 




















3 


1.71 


8 


8.44 



258 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues- 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 



Name of issuer 



Continental Oil Co 

Corn Products Refining Co, 



Crane Co 



Crown Zellerbach Corpora- 
tion. 



Curtahy Packing Co 



Deere & Co. 



Delaware & Hudson Co., The 

Delaware, Lackawanna & 

Western R. R. Co., The. 

Detroit Edison Co., The 

Duke Power Co 



E. I. du Pont do Nemours & 
Co. 



Duquesne Light Co. 
Eastman Kodak Co. 



Electric Power & Light Cor- 
poration. 



Empire Gas <fc Fuel To. 



Engineers Public Service Co. 



Federal Water Service Cor- 
poration. 



Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 
The. 



Ford Motor Co . 



General American Transpor- 
tation Corporation. 

General Electric Co 

General Foods Corporation.. 

General Motors Corporation.. 

General Telephone Corpora- 
tion. 

Gimbel Bros., Inc 



Title of issue 



Common 

do 

7 percent cumulative preferred. .. 
Common 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred . .. 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common. 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common .. . 

. ...do. 



Capital stock (common). 

ommon 

7 percent cumulative preferred. _. 
Common ' 

6 percent cumulative debenture 
stock. 

$4.50 cumulative preferred. 

Common 

5 percent cumulative 1st preferred 

Common 

percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred, series 

A. 
Common. 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 l ,§ percent cumulative preferred.. 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$0 cumulative preferred 

$5.50 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common, class B 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6.50 cumulative preferred... 

$0 cumulative preferred 

$4 cumulative preferred 

Common, class A 

Common ■ 

6 percent cumulative preferred, 
series A 

Common, class B 

Common, class A 

Common 



do 
.do. 



■$4.50 cumulative preferred.. 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$3 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 



996. 901 
603, 762 

86,299 
1,255,913 

49, 502 

600. 843 
121,750 

246, 828 

31,044 

20,000 

1,581,008 

578. 976 
96, 87.5 

505. 173 

660, 831 

914, 620 

2,739 

5,242,318 

319.156 

140.606 

2,152,828 

141,996 

288, 770 

17, 

2, 228, 996 
132,916 

83, 171 
46, 975 

750.000 
77, 871 

19G, 552 
24, 546 
35, 859 

655, 622 
29.233 
44, 595 
42, 548 

542, 450 

5.849 

16, 382 

19.913 

868 

65. 784 

9C6, 769 

56, 483 

172, 645 

3, 280. 255 
277, 588 



28.910 
35, 622 
14, 368 
30, 142 
4,567 

5,407 
7,609 

3,579 
1,862 
1,027 
33, 398 
13, 027 
1,356 
3,347 

61, 622 
59, 907 
273 
587. 140 
41,929 

15,467 

87, 997 

16, 028 

46, 347 

2, 762 

24, 798 

4,785 

2,744 

1,385 

32, 813 
2,842 
6,879 
822 
1,201 
2, 868 
1, 520 
2,140 
1,915 

542 

146 

361 

431 

15 

99 

17,228 

5,126 

31, 249 

593, 726 

11,242 



0.0600 21.29 



1 18, 453 
41. 739 
6, 334 



17i 2,880,330 
20] 1,368,494 
58,112 
16, 548, 201 [496, 446 
457, 080 i 51,536 
244,686, 2,722 
18, 935 



KM 



431.268 
74, 593 



2,965 
3, 730 1 



0. 1364 
0. 7194 
0. 265( ! 
0.6711 

0. 1426 
0. 2310 

0. 4202 
2. 561 1 
100. 0000 
0. 6392 
0.4125 
0. 2513 
0. 1967 

0.1189 
1.9512 
60. 6061 
0. 0336 
1422 

0. 2.545 

100. 0000 

0. 7793 

0. 0508 

1. 5314 
0. 1331 
a 2471 
0. 5952 
2.7113 

100.0000 

! 0.6629 

0. 2864 

2. 052.5 
0. 5958 
0. 1249 
1.7707| 
0. 6892 
0. 8482 

100. 0000 

3. 4188 
0.8590 
0.7148 

4. 8309 
0.1881 
0. 1678 
0.2027 

100.0000 
100.0000 

0. 1910 

0.0081 
0. 0298 

1. 1251 1 

0.00661 
0.09131 
0.3345 
1.6571 

0.5674J 

0.8887 



23.84! 
34.49, 
54.24 

25. 68 ] 

26. 561 
22. 99: 

52.811 
47. 34 ! 
100.00; 
52.64' 

37. 51 1 
18. 77, 
29. 76! 

51.84i 
90. 551 
96. 55 1 
47. 38 
29. 20; 

28. 12| 
100.00] 
51.54. 
12.84, 
28. 691 
65. 141 
25.811 
32. 54 1 
60.01 

100.00 
58. 75 
64.41 
72. 17; 
49.36 
34.25; 
39. 85' 
22. 92i 
27. 20. 

100. 00; 

38. 25 
22.041 
27. 76 

36. 471 
1 1 . 53 
46.86 
12. 10 

100. 00 

100.00; 

26. 86 

9. 99 1 
25.97' 
38. 66' 
38.04 
24. 891 
34.97. 
25.75 

44.37 

37. 70 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



259 



200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 
DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RE C OH D"— Continued 



Number of positions and percent of total shares outstanding by typo of holder 























Govern- 










Indi- 
viduals 


Personal 
and fam- 
ily hold- 
ing com- 
panies 


1 rusts 

and 

estates 


Parent 

and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 
tions 


Other 
corpora- 
tions 
1:01 fi- 
nancial 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 
panies 


Invest- 
ment 
trusts 
and com- 
panies 


Banks 
and. br >• 

ken as 
beneficial 

holders 


mental 
agen- 
cies (*) — 
employ- 
ees 
welfare 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 


Benefi- 
ciaries 

not dis- 
closed 






















plans (#) 








3 




u 




09 




* 








„ 


„l 


u 











^ 


1* 

0) 


^ 


U4 

O) 


^ 


B 


£1 


c 


-2 


a 


— 


a 


.0 


a 


£ 1 a 


& 


c 


.0 


c 


— 


a 


£ 





£ 




E 


8 


i 


8 


6 


o 


E 





B 


8 


S 


s 


s 


E 


S3 



E 


8 


S 





E 


g 


a 


In 


B 


u 




o 


- 


© 


a 




3 z 


a 


hi 


3 


03 


a 


a> 


3 





3 


c 


Z 


2.S7 


Z 




£ 


Z 







z 







z 


Ph 


Z\ Ph 


Z 


£ 


Z 


Pn 


* 


Ph 


z 


Ph 


Z 


Ph 


4 





1 


72 








4 


6.14 














1 


0.84 


8 


11.02 


7 


5.57 


l 


1.39 


1 


0.80 














1 


3.92 


1 


0.71 














1 


0.56 


11 


10.89 


2 


1.26 


(i 





2 


4.76 


11 











7 


19.76 




















2 


2.04 


6 


6.67 


9 


25.55 








2 


17.02 








ii 











2 


2.31 








#1 


#3.29 








5 


6.07 


3 


3.21 








(i 

















2 3.63 








II 











1 


1.08 


12j 17. 76 


11 


17.99 








1 


0.64 








1 


0.79 




















(1 











7 


7.14 


15 


18.32 








1 


0.53 








1 


0.66 
































3 


3.48 


6 


40 57 








(i 


8.77 


(1 





























#1 


#0.46 


(I 





7 


3.01 


: 


16.94 








9 


19.60 














1 


3.05 




















2 


1.52 


3 


6.23 


it 


56.77 








5 


43.23 








ii 





(1 (1 




















II 











n 


15.45 


1 


2.56 


3 


25.90 








ii 





0. <» 


2 


3.03 




















6 


5.70 


9 


10.04 


2 


5.10 


- 


19.54 








(i 





1 ' 0. 58 














II 











2 


2.25 


1 


70 


(1 





n 

















1 


0.48 


1 


0.61 




















17 


16.98 


- 


8.85 








1 


0.73 














1 


0.59 














II 











S 


19.59 


n 











ii 





'2 


39.45 


1 


2.04 


3 


5.28 


2 


1.74 








#1 


#0.78 


2 


0.42 


6 


2.13 


: 


10.69 








in 


40.94 
































(1 





2 


38.67 


1 


0.25 


17 


32.22 








1 


1.55 


II 











(i 























2 


62.78 








7 


5.75 


3 


35.55 


."< 


2.63 


II 





11 



































4 3.45 


G 


4.18 


2 


2.44 


3 


3.19 








n 





5 


14.90 














(1 











4 


4.49 


1 


0.49 




















2 


1.66 


8 


19.09 




















2 


0.80 


7 


6.08 




















1 


100.00 


















































• 1 


0.73 














1 


0.80 


13 


46.01 




















2 


1.64 


2 


2.36 


9 


5.53 








3 


1.92 














(i 











II 











2 


3.12 


5 


2.27 


y 


12.09 


(1 





3 


1.89 














5 


10.48 








1) 














3 


4.23 














ii 





1 


57.78 








II 





2 


1.04 




















13 


6.32 


3 


1.43 








(i 











1 


2.62 


1 


1.01 


1 


0.78 


1 


0.97 


#1 


#1.98 








12 


17.02 


1 


l.ss 


(i 





ii 











2 


3.01 








2 


3.68 




















13 


23. 97 


2 


2.06 


2 


9.58 








1 


17.76 


1 


5.11 








1 


3.83 


1 


2.62 


#1 


#6.00 








8 


13.05 








(i 











1 


100.00 












































1(1 


3.22 


i 


8.67 


n 





1 


44.47 














1 


0. 45 




















6 


1.94 


11 


1.18 


(i 











1 


61.51 


1 


0.08 








1 


1.10 

















4 


0.54 


14 


4.48 








1) 





2 


67.15 


1 


0.25 





























1 


0.29 


13 


3.48 


(1 











2 


44.61 






































3 


1.27 


11 


19.13 


1 


2.18 


5 


3.98 

















3 


5.78 


1 


2.1s 














1 


1.00 


6 


5.78 














II 





1 


1.91 


4 


6.13 


4 


12.00 














2 


4.50 


5 


9.53 


6 


6.79 








1 


1.09 


II 











1 


0.77 


5 


6.93 








#1 


#1.03 


1 


1.28 


5 


5.03 


5 


7.87 


1 


4.00 


■2 


1.53 


II 











3 


3.06 


3 


5.24 




















5 


5.50 




















1 


100.00 












































8 


6.30 


1 


4.25 


2 


2.41 


1 


5.83 


II 











1 


1.31 


2 


3.63 


! 











5 


14.52 


3 


3.00 


2 


1.47 








1 


3.19 


1 


1.43 








1 


2.15 


2 


1.71 








1 





!i 


9.09 


2 


2.79 


2 


2.36 








1 


4.48 


2 


2.23 


1 


1.39 


1 


2.55 


1 


0.84 


01 


1 


0.70 


'.1 


10.42 


17 


23.86 


1 


4.16 


1 


7.15 


1 


1.30 





























1 








" 


2 


1 97 




















1 


0.56 


2 


0.76 


1 


0.40 


1 


0.53 











13 


7.31 


IS 20. 31 


1 


13. 44 


7 


4.62 














n 


11 


n 




















4 


8.49 


7 


I 84 


1 


0.21 


(I 








(i 








-' 


ii 62 


1 


0.32 








•1 *0. 21 








13 


8.90 


3 


100.00 


.1 


ii 





(1 


(1 


11 




















(1 

















(i 


3 


92.38 








(1 


ii 


II 











II 











1 





0| 


1 


7 02 





11 


to 


12.56 


1 


3.87 


1 





1 





1 


11 


1 


2. 42 


1 





1 


(1 








1 


1.94 


. r 


0.07 














2 


0.53 










1 


0.97 


2 


0.54 








#1 


#1.84 


1 





11 


6.11 


10 


13.54 


1 


0.51 


2 2. 0( 


1 


1.63 





( 


























11 


1 


8. 23 


(1 





1 








ii 


1 








11 


21.55 


1 




1 





( 





3 


3.59 




12.86 


6 


2 L! 


4 


2. 16 


2 


0. 34 


1 





3 23. 28 


( 


1 


1 


0.67 








#2 


#5.95 








(' 


3.55 


2 


1.13 


1 




I 


ii 


1 


11 


1 1.09 


4 


8.21 





11 


' 











1 


0.54 


11 


13.29 


7 










■: 


1 2.61 


■- 


13.74 





( 





3 


4.92 


1 





«1 


#1.63 


( 





s 


5.51 


7 


4. 22 


( 





4 


2.3: 


1 








- 


J 2.04 


1 


2.17 


f 





#1 


#1.36 


( 





s 


13.64 


7 


20.41 





(i 


: 


5.41 


1 


11 


o| 


1 





: 


2.06 


1 











1 





s 


16 19 


5 


12.80 


1 


0.71 


- 


1.4: 


1 


11 








1 




rj 





I 

















!l 


22.00 



260 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 

SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



2.S 



Glen Alden Coal Co 

B. F. Goodrich Co., The. 



Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 
The. 

Great Northern Ry. Co., The. 



Gulf Oil Corporation 

Hearst Consolidated Publica- 
tions, Inc. 

Hudson & Manhattan R. R. 

Co. 
Illinois Central R. R. Co 



Inland Steel Co 

International Business Ma- 
chines Corporation. 
International Harvester Co... 



International Hydro-Electric 
System. 



International Paper & Power 
Co. 



International Shoe Co 

International Telephone & 
Telegraph Corporation. 

Jones & Laughlin Steel Cor- 
poration. 

Kansas City Power & Light 
Co., The. 



Kansas City Southern Rail- 
way Co. 

Kennecott Copper Corpora- 
tion. 

Koppers United Co. 1 



S. S. KresgeCo... 
8. H. Kress & Co. 



Lehigh Coal & Navigation 

Co., The. 
Lehigh Valley R. R. Co 



Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. 



Lowe's Inc 

Lone Star Gas Corporation... 



» Consolidated with Koppers 
' No inormation available. 



Common 

...do .-.. 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$5 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 

$6 noncumulative preferred (no 
common outstanding). 

Common.. 

....do 

7 percent, class A, cumulative par- 
ticipating, preferred. 

Common 

5 percent noncumulative preferred. 
Common 

6 percent noncumulative converti- 
ble preferred, series A. 

Common 

do 



do 



7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

Class B 

$3.50 cumulative converitble pre- 
ferred . 
$2 cumulative participating, class 
A. 

Common 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

do 



do 



7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative 1st preferred, 
series B. 

Common. 

4 percent noncumulative preferred. 
Common 



do 



6 percent cumulative preferred. . . 
4 percent cumulative preferred. .. 

Common 

do 

6 percent cumulative special pre- 
ferred. 
Common 



.do. 



10 percent cumulative preferred J . 

Common .. 

Common, class B 

7 percent cumulative preferred. . . 

Common 

$6.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

6M percent cumulative preferred. 

Co. 



787, 625 
204,423 

73, 339 
446, 914 

51, 762 

335,032 

6, 610, 176 

2,000,000 

110,800 

106, 151 

17,690 

545,717 

123,842 

425, 909 
160, 167 

1, 695, 933 
410, 247 

40, 000, 000 

1,000,000 

53, 224 

231, 121 

710, 680 
237,204 

1,151,270 
983, 647 

392, 280 

250, 528 

525.000 

20,984 

145, 238 
96, 572 

2, 008, 973 

2, 682, 400 

24,623 

25,000 

2, 966, 765 

1, 970, 988 

628, 027 

596, 108 

716,971 



4,332 
2,811 
3,429 
7,821 
3,817 

7,203 

249, 535 
2,000 
1,773 

173 

89 

5,048 

2,183 

29,601 
21, 142 

105, 147 

58, 562 

40,000 

1,000 

798 

1,416 

4,976 
7,413 

36, 265 
5,902 

11. 

17, 537 

30, 617 

2,476 

1,016 

1,835 
70, 816 

69, 072 

2,475 

2,500 

45, 982 

45, 333 

7,615 

2,161 

3,675 



309,141! 27,050 
550,665! 49,560 

55,3791 9,138 
292,8401 13,178 

19, 192 2, 025 
1,052,3331 7,498 

40, 823 ! 4,572 



0. 3265 
0.0968 
0. 3253 
0. 0475 
0.0992 

0.0638 

0.1320 

100.0000 

0.0479 

0.4479 
2,1142 
0. 1259 
0.5309 

0.2962 
0.2383 

0.0811 

0. 1927 

100.0000 

100.0000 

1.7228 

0.2504 

0.1144 
0. 1410 

0.2841 
0.0261 

2. 6869 

0. 3245 

100.0000 

2.7064 

0.7686 
0.9132 
0.0230 

17. 3554 
0. 4579 
128. 5714 
0. 0857 
0.8893 
1. 6536 

0. 3170 

0. 3014 



44.90 
15.59 
17.67 
21.76 
7.96 

.3.41 

72.84 

100.00 

5.73 

26.53 
33.74 
40.19 
66.42 

27.04 
20.63 

39.92 
50.20 
100.00 
100.00 
36. 6 

26.84 

38.77 
25.42 

34.37 
15.36 

68.07 
42.68 
100.00 
52.45 

48.50 
46.00 
18.45 

97.25 
12.32 
100.00 
53.80 
83 60 
87.08 

30.90 

59.19 



0.5414 
0.1028 
0.5220 
0. 1284 
0.5120 
0. 1300 
2.7064 



35.93 
24.17 
26.55 
18.20 
V-.-05 
i8.97 
51. 15 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



261 



>/ 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD"— Continued 



Number of positions and percent of total shares outstanding by type of holder 






















Govern- 










Personal 




Parent 


Other 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 


Invest- 


Banks 


mental 






Benefi- 
ciaries 
not dis- 
closed 


Indi- 
viduals 


and fam- 
ily hold- 
ing com- 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 


corpora- 
tions 
nonfi- 


ment 

trusts 

and com- 


and»bro- 

kers as 

beneflcia 


agen- 
cies^)— 
employ- 


Founda- 
tions, etc 




paiiies 




tions 


nancial 


panies 


panies 


holders 


ees 
welfare 




























plans (!) 












hi 




ti 




In 




u 




1* 




I* 




u 








hi 




u 




. 




ffi 




s 




© 




s 




u 




V 




£ 




w 




B 




o 




- 


a 


X 


a 


.O 


c 


~ 


a 


— 


a 


£ 


e 


£ 


a 


a , 


J3 


a 


a 


£ 


a 


E 


8 


•5 


3 


§ 


§ 




s 


5 




E 


8 


E 


8 


E 


8 


E 


to 
6 


E 


8 


E 


8 


3 


3 


hi 

9 


a 




3 


9 


r 


hi 


3 


hi 

e 


3 


h. 


3 


ft 


3 


hi 


3 


hi 
5 


3 


9 


Z 


0, 


£ 


fc 


y 


Oh 


y 


Ph 


Z 


Ph 


y 


Ph 


V. 


P-, 


y 


A 


y 


e. 


y, 


PL, 


fc 


Pm 


i 


5.78 








3 


1.93 








1 


31.20 


c 























( 





10 


5.99 


3 


1.58 


























i 





f 





( 











i 





17 14. 01 


5 


3.39 








.' 


3.59 














c 























( 





10 10. 69 


4 


3.01 





II 














1 


2:31 


i 





2 


2.12 








1 





c 





12 


14.32 


8 


1.95 








1 


0.77 


• 











c 

















♦1 


•0.31 


t 





■ 11 


4.93 


1 


0.38 


1 


2.12 




















1 


0.8C 


1 


0.84 














c 





16 


9.27 


5 52. 12 








6 


5.26 














2 


1.60 


1 


0.33 


1 


7.49 








2 


5.16 


2 


0.88 








1 


100.00 
























































19 


2.35 


1 


3.18 


1 


0.08 








1 



































1 


0.12 


7 


6.43 








1 


0.73 








1 


0.53 


1 


0.50 


1 


1.34 














1 


0.62 


8 


16.38 


8 


5.92 


1) 

















1 











2 


6.15 


I 











c 





12 21. 67 


2 


1.00 


1 


0.71 














3 


26. 05 


2 


1.03 


1 


6.04 




















11 


5.36 


2 


0.60 


1 

















1 


52.70 


1 


0.54 


1 


0.55 














1 


1.53 


14 


10.50 


1212.68 








4 


5.35 








2 


7.32 


























1 


0.86 


1 


0.83 


11111.94 








2 


1.35 








( 





1 


2.19 


1 


0.90 




















4 


4.25 


S 16.92 


1 


0.6C 


6 


15.30 














1 


1.00 


2 


1.25 




















5 


4.79 


611.57 





o 


6 


11.06 














4 


12.98 














#1 


#3.77 


4 


9.78 


1 


1.04 























1 


loo.ou 



























































1 


100.00 


























( 











4| 7.93 


1 


5.17 





o- 


1 


1.38 


2 


5.14 


3 


2.62 








1 


0.75 














10 


13.68 


1 0.51 





o 








1 


0.33 


1 


4.64 








1 


4. S3 




















16 


16.53 


4; 3. 13 


1 


9.66 


1 


0.74 








2 


6.22 














1 


9.33 














11 


9.69 


3| 1.77 


1 


4.95 














1 


0.80 








1 


0.67 




















12 


17.23 


1931.34 
























































1 


3.03 


i l. i:. 


























1 


1.46 


1 


0.79 











. 


2 


1.25 


15 


10. 71 


10i37. 55 








10 


22.01 








1 


3.20 


























1 


3.47 


1 


1.84 


12 22. 72 


o 





1 


11.71 








1 


4.84 


























1 


3.41 








1) 














1 


100.00 














I) 





























3 5.00 














II 











14 


42.63 




















1 


1.25 


2 


2.97 


1 1.79 

2 1.48 


n 





II 























1 


2.07 


1 


28.71 











. 


7 


15.93 





o 














2 


J v, 








3 


26.94 




















13 


14.72 


2 1.66 


" 











II 





1 


0.74 








1 


2.99 




















14 


13.06 




n 





9 


32.35 


1) 



































1 


3.63 








9 ( 4.90 


II 





1 


1.00 








:i 


1.88 


1 


0.75 








1) 











II 





5 


3.79 


7 90.00 


(1 





2 


10.00 


II 





n 

















































2 


1.32 






































1 


21.75 


5 


2.85 


14 75. 59 


" 





:( 


1. 10 


























II 











1 


6.41 


2 


0.50 


10 


73. 12 








3 


.' 83 














2 


0.84 




















3 


8.89 


1 


1.40 


2 


1.56 








o 





II 





1 


1.94 








s 


14.37 


1 


2.62 











7 


10.41 


2 
--I 


2.03 


II 





ii 











3 


52.11 





o. 


























16 


5.05 


611. 60 





0. 


s 


16. 2-.' 




















1 


2.41 














1 


2.00 


4 


3.70 


4' 3.20 








6 


11.39 














1 


1.50 


1 


0.63 





\ 














6 


7.55 


2 1.18 





o 


41 


2.72 














1 


8.44 




















1 


0.57 


7 


13.64 


2 1.40 





o 


o| 























3 


3.68 














II 





14 


13.12 


2| 1.03 


1 


0.37 








II 





1 


0.37 








1 


0.51 


0; 


o 














12 11.77 


17 10. 54 








2 


7.791 


II 











o 





o 





o 








1 


0.64 





9 


». 231 








3l 


10.34 








2 


2.50 


2' 


2.01 


o| 





11 


2.24| 


o! 


1 








3l 


4.83 



262 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC TOWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Long Island Lighting Co 



Louisville & Nashville R. R. 
Co. 

R. H. Macy & Co., Inc 

Marshall Field & Co 



Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred, 

series A. 
percent cumulative preferred, 

series B. 
Common . . 



.do. 

.do. 



Mid-Continent Petroleum 

Corporation. 
Middle West Corporation, 

The. 
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. 

Co. 

Montgomery Ward & Co., 

Inc. 
Morris & Essex R. R. Co 

National Biscuit Co.. 



7 percent cumulative prior pre- 
ferred. 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common. 






.do., 
.do- 



National Dairy Products Cor- 
poration. 



National Distillers Products 

Corporation. 
National Lead Co... 



National Power & Light Co. 

National Steel Corporation.. 
National Supply Co., The... 



New England Gas & Electric 
Association. 

New England Power Associa- 
tion. 

New England Telephone & 

Telegraph Co. 

New Jersey Zinc Co., The 

New York Central R. R. Co., 

The. 
New York. Chicago & St. 

Louis R. R. Co., The. 



7 percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 

Common 

$7" cumulative, class "A" 

i 3 A percent noncumulative guar- 
anteed capital stock. 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred, 

class- A. 
7 percent cumulative preferred. 

class B. 
Common 

do 



7 percent cumulative class A pre- 
ferred. 
6 percent cumulative class B pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

6 percent cumulative prior pre- 
ferred . 
5J._< percent cumulative convertible 

prior preferred. 
$2 10-year cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

$5.50 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$2 cumulative preferred 

Common 



.do. 
do. 



do 



6 percent cumulative preferrjed, 
series A. 



2,015, 159 i 3,526 
7,404; 281 



23.912 
085, 156 

661.735 

822, 013 

7.848 



717 

34, 943 

17, 205 

6,375 

912 



285,448 22,979 



510, 080 

1,937,700 

329, 880 
134,910 

713, 029 
85.113 
73, 928 

993,817 
40, 438 

088, 319 
23, 500 

24.096 

409.024 

962, 650 
50. 492 

22, 027 

3, 473, 747 
80. 145 

1, 050. 006 
337, 387 
50,914 

77, 789 

79, 046 

200,000 
31,439 
155,000 

890, 718 

160, 258 

2,428 

905, 395 

889, 878 
1,525,098 

223, 768 
68, 341 



0. 6860 67. 17 
O.5557! 9.89 



0.3604 
0. 2787 



0. 1693 
0. 2446 



9,181 

10, 658 

807 
1,079 

22, 371 
11,788 
2.6S0 

17, 392 
7, 308 
9,722 
2, 538 

2,569 

8,436 

25, 871 

7,883 

3,006 

25, 184 
4,809 

61,776 
6, 242 
3,818 

5,232 

1,719 

200 

707 

155 

11,579 

9,695 

46 

90. 992 

51,013 
25, 736 

4,252 
2,255 



13.38 

58. 59 

39.77 

50.03 

32.20341 87.68 

35.8209 99.38 

0. 1201 27. 45 

0.0579! 59.72 

0.48811 39.71 
0.2541 20.18 

0.03171 13.67 
1.0794 42.22 
0.5295 24.64 



0. 0435 

0. 4012 
0.0291 

1. 7980 



15.83 
18.68 
10.98 
40.97 



3 0842 58.27 



0. 1209 

0. 2073 
0. 4777 

1.0444 

0. 0683 
0. 5648 

0. 3043 
0. 8422 
5. 4794 

1. 2786 
0. 6942 



19. 98 

31.08 

20. 71 

21.32 

63. 60 
28.57 
48.68 
31.56 
78.70 

35.44 

28.81 



50. 0000 100. 00 
0.9814 31.45 

50. 0000 100. 00 
1. 9896' 95. 47 
0.1877! 24.34 
1.36151 12.43 

0. 1423 67.90 

0.3605; 45.34 
0.0326 23.66 

1. 1765 66.32 
0.4212 18.96 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



263 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD"— Continued 



Number of positions and percent of total shares outstanding by type of holder 




















( lovern- 










Personal 




Parent 


Other 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 
panies 


Invest- 


Banks 


mental 








Indi- 
viduals 


and fam- 
ily hold- 
ing com- 
panies 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 
tions 


corpora- 
tions 
nonfi- 

nancial 


ment 
trusts 
and com- 
panies 


and bro- 
kers as 

beneficia; 
holders 


agen- 
cies(*)— 
employ- 
ees 
welfare 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 


Benefi- 
ciaries 

not dis- 
closed 




















plans (#) 








_ 
- 
£ 

3 


P 

o 

CI 

C 

o 
Ph 


s 

B 

a 
v 


c 

3 

op 

P- 


- 
ft 

£ 

3 
Z 


c 
o 

o 

u 


E 
1 


Q 
9 
o 

a> 

Ph 


3 


B 
S 

Ph 


u 
£■ 
E 
3 
/ 


■- 
u 


,2 

£ 

3 


c 

3 

u 
a 

Ph 


£ 

3 


c 
o 
u 

Ph 


x 
— 
£ 

3 

•z 


c 

o 
k* 

o> 

Ph 


u 

£ 

y. 


a 
a 


X> 
XI 

3 


c 

o 
fcl 

03 

Ph 


s 


38. 48 


5 


10.11 


4 


7.04 








3 


9.37 


























i 

o 


0.90 


1 


1.27 


9 


3. 66 


2 


0.61 


3 


1.38 








1 


1.37 


1 


0.40 

























5 


2.47 


4J 2.93 








3 


1.46 








2 


1.96 


4 


2.76 


1 


0.56 














i 


0.61 


5 


3.10 


3 0.60 








1 


0.68 


1 


51.00 








6 


2.45 


2 


0.78 














i 


0.39 


6 


2.69 


7 21.56 








12 


17.11 












































1 


1.10 


8 8. 13 


(i 





4 


35.40 


II 

















i 























7 


6.50 


10 30.14 








2 


21.53 














4 


16.18 


1 


15.26 














1 


3.35 


1 


1.12 


11 14.09 


• 





10 


84. 57 












































3 


0.72 


lj 0.44 


1 


0.46 


1 


1.48 


c 

















2 


17.70 




















14 


7.37 


l| 0.29 




















2 


1.86 


1 


0.98 


5 


14.78 


5 


37.36 








1 


2.11 


4 


2.34. 


4 4 57 


1 


3 711 














1 


1.54 








1 


8.87 




















15 


21.03 





1 


o. oo 










1 


0.98 








2 


1.98 














1 


1.57 


15 


15. 05 


1 1.83 


2 


2.14 























3 


2.35 




















13 


7.35 


2 3.47 


1 


0.99 


2 15.22 














5 


6.71 








II 








2 


2.36 5 


13.47 


3 2.30 


2 


1.17 


1 1.34 








2 


2.74 


7 


10.04 


c 














1 


0.84 


4 


6.21 


13 10.72 








3 1.01 








n 














(I 














51 4. 10 


- 








2 0.92 








1 


0.40 


8 


8.82 





1 





0] 


1 


1.21 


7 6.42 


1 0.33 


3 


2.36 


6 1.73 




















1 


0. 42^ (, 





01 








101 6. 14 


13 31.62 








5 


6.27 


II 





ii 




















Q 











2 


3. OX 


5 16. 75 


1 


6.36 


8 


11.60 








I 


1.21 


1 


4.83 


2 


2.83 








0, 








3 


14.69 


1 


2. 61 


1 


1.47 


1 


(i 53 




















1 


1.03 

















12 


14.34 


5 13. 27 











II 











1 


2. 76 

















1 


0.74 


11 


14.31 


6 7.94 








- 


II 





1 


0.41 


2 


5.74 

















2 


1.48 


5 


4.30 


7 11.60 








1 


0.44 








1) 





3 


1.93 














li 


4 


2.98 


5 


4.37 


•1 1.17 








1 


0.26 


1 


46.56 


! 


12.83 
































8 


2.48 


H 



















ii 


12 14 


2 


1.42 


2 


1.47 








#\ 


#2.14 


1 


0.89 


10 


10.51 


11 12.34 








1 


- 








1 


27. 30 








1 


0.86 














1 


3.43 


5 


3.94 


. 


2 


4 43 


3 




1 











1 


1 . OS 


4 


16.55 

















0- 








- 







3 


3. 10 








II 





(I 





1 


3.09 


























12 19.17 








4 










II 





2 


1.68 


1 


0.91 




















u 





- 








5 5 12 


II 











2 


1.39 


- 


0. 74 


II 























O .1 














1 


100.00 


u 

















u 
















o 





11 


5 06 














1 


17.75 














.i 


1.80 


o 





#! 


#1.00 


1 


0.30 


3 


5.54 














ii 





1 


100.00 




















II 





II 



















1.68 


3 


3.17 


: 


1.73 


1 


88.11 


2 




li 





























1 


0.20 




3. 66 


3 




12 










1 


1.53 


• 1 











1 




#1 #1.90 








2 


1.27 











2 



























II 





O 






















2 




1 


65. 31 








7 


L03 














'1 





3 


0.36 


2 


0.24 


G 23. 50 


1 


1.03 


1 




1' 





1' 





- 


1.12 














II 











8 


19.12 




1 














2 


10.39 


o 





2 


1.19 


II 

















13 


8.99 













- 


S7.H2 








1 


1. 18 


4 


2. 62 


1' 





II 


I' 


1 


1.06 


9 


4.54 


1 




° 


" 





" 










o 


2 


2.61 




















1 


o oi 




15.05 



264 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 



Name of issuer 



Niagara Hudson Power Cor- 
poration. 



Norfolk & Western Ry. Co_ 
North American Co., The.. 



Northern Pacific Ry. Co 

Northern States Power Co. 
(Delaware). 



Ohio Oil Co., The. 



Owens-Elinois Glass Co... 
Pacific Gas & Electric Co . 



Pacific Lighting Corporation. 



Pacific , Telephone & Tele- 
graph Co.. The. 
Paramount Pictures Inc 



J. C. Penney Co 

Pennsylvania R. R. Co 

Peoples Gas Light '& Coke 

Pere Marquette "Ry. Co 



Phelps Dodge Corporation. 
Philadelphia Co 



Philadelphia Electric Co 

Philadelphia & Reading Coal 
<fe Iron Corporation. 

Phillips Petroleum Co 

Pittsbureh Coal Co... 



Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. . 
Procter & Gamble Co., The. 



Title of issue 



Common 

5 percent cumulative 1st preferred 
5 percent cumulative 2d preferred, 
series A. 

5 percent cumulative 2d preferred, 
series B. 

Common . 

4 percent adjustable preferred 

Common 

Cumulative serial 6 percent pre- 
ferred 

Cumulative serial 5?4 percent pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

Common, class B _ .... 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common, class A 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

do. 

6 percent cumulative 1st preferred. 
5& percent cumulative 1st pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred » 

$6 preferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative 1st con- 
vertible preferred. 
6 percent cumulative 2d con- 
vertible preferred. 

Common 

Capital 

Common.. 



5 percent cumulative prior pre- 
ferred. 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

5 percent noncumulative pre- 
ferred. 

fi percent cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred... 

Common 



.do. 
.do 



6 percent cumulative participat- 
ing preferred. 

Common 

do. 



8 percent cumulative preferred . . . 
5 percent cumulative, series Feb. 
1, 1929, preferred. 




20 



359, 339 



28.578 

1, 587. 257 

680. 131 

579. 219 

61, 559 

157,276 

528,082 
822.941 
207,667 

373 481 
42, 173 1 

67. 030 

1, 669, 264 

4,634.897 

1,585 

56. 485 
19, 925 
12. 353 
10. 322. 084 
95,500 
455, 138 

799,091 
308, 279 
179, 982 

1,039,466 

1,280,514 

9,661 

87,355 



40, 375 
13, 742 
5,345 

523 

135, 128 

17,006 

48,760 

3,232 

9,443 

4,313 
729 

1,382 
605 

1.212 
22,893 
27.449 
68,304 
83,417 

6,832 

4,149 

12,936 



2,986 

174,598 

91, 137 

6, 575 

4,370 

1,652 

33. 137 
17,282 
6,645 



1,434 

2,212 

43, 610 

32.794 

16 

2,034 

1,285 

728 

321,275 

10, 983 

228 

30, 365 
1.927 
4,499 

89. 133 
58,903 
2,058 
10, 352 



.a o 



0.0206 
0. 7146 
8.2988 

4. 5662 

0.1655 

1. 3014 

0.0427 

. 0. 1909 

0. 3064 



0658 
0000 
0598 
0552 
5394 
0678 
5306 
2956 
0568 
0491 
1130 



0.1666 



0. 4440 
0. 4658 

0. 7364 
0. 0713 
0.7837 

0. 2195 

0.1227 
0.0088 
0.1407 

1.2130 
1.4674 

2.7340 

0. 1535 

1.8116 

100.0000 

0.2513 
0.8351 

1. 2587 
0. 706? 
0. 2454 
0. 1879 

0.0623 

2. 1557 
0.6521 

0. 3461 
0.0623 

3. 3784 
1. 0347 



5 $5 cumulative preferred offered in exchange for $6 preferred in May 1939, and unexchanged portion of 
5 preferred redeemed in July 1939. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



265 



of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD"— Continued 



Number of positions and percent of total shares outstanding by type of holder 



• 




















Govern- 










Personal 




Parent 


Other 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 
panies 


Invest- 


Banks 


mental 






Benefi- 
ciaries 
not dis- 
closed 


Indi- 
viduals 


and fam- 
ly hold- 
ing com- 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 


corpora- 
tions 
nonfi- 


ment 

trusts 

and com- 


and bro- 
kers as 
beneficial 


agen- 
cics(*)— 
employ- 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 




panies 




tions 


nancial 


panies 


holders 


welfare 


























plans (#) 








.1 „ 






M 1 


.__ 




td 




t- 


1 _ j 




u, 




U4 




t- 




u 






: 




3) -^ 






© 


•*j 


a> ■*-> 


- 




c 




03 




9 




X 




M I a 


£> 


a 


A g 


-= 


a 


a 


c 


■° S 


— 


a 


-c 


a 


-C 


d 


SI 


a 


£ 


a 


g E 


E 


a 
© 


SI 8 


= 


§ 


E 


t 


S 


£ 


g 


E 


8 


E 


8 


E 



s 


g 






3 1 © 


3 


O 

P. 


5 ! « 


- 
Z 


at 


- 




Z Ph 


3 

z 


Ph 


3 


u 
Ph 


3 
V. 


Ph 


3 




Ph 


Z 


Ph 


2J 0.83 


1 


67 





1 


24.55 


2 


18.25 


1 0.31 


6 


11.82 




















3 


1.72 


10 7.38 


0, 


ll 0.39 








1 


10.67 


01 


1 


0.53 














1 


1.49 


5 


25.04 


13 8.40 


1 


3.00 


2 0.36 








1 


83.56 





























3 


0.74 


11 3i.S7 








2 


3.20 








; 


1.01 























1 


6.39 


5 


7.77 











1 


0.24 








3 


2.66 


7 


3.04 


2 


1.13 














1 


0.35 


6 


2.70 


3: 1.07 








1 


0.26 








3 


57.67 


4 


1.66 


1 


0.65 








#1 


#5.01 


1 


0.57 


5 


3.65 


: ii 62 


2 


2.08 


1 


3.33 








1 


0.47 


1 


1.21 


13 


18.20 








#1 


#0.35 


1) 





5 


2.73 


, 1 0.52 


1 


0.45 




















4 


2.29 




















1 


0.50 


11 


6.93 





1 


0.57 




















4 


6.89 


2 


L72 


1 


1.15 








3 


2.44 


8 


12.57 


! 


1 


1.32 








1 


0.82 














1 


0.64 




















17 


14.01 


1 '0.00 








1 


<0.00 


2 


99.99 












































6 0.65 








2 


0.31 








1 


0.25 








2 


0.66 








§1 


#0.38 








7 


2.70 


10 


0.76 


























2 


0.61 


1 


0.27 




















7 


0.84 


2 


I.04 


2 


1.77 








1 


3.40 








1 


0.44 


2 


14.78 








#1 


#1.37 








11 


12.70 


i 


8.78 








5 


4.72 




















1 


0.72 














4 


9.91 


5 


3.53 


3 


8.48 








2 


2.07 








1 


3.00 


2 


11.30 




















5 


12.54 


7 


8.16 


: 


6 91 


2 


20. 13 


2 


1.17 








1 


6.24 








7 


2.42 


2 


0.30 








1 


1.59 


2 


3.71 





2 0.97 


1 


0.29 


2 


32.90 


3 


5.95 


1 


2.08 


3 


3.49 








#1 


#0.64 








7 


2.58 


4 1.08 


1 26 


1 


0.17 








1 


0.32 


3 


1.07 




















2 


0.38 


8 


2.44 


1 1 0.35 





1 0.30 








1 


0.23 


8 


8.95 














° 





6 


2.35 


2 


1.59 


12 10. 52 


2 6.94 


I 1.25 














1 


0.68 


1 


1.18 




















3 


1.77 


5' 2.25 


1 


0.39 


4; 2.96 








i 


0.64 


1 


0.46 


i 


2.54 














6 





7 


5.30 


9 0.79 


1 


0.14 


l! 0.10 


1 


85. 80 


1 


0.18 


4 


0.37 


1 


0.08 













1 


0.11 


3 


0.37 


6, 1.36 


2 


0.41 


11 0.14 


1 


78.17 


1 


0.37 


6 


1.98 


1 


0.17 








( 


1 


0.13 


1 


0.22 























































20 23. 51 


a 2.67 
































2 


8.50 








ft 


#1.91 








14 23.44 


1 


0.83 


1 


1.35 


























1 


2.71 




















17 


23.48 


11 


11.23 


1 


2.12 


1 


0.82 








Q 











1 


1.14 




















6 


6.34 


1 


0.15 




















2 


1.03 


2 


0.38 


4 


1.53 




















10 


3.16 
































1 


0. 75 


1 


1.12 


7 


20.60 














11 


8.78 


7 


4.57 








1 


0.45 





2 


69.09 


2 


1.55 


1 


0.24 




















3 


6.08 


1 0.67 




















1 


2.68 


6 


16.54 




















1 


0.89 


11 


16.86 










1 


4.65 








2 


14.97 


5 


7.88 


1 


0.80 








#1 


#1.53 


1 


4.62 


9 


16.86 


14 ;; Q5 


2 


2.94 


1 


0.86 








2 


1.86 








1 


0.57 














2 


1.84 


5 


6.90 


- 








3 0. iL' 


2 


96.75 
































1 


0.08 


6 


0.31 










2 r> 94 














•0 





1 


6.31 




















1 


4.78 


5 3.11 








5 2.75 














1 


0.40 


























B 


5.13 


1 0.50 





(1 


2 2.46 














4l 4.00 


1 


1.00 




















12 


11.98 










7 4.95 











1 1.85 




















2 


1.94 


4 


8.86 









1 97. 25 




4 0.30 
































2 1.11 


1 




1 1. 11 








1 1 27 72 














#1 


#0.53 








3 


2.20 


a l w 
















3 24.43 


ol 


























11 


6.67 


■■■ 


4 


5.49 








ol 





o 1 


1 


2.60 














1 


0.56 


!> 


6.85 


7 17 20 


2 


-0 00 


1 


51 



































s 


9.24 




2 


10 61 


3 15 7' 





ol 


1 0.86 


























4 


V t'.v 




1 


.1 SI 


6 1 11 
















•I 











3 


1.76 


2 


1.79 










3 3. 7' 

















' 











2 


1.77 


1 


0.'81 


81 8.35 








7 10 61 


1 0! 


ol 


• 14 














ft 


#0. 25 


1 


9.38 








3 


3.63 








B 


10. of 


! ° 








" 


7 


34.46 



















1 


I. IN 


1 


1.69 



Less tlrui 00a 



266 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 



Name of issuer 



Public Service Corporation of 
New Jersey. 



Pullman, Inc 

Pure Oil Co., The. 



Radio Corporation of America. 
Reading Co 



Republic Steel Corporation. 



R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 



Richfield Oil Corporation. 
Safeway Stores, Inc 



Schenley Distillers Corpora- 
tion. 
Sears, Roebuck & Co 

Shell Union Oil Corporation . . . 



Singer Manufacturing Co 

Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Inc._. 
Southern California Edison 
Co., Ltd. 



Southern Pacific Co. 
Southern Ry. Co 



Standard Brands Inc 

Standard Gas & Electric Co . 



Standard Oil Co. of California 
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) 
Standard Oil Co. (New Jer- 
sey). 
Sun Oil Co . 



Title of issue 



Swift & Co 

Texas Corporation, The 

' No information available. 



Common 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common " 

do . 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Co' .vion... 

$3. J "■ cumulative convertible 1st 

prefe> "ed. 
$5 cum itive preferred, series B 3 

Cnrami)^.. 

4 percent • ■oncumulative 1st pre- 
ferred . 

4 percent nonpumvsative 2d pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
prior preferred, series A. 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common, class B .. 

Common 

do 
do ... 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

5H> percent cumulative preferred.. 
Common 

do 



554 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred. 

Common 

Capital stock 

Common. 

5 percent cumulative participating 

original preferred. 
C percent cumulative preferred, 

series B. 
bVi percent cumulative preferred, 

serie^ C. 
Common 

...do. 

5 percent noncumulative preferred . 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$7 cumulative prior preferred 

$6 cumulative prior preferred _ 

$4 cumulative preferred. . . 

Common . 

....do 

...do 



do 



6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common. _ 

do 



3, 364, 583 
72, 524 
42, 493 
86, 557 
68, 433 
660, 361 
634, 619 
41, 405 
412,469 

1, 690. 309 
123.255 



1,064,332 
412, 797 



689, 789 



1,924.140 
53, 360 



109, 349 
9, 863 
5,269 
9,218 
6, 561 
19,811 
6,980 
3,851 
36,607 

10, 353 
5, 670 



20,089 

11.971 



16, 5.54 



31,748 
3. 228 



29.230 1.903 



2, 025, 

597, 

1, 956. 

249, 

16, 

14, 

7, 

706, 

38, 

1,649, 

10, 945, 

166, 



432 88, 106 
019 34.926 
084 1 10,269 
5,118 
1,613 
1,300, 
552 
16,604 
2.856 
89, 04 
676! 181, 972 
847 16,142 



532, 088 

7, 680, 751 

338,510 

67, 953 

139, 879 

18 190, 477 



566, 

292, 

129, 

2, 981, 

53, 

1,319, 

116, 

25. 

87, 

2. 597, 

3,192, 

8,028, 



121,848 

115,211 

7,362 

2,086 

3,689 

4,619 

10,412 

3,252 

2,436 

23,848 

5,793 

5,607 

2,485 

436 

770 

75, 324 

105, 745 



1,744.838 82,007 
21,798' 2,648 
543,5231 9,036 
20 1,273,804 49.997 



£1 C 



0. 0490 
0. 2318 
0. 1063 
0. 0757 
0. 0851 
0. 0480 
0. 0728 
0. 2656 



0. 0086 
0. 1402 



0. 4393 
0.9488 

1.0689 

0. 0431 
0. 2266 

1. 1488 

0. 0348 
0. 8614 
0. 1372 

0. 3076 
0.8116 

1. 3798 
0. 9864 
0. 3760 
0.5615 
0. 0392 
0.1100 
0. 6766 

0.9712 
0.0179 
0.0434 
1.4695 

0.0689 

0. 0893 

0.0418 
0. 2327 
0.3600 
0.0166 
0.5042 
0. 1374 
0.2853 
1.1312 
0. 1395 
0. 0272 
0.0194 
0. 0153 

0.4811 
0. 9533 
0.0350 
0.0240 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



267 



of 200 largest nou financial corporations — Continued 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD"— Continue! 









Number of positions and percent of total shares outstanding by type of holder 


























Govern- 










Personal 




Tarcnt 


Other 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 
panies 


Invest- 


Banks 


mental 
agen- 
cies (*)— 
employ- 
ees 
welfare 






Benefi- 


Indi- 

\ i'luals 


and fam- 
ily hold- 
ing OOIIl- 

panies 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 
tions 


corpora- 
tions 
nonfi- 

nancial 


ment 
trusts 
and com- 
panies 


and bro- 
kers as 

beneficial 
holders 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 


ciaries 
not dis- 
closed 






















plans (#) 








i* 




2 




t- 




u- 


^ 


|M 


_^ 


fe| - 


- 


^ 






■- 






^ 


|H 
1 


u 


£ 


c 


c 


X> 


a 


J: 


c 


J5 


R 


■° £ 


■^ 


B 


£ 


c 


.c 


a 


- 


3 


- 


c 


= 


8 


= 


t 


5 




5 


8 


5 


8 


S 8 


S 




E 


<u 


£ 




5 


o 


B 


o 


r 


L. 


3 
X 


s 

- 


£ 


o 
PL, 


3 


<B 
Pu 


a 
•z, 


o 


. 3 s 

Z P- 


3 


o 

PL| 


3 


In 

o 

Ph 


3 


09 

Ph 


3 


Ph 


5 
V. 


o 

Ph 


1 


0.18 








i 


0.26 


2 


54.57 


1 


0.56 


2 3.55 














»1 


#0.25 








8 


1.76 


- II 

















1 


4.64 


1 


0.46 


310.51 


1 


0.69 


(1 





4\ 


#12.48 


2 


0.97 


6 


3.88 


1 


0.86 


1 


1.04 


1 


0.38 








II 





7 7. IS 


1 


1.35 














2 


0.97 


7 


3.94 


2 


2.35 


1 


0.60 








1 


1.93 


1 


0.77 


4 2.27 




















2 


0.72 


7 


5.82 


1 


0.39 


























4 


2.79 


II 











ii 





4 


1.78 


ll) 


8.23 


5 


6.40 


1 


.1.77 


i 


2.32 








(1 11 








2 


1.30 














1 


2.54 


7 


3.73 


ii 





1 


0.75 

















ii 





1 


0. 67 




















17 


14.50 


3 


1.61 


(1 





I 


0.67 








1 0.81 


5 


4.08 


1 


0.71 








(1 





1 


0.48 


7 


6.31 














II 











0} 








ii 





3 


16.41 


(1 











29 


76.82 














II 











Oi 


ii 


(l 


1 


0.62 








II 





ii 





1!) 


11.59 



















(1 





1 0.80 








1 


1.44 


II 





II 





2 


1.07 


J5 

8 


10. 36 


4 




1 


2. it 


'-' 


5.52 








1 62 88 


'I 





























3. 92 


6 




II 





4 


2.44 








3 66.31 


1 1.2(1 


1 


0.57 




















2 


0.58 


6 


2.60 


1 




1 


0.81 








3 


76 84 


2 


0.72 


(i 





II 

















4 


0.79 








II 











1 


4.44 


2 


8.31 





2 


9.24 


11 

















1.5 


11.01 


3 


1 79 








II 




















3 


1.71 


(1 











1 


0.60 


13 


14.78 


. . 2J 








1 


0.C7 


I) 





1 


0.7.5 


2 2.52 


■} 


3. 21 


II 














U 


11 


1.5.11 


1011.51 








5 


7. 22 














1 0.56 








(1 

















4 


3.20 


16 29. .54 








4 


10. 15 


























#1 


#20. 00 














2 1.07 




















4 36 34 





1 


1.42 








(1 











12 


10.24 


6 fi. 68 


6 


7.91 


10 


2.19 








4 4. 1" 


(' II 








1 


0.11 














7 


9.61 










3 


1.15 














1 0.66 


4 


2.29 














1 


0. 39 


6 


8.41 


i 3 3. 76 


























1 3.68 


1 


2.39 


(1 











3 


4.43 


11 


12.93 


6 5.93 


6 


5.55 


2 


1.69 








2 


4.56 


1 2. 17 


2 


1.68 


1 


0.08 














4 


11.66 


11 42.10 




















1 


3.17 


ll n 


1 


1.03 


(1 

















7 


9.78 


4 4.66 


























: ii 7i 


1 


0.57 
1.09 

















14 


1 5. 98 


5 11.07 


1 


0.63 


1 


1.12 











n 





2 








#1 


#9.52 


2 


1.74 


7 


3.55 


1 


0.56 














1 


64.35 











3 


12.81 


o 











n 





11 


.5. 93 


























1 1.64 


5 7 28 


2 


18.81 


II 











1 


| 08 


in 


16. 19 


! 




1 


0.07 




42. 23 








on 





4 


11.64 














n 


o 








- 


12.47 


Ii 







9 33 








ii ii 


o 


1 


0.40 











1 


1.08 


3 


1. 35 





ii 








3 










1 n.34 


1 3.03 


-' 


1.63 


'1 





#1 


#0.40 


o 





12 


4.37 


3 


7 45 








11 


17.57 








(i fl 


2 


7.68 




















2 


1.50 


2 


2.05 


4 1.81 


1 


0.26 


n 





(1 





l| 0.52 


5 










(I 











3 


0. 66 


7 


2.19 


! 








u 











1 0. 29 


7 


7 79 


1 


0.29 














5 


2.31 


3 


2. is 


1 


0.90 


2 


! <> 

















1 




2 


3.46 


1 


1.06 


'1 











13 


7.21 


■ 


3.00 


1 


1.93 




















2 


1 . 9.5 


n 





II 





1 


1.04 


1.5 


14.59 








( 





i 





II 





1 0.83 


3 4.62 


1 




(1 

















1.5 


13.95 




7.52 








7 


3.19 











1 0.37 


» 




(1 





(1 











5 


s 02 


1 


fi. 10 


II 





1) 


ii 


1 


II 


(1 


7 10. 10 





n 


II 











2 


1.55 


- 


9 17 











( 





1 


.S3. 64 




ll ii 


1 


ii 61 


11 








(1 


ll 





is 


6. 74 


(I 














1 


11 H9 


1 0.54 


(i ii 


1 




II 


II 


=1 




(i 





15 


16.01 


' n 











1 


0.80 








1 1.00 


1 1.0 


( 





II 


II 


II 


II 


(i 





17 




i 


0.40 


1 


0.45 


i 





1 





(I II 


ii ii 


i 





II 


II 


II 





ll 





IS 


10. 77 


3 


HI 41 








. 


5. 27 


( 





(1 II 


ii n 


1 




II 


11 





II 


3 


1.21 


.5 


2 58 


1 3 ;t 


1 





3 


:, IPU 


1 





II 


l ii I'- 


2 








II 


81 * 


1 


4.53 


6 


2 68 




1 





! 




1 


II 




ii 


1 


II 


'I 


II 


II 


(1 


3 




5 




- 


( 





fi 




1 


ii n 




1 1 21 


1 


o 


1) 


(1 


-\ 













n 


1 


r 





1 


1.12 


1 







id io. a 


I 


'1 


II 


II 


fl 


= 1 If 


2 




3 




1 7 


i 





n 





I) 


1 ° 


ii o 


1 n 33 


1 










1 


II 


1 


(i 32 


3 


II 94 




4 31 


i 


II 


i 


t « 




11 


| 


II 


1 




3 


1 51 


(1 





1 


(1 


(i 


ll 


9 


t 63 



268 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues 
SECTION V. LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS AND HOLDINGS 



Name of issuer 



Texas Gulf Sulphur Co . _ 

Tide Water Associated Oil Co. 



Union Carbide & Carbon Cor- 
poration. 
Union Oil Co. of California . . . 
Union Pacific R. R. Co 



United Fruit Co 

United Gas Corporation . 



United Gas Improvement Co. 

The 
United Light & Power Co., 

The 



United Shoe Machinery Cor- 
poration. 
United States Gypsum Co..- 

United States Rubber Co 



United States Smelting, Re- 
fining & Mining Co. 

United States Steel Corpo- 
ration. 

Virginian Railway Co., The. 



Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc 
West Penn. Electric Co., The. 

Western Maryland Ry. Co.. 



Western Pacific R. R. Corpo- 
ration. 

Western Union Telegraph Co. 
Westinghouse Electric & 
Manufacturing Co. 



Weyerhaeuser Timber Co... 
Wheeling Steel Corporation. 



Title of issue 



Wilson & Co., Inc 

F. W. Woolworth Co 

Youngstown Sheet & Tube 
Co., The 



Common .-,. 

do. 

$4.50 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 
Common 



C apital stock 

Common 

4 percent noncumulative preferred . 

Capital stock 

Common 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred — 

Class B common 

Class A common... 

$6 cumulative convertible 1st 

preferred. 
Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred — 

Common - ■ 

$7 cumulative preferred 

Common. _ 

8 percent noncumulative 1st pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred — 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred — 
Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 
$100 par. 

Common 

$3.85 cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred — 

6 percent cumulative preferred — 

$7 cumulative class A 

$7 noncumulative class B 

Common 

7 percent cumulative 1st preferred 
4 percent noncumulative convert- 
ible 2d preferred. 

Common 

percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

do .. 

7 percent cumulative participat- 
ing preferred. 

Common ... 

do 

$5 cumulative convertible prior 
preferred. 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

h x A percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 



1, 573, 608 

3, 306, 977 

108, 556 

1,369,144 

733. 730 
322, 198 
234, 751 
337, 796 

5, 085, 528 
172, 083 
884, 680 

7, 354, 373 
153, 488 
948. 062 
708, 989 
161, 388 



42, 880 

47, 124 

7,924 

100, 631 

13, 757 
26, 259 
18. 780 
19,251 
22, 249 
10, 692 
88, 468 
78, 140 
16,116 
3,792 
2,127 
3,530 



291,583 20,666 
39,340, 1,5201 

364, 808 ! 24,853! 
27, 177 1 4,484 

498, 931 1 11,476 

163,3131 7.595 



100, 098 
31,532 
1, 080, 573 
530, 167 
283, 943 
194, 477 

828, 310 

78, 635 

1,050,000 

73, 237 

13, 630 

18,675 

165. 742 

230, 955 

172, 737 

36, 058 

397, 791 
132, 290 

134, 684 
281, 459 
15,184 

1, 331, 875 
158, 274 
100,300 

531, 526 
54, 345 

2, 678, 692 
495, 461 

32, 768 



5,906 
1,829 
58, 351 
55,800 
42,023 
21,976 

4,970 
2,890 

20, 606 
7,323 
1,329 
1,868 

16, 574 
924 

13, 646 
252 

596 
331 

3,300 
28,005 
2,019 

36,294 
3,323 
5,817 

2,658 
2,703 
97, 772 
18,828 
2,454 



0. 0599 
0. 0809 
0. 2651 

0. 0310 

0. 0788 
0. 0480 
0. 1625 
0. 0492 
0. 0989 
0. 4255 
100. C000 
0.0179 
0. 1012 
2. 0857 
0. 1544 
0. 3012 

0. 0779 
0. 5582 
0. 2681 
1.7212 
0. 1949 
0. 3168 

0. 2838 
0. 1982 
0.0119 
0. 0284 
4. 1876 



2.9 



40. 99 
51.91 
21.72 

15. 17] 

15.73: 
14.47! 
23.51: 
11.55i 
65.02, 
38.27! 
lOO.OO; 
31.621 
20.041 
89.71] 
29.29J 
26. 88 

12. 74 1 
14.13 
30.55| 
34.73; 
31.83 1 
25. 07 

18.94 
6.76 
12.40 
14.73 
90.78 



1.3542 69.57 



0.0641 
3. 1201 

100. 000C 
0.2990 
0. 3802 
1.9646 

100. 0000 
0. 6373 
10. 6952 
6.2893 

0.7202 
0. 5588 

0. 0649 
0. 0521 
1.0887 

2.4907 
0. 3750 
0.5855 

0. 1433 
0. 3352 
0. 0428 
0. 2283 
.0.6979 



22. 37; 
76. 25, 

lOO.OO! 
33. 131 
11.381 
31.53 

100. 00 1 
43.35, 
97. 25 1 
58.731. 

69. 18| 
34. 62' 

12.91 
10.88 

18. 97 1 

44. 41 1 
28. 13 
26.29 

26.57' 
16.74 
27.47 
29.61 
21.86 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



269 



of ?00 largest nonfinancial corporations — Continued 

DERIVED FROM "20 LARGEST HOLDERS OF RECORD"— Continued 



Number of positions and percent of total shares outstanding by type of holder 






















Govern- 










Personal 




Parent 


Other 


Insur- 
ance 
com- 


Invest- 


Banks 


mental 






Benefi- 
ciaries 
riot dis- 
closed 


Indi- 
viduals 


and fam- 
ly hold- 
ing com- 


Trusts 

and 
estates 


and sub- 
sidiary 
corpora- 


corpora- 
tions 
nonfi- 


ment 

trusts 

and com- 


and bro- 
kers as 
beneficial 


agen- 
cies(*)— 
employ- 


Founda- 
tions, etc. 




panies 




tions 


nancial 


panies 


panies 


holders 


ees 
welfare 


























plans (#) 
















fa 




. 




h 




y 




Lf 




ftH 




fcj 




u 




~ 












a 




i 




9 




¥ 




<D 




o 




V 












J3 


a 


£ 


■a 


£ 


g 
S 


— 


a 


£ 


a 


£ 


a 


,2 


a 


jS 


a 


ja 


a 


£ 


a 


JZ 


a 


a 


s 


E 


8 


5 


| 


s 


E 


8 


5 


8 


E 


8 


s 


o 


£ 


9 

o 


3 


s 

6 




8 


3 


o 
Ph 


3 

A 


s 


3 


S 
Ph 


a 


ft* 
V 
Ph 


3 

A 


Ph 


3 


Ph 


3 

A 


u 

o 
Ph 


3 

'A 


ftH 

Ph 


A 


ftH 

s 

Ph 


A 


ftH 

V 

Ph 


X 


ftH 

3 

Ph 


4 


1.44 








l 


0.34 








1 


33.85 
































12 


5.36 


6 


5.70 


1 


3.07 


l 


0.43 








3 


7.75 








3 


29.53 




















6 


5.43 


a 


2.89 


1 


1.03 


3 


1.81 








2 


6.39 


3 


2.64 


2 


1.53 




















7 


5.43 


9 


4.93 


1 


1.66 


1 


0.51 














1 


1.09 


























7 


6.98 


6 


3.62 


1 


0.43 


5 


3.20 








1 


0.61 








2 


0.76 








#1 


#4.57 


1 


0.47 3 


2.07 


4 


2.09 


1 


0.43 




















1 


0.34 


2 


3.24 














1 


0.47 


10 


7.90 


1 


0.40 




















2 


4.18 


8 


8.74 


1 


2.87 














2 


1.45 


5 


5.87 


6 


3.30 


1 


0.59 


2 


0.65 














1 


1.06 


























8 


5.95 


G 


3.30 














2 


58.17 














1 


0.25 




















11 


3.30 




















1 


3.85 


1 


2.67 








2 


3.77 








#1 


#1.78 








14 


26.20 




















1 


100 00 












































3 


0.68 


(1 





6 


2.60 


1 


26.08 


1 


0.15 


o 


0.43 














#\ 


#0.39 








5 


1.29 


3 


0.87 








3 


1.08 














7 


10.91 














#1 


#0.63 








6 


6.55 


4 


1.40 








2 


0.98 








1 


28.40 








9 


58.34 














1 


0.23 


1 


0.36 


3 


2.84 




















1 


10.78 








6 


11.18 











. 








6 


4.49 


1 


0.76 




















1 


0.97 


3 


5.58 


9 


12.09 








#1 


#0.77 








7 


6.71 


G 


3.30 








5 


3.49 








2 


1.23 


1 


0.97 


1 


0.83 














1 


0.53 


2 


2.39 


12 


8.36 








4 


4.06 








1 


0.51 


1 


0.36 


n 























2 


0.84 


6 


11.37 








5 


8.30 




















1 


1.26 




















6 


9.62 


in 


18.93 








4 4.22 














2 


1.94 




















2 


4.73 


2 


4.91 


v 


11.35 


1 


5.24 


























1 


0.96 




















10 


14.28 


12 


4.57 


3 


2-. 49 














1 


2.69 
































13 


15.32 


3 


3.22 








2 


1.03 




















3 


4.69 




















12 


10.00 


G 


1.42 








6 


2.03 








1 


0.43 


2 


0.75 




















l 


0.30 


5 


1.83 


a 


1.48 
































1 


3.71 




















16 


7.21 


a 


0.53 








1 


0.40 














6 


9.39 


1 


0.50 














2 


0.52 


7 


3.39 


9 


6.53 


1 


0.84 


4 


2.97 








1 


75.45 


4 


1.12 




















2 


1.53 


4 


2.34 


4 


24.40 


1 


11.85 


4 


11.. 64 














3 


2.33 








II 











3 


8.26 


4 


11.03 


4 


5.45 
























































16 


16.92 


7 


34.02 


1 


13.09 


ii 









































1 


0.87 


li 


28.27 




















1 


100.00 












































8 


2 7' 








1 


0.23 


1 


23.69 








1 


0.23 


3 


4.15 




















6 


2.08 


8 


2.68 








1 


0.42 














3 


1.59 


1 


0.83 














2 


1.25 


7 


4.61 


12 


13.36 


1 


2.36 


1 


0.84 


1 


7.54 














1 


1.69 




















4 


5.74 


(1 











n 





1 


100.00 












































1 


0.47 




















1 


29.85 
































is 


13.03 


7 


1.02 








1 


07 








4 


94.31 


1 


0.14 


























7 


1.71 


3 


2.93 




















1 


13.03 
































16 


42.77 


2 


0.83 


2 


61.18 
































(I 

















15 


7.17 


1 


1.40 


2 


8.89 














1 


1.02 


























2 


9.12 


" 


14. 10 




8. 68 














II 





1 


0.77 








1 


0.47 














1 


0.48 


12 


7.54 





l> 





ii 


11 











o 











8 


1.15 














2 


0.82 


12 


8.91 


7 


6.67 


1 


0.63 


4 




It 











3 
















#1 


#1.88 


1 


0.50 


3 


3.72 


10 


*tt 


1 


6.33 


H 


15.00 

















o 


1 





II 























11 


17.44 


1 





2 


1.50 








2 


,-.. m 














o 

















6 


3.23 


»i 


»» 





t 


3 


4 11 




















o 























2 


1.50 


7 I 20 
































l 


12 17 




















12 


10.20 


5 


2.75 








(i 

















2 


1.24 


1 


2.62 




















11 


10.13 


in 


13.33 


5 


0.40 


X 


4.79 


II 





























II 








4 


2.95 


G 


7.54 








2 


4.00 








8 


9.51 


1 


0.% 


1 


0.66 











1 


0.76 


7 


6. 18 


s 


7.82 


1 


0.61 


2 


1 M4 














2 1.34 


o 











r 


2 


3.79 


6 


6. 96 



270 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIGNERS AND VALUE OF HOLDINGS, 1937 



Name of issuer 



Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, 
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co-. 
Aluminum Co. of America 



A merican Can Co 

American Car & Foundry Co. 

American Cyanamid Co 



Title of issue 



American & Foreign Power Co., Inc. 

American Gas & Electric Co 

American Metal Co., Ltd., The 



American Power <fc Light Co. 



American Radiator <fe Standard Sanitary 
Corporation. 



American Rollins Mill Co., The 

American Smelting & Refining Co... 
American Sugar Refining Co., The__ 
American Telephone & Telegraph Co 
American Tobacco Co., The 



American Water Works & Electric Co., 

Inc. 
American Woolen Co 



Anaconda Copper Mining Co. 
Anderson, Clayton & Co .. 



Armour & Co. of Delaware 



Armour & Co. (Illinois) 



Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railwav 

Co., The. 
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.-- 



Atlantic A Pacific Tea Co. of America. 
The- Great. 



Atlantic Refining Co., The 



Baltimore A- Ohio Railroad Co.. The 



Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Delaware) 



Borden Co., The . ...... 

Boston Edison Co... . 

Boston & Albany R. R. Co .. - 
Brooklyn Union Has Co.. The . 
California Packing Corporation- 



Common 

do 

do__._ 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent noncumulative preferred. - 

I Common, class A 
Common, class B . 
5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

fCommon_. 

I $7 cumulative preferred 

J $6 cumulative preferred 

[$7 cumulative 2d preferred, series A.. 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

[Common 

<$6 cumulative preferred 

IS. 1 ) cumulative preferred 

( Co mmon 

\7 percent cumulative preferred 

[Common , 

U [ _• percent cumulative convertible 
I preferred . 
Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common . 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

[Common 

{Common, class B 

[6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common ._ 

$6 cumulative 1st preferred 

Common-. 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common.. 

do 

4 percent participating 1st preferred 

4 percent participating 2d preferred - - 

Common . . ... .. ..: . 

7 percent cumulative guaranteed 

preferred. 

I Common - 
$6 cumulative convertible prior pre- 
ferred 
7 percent cumulative preferred . 

Common . . 

5 percent noncumulative preferred 

[Common ... - - 

\5 percent noncumulative preferred 
'Common, voting . . 

Common, nonvoting 

7 percent cumulative 1st preferred... 

Common - . . 

•'4 percent cumulative convertible 

I preferred, series A. 

(Common . 

U percent noncumulative preferred- .. 
[Common .. 

II percent cumulative preferred 

[fi percent cumulative preferred 

( 'onimon 



Percent 
of 1937 

dividends 
paid to 

foreigners 



do 
do 
do 



Carolina, Clinchficld & Ohio Ry 

\o di\ idends paid. 



5 percent cumulative preferred 
Common 



5.64 
6.95 

.34 
4.34 
1.59 
16. 67 

8.58 



(') 

3.90 

3.33 

40.42 

3.75 



9.23 



4.07 



12.49 

13.54 
2.80 
3.00 
.07 
3.38 

6. 26 

1.58 

11.11 

13.92 

(i) 

5.48 

17.47 









2.29 



7.23 
3. 03 

2.89 
.53 

2.21 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31, 1937 



1 '" 



10. 68 

4.88 
.55 
I. 55 
3.10 
4.04 
5.43 
. 60 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



271 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations — Continued 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIQNEES AND VALUE OF HOLDINGS, 1937— Con. 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Percent 
of 1937 

dividends 
paid to 

foreigners 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held , 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31, 1937 



Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey. The. 



Central & South West Utilities Co. 



Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., The. 



Chrysler Corporation. 

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., The 



Cities Service Co. 



Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The. 

Climax Mo'.vhdenum Co 

Coca Cola Co., The 



Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co 

Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation. 



Commonwealth Edison Co. 

Commonwealth & Southern Corporation 



Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 

Inc. 
Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power 

Co. of Baltimore. 



Consolidated Oil Corporation 

Consumers Power Co 

Continental Can Co., Inc 



Continental Oil Co 

Corn Products Refining Co 



Crane Co. 



Crown Zellerbach Corporation. 

Cudahy Packing Co 

Deere & Co 



Delaware <t Hudson Co., The. . 
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. 

Co.. The 
Detroit Edison Co., The 

Duke Power Co 

E. I du Pont de Nemours & Co.. 



Duquesne Light Co. 
Eastman Kodak Co. 



Common 

.do 

$7 cumulative prior lien preferred 

$6 cumulative prior lien preferred.. . 

$7 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$4 noncumulative preferred, series A. 
Common 

do.. :. 

6 percent cumulative preferred, series 
A. 

I( ' o m mon 
$6 cumulative preferred 
$0.60 cumulative preferred, series B.. 
$6 cumulative preferred, series BB... 

[ Common 

\$4.o0 cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

$3 cumulative preferred, class A 

[Common.... .. 

16 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred, series 
A. 

5 percent cumulative preferred. 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

do 

$0 cumulative preferred 

[Common 

\$5 cumulative preferred.. 

i ■(minion .... 

4 ' j percent cumulative preferred, 
series B. 2 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

[Common 

l$5 preferred 

{Common 
$5 cumulative preferred 
$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

7 percent cumulative preferred 
[Common _. 

•J5 percent cumulative convertible 
I preferred. 

[Common 

I $5 cumulative convertible preferred. . 

[Common 

<7 percent cumulative preferred 

Is percent cumulative preferred 

[Common 

17 percent cumulative preferred 

Cuirirrion 

do... 



Capital stock 

[Common 

i: percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative debenture 

(4 mi < umulative preferred 

Common _ 

5 percent cumulative 1st preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 



(') 
(') 
4.83 

(') 

7.15 
29.24 

6.98 



0.20 



(') 



3.52 
0.21 

0.11 

5.66 

3.47 
3.10 

12.95 


1.18 
(') 
8.27 

4.89 

5.73 



0.18 
3.05 

0.31 

2.55 

7.59 
14. 53 
0.37 

2.77 

2.56 
0.80 
0.35 

0.70 

(') 
(') 

1.31 
0.06 

3.89 

0.64 

0. 16 


0.07 
5. 15 
3.78 



(') 
(') 
$597, 000 

(') 

18, 342, 000 

3, 986, 000 

14, 464, 000 



77,000 



(') 



169,000 

3, 304, 000 

956, 000 

38,000 

2, 330, 000 

3, 362, 000 
2,145,000 

338,000 


3, 226, 000 

4, 743, 000 
22, 595, 000 

4, 348, 000 



46,000 
3, 933, 000 

324,000 



2, 766, 000 

(') 

10, 306, 000 

21,689,000 

151.000 

2, 030, 000 

1, 367, 000 
54,000 
17,000 

687,000 

(') 
0) 

1,554,000 

40,000 

48,211,000 
919,000 

88,000 



22,000 

18, 606, 000 

364.000 



• No dividends paid. 

» Holders of 5 percent cumulative preferred offered iH percent cumulative preferred, series B, in exchange 
in April 1939; balance of 5 percent cumulative pieierred outstanding redeemed in June 1939. 



268445 11- 



272 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations — Continued 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIGNERS AND VALUE OF HOLDINGS, 1937— Con. 



Name of issuer 



Electric Power <fc Light Corporation _ 

Empire Gas & Fuel Co 

Engineers Public Service Co 



Federal Water Service Corporation, 



Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., The 

Ford Motor Co 

General American Transportation Corpo- 
ration. 

General Electric Co 

General Foods Corporation 

General Motors Corporation 

General Telephone Corporation.. 

Gimbel Brothers, Inc 



Glen Alden Coal Co 

B. F. Goodrich Co., The 



Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., The 

Great Northern Ry. Co., The 

Gulf Oil Corporation 

Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc. 

Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co 



Illinois Central R. R. Co 



Inland Steel Co 

International Business Machines Corpo- 
ration. 

International Harvester Co... 



International Hydro-Electric System. 
International Paper & Power Co 



International Shoe Co . , 

International Telephone & Telegraph 

Corporation. 
.Tones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 



Kansas City Power & Light Co., The. 
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co 



Title of issue 



Common 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred, series A... 

Common 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6J.2 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common. 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$5.50 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative convertible preferred. . 

Common, class B 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$6.50 cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$4 cumulative preferred 

Common, class A 

fCommon 

L6 percent cumulative preferred, series A 

fCommon, class B 

(Common, class A 

Common 



do 

do 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 3 

Common 

$5 cumulative convertible preferred. 

Common 

$3 cumulative convertible preferred.. 

Common 

$6 cumulative preferred 

Common. 

...do 

$5 cumulative preferred 

fCommon 

\$5 cumulative convertible preferred . . 
$6 noncumulative preferred (no 

common oustanding). 
Common _. 

(....do 

>J percent class A cumulative partici- 

( pating preferred. 

fCommon.. 

\5 percent noncumulative preferred... 

{Common 
6 percent noncumulative convertible 
preferred, series A. 

Common! 

. .do 



do 



\7 percent cumulative preferred 

I Common 
Class B 
$3.50 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 
$2 cumulative participating, class A. 

Common 

5 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common. _ 

..do 



do 



7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative 1st preferred, 
series B. 

Common . 

4 percent noncumulative preferred . . 



Percent 
of 1937 

dividends 
paid to 

foreigners 



(') 



0) 



4.36 



0) 



1.77 


4.19 



5.28 
4.28 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31, 1937 



5.01 
1.51 
3.68 

.91 
(') 
3.60 

.91 
6.22 
6.60 

4.26 



(') 



2.56 
1.30 



0) 



(') 
20.24 



(') 

(') 
.65 

1.25 

0) 
40.32 



0) 

0) 
$1, 242, 000 

(') 

$1, 382, 000 


1, 753, 000 

62, 632, 000 
6, 855, 000 



65. 381, 000 

3,125,000 

286, 00O 

30,000 

(') 

356, 000 

88,000 

1.115,000 

271, 000 

3, 576, 000 

6, 608, 000 

3. 735, 000 
(>) 
145, 000 

0) 

0) 

2, 804, 000 
1,330,000 

9, 190, 000 



(') 



(') 
5, 881, 000 

84,000 

0) 

(0 
267,000 

59,000 

(') 
1,609,000 



' No dividends paid. 

3 Not outstanding in 1937. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



27£ 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations — Continued 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIGNERS AND VALUE OF H.OLDINGS, 1937— Con. 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Percent 

of 1937 

dividends 

' paid to 

foreigners 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31, 1937 



Kennecott Copper Corporation. 
Koppers United Co. 4 



8. S. Kresge Co... 
S. H. Kress & Co. 



Lehigh Coal <fe Navigation Co., The. 
Lehieh Valley R. R. Co 



Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. 

Loew's Inc --- 

Lone Star Gas Corporation . . . 



Long Island Lighting Co. 



Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 
R. H. Macy & Co., Inc 



Marshall Field & Co. 



Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation . 
Middle West Corporation, The... 



Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. Co. 



Montg' pery Ward & Co., Inc. 
Morris 4 Essex R. R. Co 



National Biscuit Co. 



National Dairy Products Corporation 

National Distillers Products Corporation. 
National Lead Co 



National Power & Light Co. 
National Steel Corporation.. 



National Supply Co., The. 



New England Gas <fc Electric Association. 
New England Power Association 



New Eneland Telephone & Telegraph Co. 

New Jersey Zinc Co., The 

New York Central R. R. Co., The 

New York, Chicago A St. Louis R. R. Co., 
The. 

1 No dividends paid. 

4 Consolidated with Koppers Co. 

• No informatior available. 



Common 

do 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

4 percent cumulative preferred ! 

Common 

do 

6 percent cumulative special pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

f Common . 

\10 percent cumulative preferred 

{Commop 
Common, class B.__ 
7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$6.50 cumulative preferred 

Common 

6^2 percent cumulative preferred. . . 

I Common 
7 percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 
6 percent cumulative preferred, 
series B. 

Common 

do _ 

I ....do • 
7 percent cumulative prior pre- 
ferred. 
6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

do.. 

..do... __ 

7 percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 

f Common.. 

\$7 cumulative preferred, class A 

7?i percent noncumulative guaran- 
teed capital stock. 

I Common 

\7 percent cumulative preferred 

I Common 
7 percent cumulative preferred, 
class B. 
7 percent cumulative preferred, 
class A. 
Common 

I....do 

7 percent cumulative class A pre- 
ferred. 
6 percent cumulative class B pre- 
ferred. 

fCommon 

l$6 cumulative preferred 

Common 

...do 

6 percent cumulative prior preferred 
5H percent cumulative convertible 

prior preferred. 
$2, 10-year cumulative convertible 

preferred. 

Common 

$5.50 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$2 cumulative preferred 

Common 

....do 

....do 

....do _. 

6 percent cumulative preferred, 

series A. 



8.72 



1.25 



1.72 

4.17 

.03 

1.55 

3.18 

1.51 
4.84 
3.82 
.66 


1.22 



2.36 
3.95 



.50 

17.68 

(') 

(') 

7.10 
.21 

.77 

2.73 
1.27 
8.54 
5.47 

2.07 

6.46 



2.26 
10.85 
2.58 
3.53 
5.15 
3.80 

1.22 

(') 
5.50 

(') 

(') 
2.74 
7.69 
0.12 
1.17 

(') 



0) 



$33, 261, 000 



251,000 



1, 464, 000' 

2, 256, 00O 

3,000. 

108,000 
(') 

8,910,000 

520,000 

3, 483, OOO 

551,000 

260,000 





164,000 



1, 407, 000 
1. 699, 000 



185, OOO 

5,913,000 
(0 

(') 

11,621,000 
59,000 
84,000 

3, 005, 00O 
496,000 

7, 556, 00O 
340,000 

91,000 

2, 714, 000 

6, 268, 00O 



894,000 
1,821,000 
3, 272, 00O 
698,000 
250,000 
561,000 

73,000 

(') 

124,000 
(') 
(') 

1, 088, 00O 

28,000 

161,000 

1,330,000 

O 

0) 



274 



CONCENTRATION OP" ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations — Continued 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIGNERS AND VALUE OF HOLDINGS, 1937— Con. 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Percent 
of 1937 

dividends 
paid to 

foreigners 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31, 1937 



Niagara Hudson Power Corporation . 



Norfolk & Western Ry. Co . 
North American Co., The - 



Northern Pacific Ry. Co 

1 No dividends paid. 
Northern States Power Co. (Delaware) . 



Ohio Oil Co., The 

•Owens-Illinois Glass Co. 



Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 



Pacific Lighting Corporation 

Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., The. 
Paramount Pictures, Inc 



J. C. Penney Co 

Pennsylvania R. R. Co 

Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., The. 



Pere Marquette Ry. Co 

Phelps Dodge Corporation. 



Philadelphia Co. 



Philadelphia Electric Co 

Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Cor- 
poration. 
Phillips Petroleum Co 

Pittsburgh Coal Co -. 



Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co 

Procter & Gamble'Co., The. 

Public Service Corporation of New Jersey 



Pullman, Inc 

Pure Oil Co., The. 



Common * 

5 percent cumulative 1st preferred.. 
5 percent cumulative 2d preferred, 

series A. 
5 percent cumulative 2d preferred, 
series B. 

Common 

4 percent adjustable preferred 

Common 

Cumulative serial 6 percent pre- 
ferred. 
Cumulative serial 5% percent pre- 
ferred. 
Common 



Common, class B.._ 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common, class A 

f Common. 

16 percent cumulative preferred 

Common _. 

.do 

6 percent cumulative 1st preferred... 
5H percent cumulative 1st preferred 

[Common 

<$5 cumulative preferred 6 

I $6 preferred 

f Common.. 

\6 percent cumulative preferred - 

Common 

6 percent cumulative 1st convertible 

preferred. 
6 percent cumulative 2d convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

Capital stock (common) 

Common 

....do 

5 percent cumulative prior preferred 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

...do 

5 percent noncumulative preferred. . 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$6 cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 



do 
.do. 



6 percent cumulative participating 
preferred. 

Common. 

.do 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative series Feb. 1, 
1929, preferred. 

Common... 

8 percent cumulative preferred 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Common 

...do 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative convertible 

preferred 



2.11 
.29 



1.73 

2.90 
.87 
1.24 
1.36 
4.33 
2.23 
12.36 
8.84 

(') 



$1, 465, 000 
88.000 

54,000 



2.22 


6, 522, 000 


9.18 
6.65 


15,443,000 
2,016,000 


P) 


P) 


P) 


(^ 


P) 
1.13 
.95 

(') 


(') 

316,000 
234,000 
(') 


1.10 


1,567,000 


1.03 


1, 645, 000 


2.24 


7, 174, 000 


5.01 


3,931,000 


.06 


774,000 


(') 
5.91 


P) 

707,000 


2.71 


158,000 


1.01 
6.20 
1.50 
0) 


1,612,000 

17, 144, 000 

319,000 

(') 


6.27 


496,000 


1.36 


1,802,000 


3.46 


2, 108, 000 



.14 



45,000 
P) 


4.83 


8,166,000 


0) 


P) 


.39 


717,000 



5,464,000 

5, 187, 000 

255,000 

444,000 

867,000 

2,152.000 

2,561,000 

5,414,000 

2,321.000 

P) 



> No dividends paid. 

• $5 cumulative preferred offered in exchange for $6 preferred in May 1939, and unexchanged portion of 
$6 preferred redeemed in July 1939. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



275 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations — Continued 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIGNERS AND VALUE OF HOLDINGS, 1937— Con. 



Name of issuer 



Title of issue 



Percent 
of 1937 

dividends 
paid to 

foreigners 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31, 1937 



Radio Corporation of America. 



Rpfl.din« Co. 



Republic Steel Corporation. 

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 
Richfield Oil Corporation... 



Safeway Stores. Inc 

Schenley Distillers Corporation- 



Sears, Roebuck & Co.. 

Shell Union Oil Corporation. 



Singer Manufacturing Co 

SocoDy Vacuum Oil Co., Inc. 



Southern California Edison Co.,' Ltd. 



Southern Pacific Co. . . 

Southern Ry. Co 

Standards Brands Inc. 



Standard Gas & Electric Co. 



Standard Oil Cn. of California.. 

Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) 

Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey). 

Sun Oil Co... 



Swift & Co 

Texas Corporation, The. 
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co 



Tide Water Associated Oil Co 

Union Carbide & Carbon Corporation . 
Union Oil Co. of California. 

UDion Pacific R. R. Co 

United Fruit Co 

United Gas Coriwration 



United Gas Improvement Co., The. 

United Lieht & Power Co., Tl* 

United Shoe Machinery Corporation. 
United States Gypsum Co 

1 No dividends paid. 



| Common . 

<$3.50 cumulativ j convertible 1st 
I preferred. 
$5 cumulative preferred, series B 

ICommon 
4 percent noncumulative 1st pre- 
ferred. 
4 percent noncumulative 2d pre- 
ferred. 
(Common 
6 percent cumulative convertible 
prior preferred, series A. 
6 percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

(Common, class B 

\Common .. 

do 

do 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

5 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

5H cumulative preferred 

Common.. 

....do.... 

5H percent cumulative convertible 
preferred. 

Common 

Capital stock .- 

Common.. 

5 percent cumulative participating 
original preferred. 

6 percent cumulative preferred, 
series B. 

5H percent cumulative preferred, 
series C. 

Common 

. ..do 

5 percent noncumulative preferred.. 

Common 

$4.50 cumulative preferred 

ICommon 
$7 cumulative prior preferred 
$6 cumulative prior preferred 
$4 cumulative preferred 

Common 

do 

do 



/....do. 
\6pe 



I r« 



percent cumulative preferred. 

Common stock 

Common 

....do 

..do 

50 cumulative convertible pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

Capital stock 

/Common 

\4 percent noncumulative preferred. .. 

Capital stock 

Common 

$7 cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative 2d preferred 

Common 

$5 cumulative preferred 

Class B common . 

Class A common 

$fi cumulative convertible 1st pre- 
ferred. 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

$7 cumulative preferred 



5.01 

0) 



1.59 



(') 
(') 

11.44 
94 

(') 

2.94 
3.50 
4.80 



2.81 
3.04 
3.03 

9.33 

1.93 
1.47 

10.21 

4.40 

(') 

15.81 

(') 
.98 
.24 

(') 

1.80 
3.33 
1.51 

.37 



$6,323,000 
0) 

383. 00O 



15.62 


18, 832, 00O 


2.83 


12, 735, OOO 


.60 


126,000> 


1.49 


456, 000 


8.70 
9.29 
4.17 
86.41 
35.18 


2, 576, 00O 
1,212,(XX> 

12, 935, OOO 
187, 768, 000 

12, 595, OOO 


18.78 
4.15 


38, 706. OOO 
19, 391, OOO 



2, 532, OOO 



(>) 

w 

11,575,000 
202,000 

(') 

11,172,000 
17, 699, 000 
59, 188, 000 

194,000 

2, 759, 000 
12,976,000 

3, 223, 000 

11,872,000 

12, 800, OOO 

1, 286, OOO 

26, 628, OOO 
7, 265, OOO 
(') 

6, 898, OOO 
0) 

2, 421, OOO 
193,000 

(') 

2, 925, OOO 

358,000 

1,228,000 

48,000 



276 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Basic statistical data on each of 408 equity security issues of 200 largest nonfinancial 

corporations — Continued 

SECTION VI. DIVIDENDS PAID TO FOREIGNERS AND VALUE OF HOLDINGS, 1937- Con. 



Name cf issuer 



Title of issue 



Percent 
of 1937 

dividends 
paid to 

foreigners 



Estimated 
value of 

shares held 
by foreigners 
Dec. 31.1937 



United States Rubber Co 

United States Smelting, Refining & 

Mining Co. 
United States Steel Corporation 

Virginian Railway Co., The 

"Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc 

"West Penn. Electric Co., The-.. 

Western Maryland Ry. Co -. 

Western Pacific R. R. Corporation 

Western Union Telegraph Co 

Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing 
Co. 

Weyerhaeuser Timber Co 

Wheeling Steel Corporation. 

Wilson & Co., Inc. 

F. W. Woolworth Co. 

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., The 



[Common.. 

-J8 percent noncumulative 1st pre- 

[ ferred. 

f Common 

\7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred 

Common 

6 percent cumulative preferred $100 
par. 

(Common 

\$3.85 cumulative preferred 

Common 

7 percent cumulative preferred. . 

6 percent cumulative preferred 

$7 cumulative, class A 

$7 noncumulative class B 

I Common 
7 percent cumulative 1st preferred... 
4 percent noncumulative convertible 
2d preferred. 

(Common .". 

<& percent cumulative convertible 
I preferred. 

Common 

Common 

7 percent cumulative participating 
preferred. 

Common 

[....do 

<$5 cumulative convertible prior pre- 
I ferred. 

f Common ... 

\$Ci cumulative preferred 

Common 

.do 

5^ percent cumulative preferred, 
series A. 



(') 



0) 

17.09 
4. 95 

2.71 



M 



1.48 I 

I 
7.93 

5.62 I 



0) 



6.44 


$3, 757, 000 


14.47 
3.13 

.36 
.18 


68, 006, 000 

11,869,000 

167, 000 

57, 000 


(') 


0) 


0) 

3.55 
2.22 
1.69 

CO 


(') 

785, 000 

260,000 

100, 000 



(') 



12, 000 

(') 

4, 376, 000 
12, 762, 000 

288, 000 



328, 000 
2, 066, 000 
19, 905, 000 

5, 390, 000 



1 No dividends" paid. 



APPENDIX IV 

(Chapter III) 

STATISTICAL TABLES ON THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION 

OF OWNERSHIP IN THE 200 LARGEST 

XOXFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 



277 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



APPENDIX IV 

(Chapter III) 

STATISTICAL TABLES ON THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF OWNERSHIP 
IN THE 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS 

LIST OF TABLES 

Record shareholdings of common stock in 200 largest nonfinancial corpo- Page 
rations within the period 1937-39: 

Table 22. Classified by industries 282 

Table 23. Classified by size of corporation 284 

Table 24. Classified by market price of common shares of corporations 

at December 31, 1937 285 

Table 25. Classified by total number of record shareholdings per issue. 286 
Table 26. Classified by the market value of average shareholding per 

issue 287 

Table 27. Classified by status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 288 

Record shareholdings of preferred stock in 131 largest nonfinancial corpo- 
rations within the period 1937-39: 

Table 28. Classified by industries 289 

Table 29. Classified by size of corporation 291 

Table 30. Classified bv market price of preferred shares of corpora- 
tions at December 31, 1937 292 

Table 31. Classified by total number of record shareholdings per issue. 293 
Table 32. Classified by the market value of average shareholding per 

issue 294 

Table 33. Classified by status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 295 

Value distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39: 

Table 34. Classified by industries 296 

Table 35. Classified by size of corporation 297 

Table 36. Classified bv market price of common shares of corporations 

at December 31, 1937..^ 298 

Table 37. Classified by total number of record shareholdings per issue. 298 
Table 38. Classified by the market value of average shareholding per 

issue 299 

Table 39. Classified by status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 299 

Value distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 131 largest 
nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39: 

Table 40. Classified by industries 300 

Table 4 1 . Classified by size of corporation 301 

Table 42. Classified by market price of preferred shares of corpora- 
tions at December 31, 1937 302 

Table 43. Classified by total number of record shareholdings per issue. 302 
Table 44. Classified by the market value of average shareholding per 

issue 303 

Table 45. Classified by status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 303 

279 



280 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

Page 
Table 46. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 167 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
industries 304 

Table 47. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 33 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
industries 308 

Table 48. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 167 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
size of corporation 1 310 

Table 49. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 33 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39— classified by 
size of corporation '__ 311 | 

Table 50. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 167 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937__ 312 

Table 51. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 33 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937- _ 313 | 

Table 52. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 167 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
total number of record shareholdings per issue 314 

Table 53. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 33 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
total number of record shareholdings per issue : 315 

Table 54. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 167 
large nonfinancif 1 corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
the market value of average shareholding per issue 316 

Table 55. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 33 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
the market value of average shareholding per issue 317 

Table 56. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 167 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 318 

Table 57. Size distribution of record shareholdings of common stock in 33 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 319 

Table 58. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 118 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
industries 320 

Table 59. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 13 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
industries 1 324 

Table 60. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 1 18 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
size of corporation 326 

Table 61. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 13 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
size of corporation 327 

Table 62. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 118 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
market price of preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 1937__ 328 

Table 63. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 13 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
market price of preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 1937__ 329 

Table 64. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 118 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
total number of record shareholdings per issue 330 

Table 65. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 13 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
total number of record shareholdings per issue 331 

Table 66. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 118 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39— classified by 
the market value of average shareholding per issue , _ _ 332 

Table 67. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 13 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
the market value of average shareholding per issue 333 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 281 

Page 

Table 68. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 118 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 334 

Table 69. Size distribution of record shareholdings of preferred stock in 13 
large nonfinancial corporations within the period 1937-39 — classified by 
status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 335 

Table 70. Distribution by value at December 31, 1937, of common stock 
issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — classified by major 
industries 336 

Table 71. Distribution by value at December 31, 1937, of preferred stock 
issues of 200 largest nonfinancial corporations — classified by major 
industries 336 

Table 72. Estimated distribution by value of record shareholdings of com- 
mon and preferred stock in 200 largest nonfinancial corporations within 
the period 1937-39 337 



282 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



'I— I 

Q 

Ph 
Ah 



H 
CO 

fa 

o 

o 
o 
*i 

fa 
ffl 



Oh 

a 

CO 

op 

o « 

O X 

^8 

22 

^3 

S < 

S3 fa 

cog 
W £ 

K 

H 

55 
O 

CO 

fa 
ca 

i-3 

<! 

CO 

l-H 

H 
<! 
H 

CO 



s 



e 

e 
8 

© is 

8 « 
ho 3 

SI 8 



m 





o 

3 

> 

cy 
M 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


"° II 


CC 1 

yj 1 


00 >OQ0 

CO00CN 
t~t~C3> 


CN 

-r 

1C 


99.4 
84.0 

100.0 

85.5 
87.9 


CN 

g 


CO 

r» 

Oi 


00 t^-t- 

t^COCN 

00 tHOO 


« 


<3 1 


CC II 


CNOCO 

r^co-w 


00 
CO 


CO-^ Q 0-* 
lO ^H S CI CO 


oo 


10 

CO 


O CD 10 






O 
00 




OtJiiO 

ooooo 


00 


CN00 O CNO 
— 1{5 CN 00 ■* 


•H 
CO 


10 
o> 


ho* 
CNCJO 


CO 


3 






o 


t^Cb 00 




0CCN S g 
ON'* 


9 


o> 


a> co hh 


O 






CON^ 








COOOH 






IO 1 


e. | 


NCO* 


so 


■^•OS O CO CO 




CO 


1<CNO 


O 


2 
■3 






r- 1 


©00 f~ 


<<* 


C»CO O ■«* h- 
Ol 00 O 0000 


>o 




CO^f CN 


±4 

at 
> 
O 




JC 


t^l^OO 


■a 


t^ 


O 


00 rn 00 




CO 1 




J-.00 00 


t- 


lO CO O T* **« 


CN 


t^ 


co r> 






00 


CC 


00 lOM 




g-CO O CN t- 







■H^ H t^. 


03 


a; 


00 


o 


— r~co 


aa 


OCCO O r*-H 




00 


IO (HO 


"o 


a 


N 


CN j 


-nOCN 

t-35r- 


o 


r-4 r* o ■* CN 

OOCN 5 O-H 


s 




CO 


woo 

COHO 
COH00 

cdo"o 


bs 

a 


.3 
00 


3 


o 
of 


oo ! 


eNcoco 

coco" CO" 


CI 


Oa -^ o oa ^h 
cNco' ci t-T-* 


ICJ 


co" 










00^^ 




C«iO 






H CNCO 


is 




























00 j 


CNCOK5 


b- 


CO CN O ICO! 


1 - 


*^ 


CN-*h 


w 


bl! 

a 

■3 


3 B'gS 


N 


S3 ' 


•1 •-! IO 


^ 


"o o o' ci t^ 


X 





COt-CN 




' H 1 


»i 1 


" H "~* ^ H 




in— i o -H.-i 




CN 






N ! 


"9 1 


OO f- 


1 


T)<rt rH —ceo 


CO 


10 


CO H H 




*o 


s- 8 


00 


[- 1 


COCO Tf« 
Ot-CO 


tj* i-t r* 00 

■*cj -«<o 


10 


W5 


THHCO 
CO coco 




W 


CO 


m' 


t>ru3Tjf 




co" ■*q" 


t-" 


,_* 


hh^cOh" 






1 


"" 


lOrt 








HCN CO 






IO I 


BC 1 


CN>0 CN 


00 


CO O . I IOH 


00 


rf 


CNCO CO 




CO 
3 


li'S 


s| 


pj 1 


cd-<t^ 


irf 


■ cd ! Tjici 


CO 


>d 


CNCDI^ 




"3 

> 


"" 1 


CN CN 


-t" 


rH , rf _ 


CM 




HINH 




CO I 


CD 1 




EN 


t* CO ' CNiO 




■** 


00 CD CN 
CNCO 00 






o,~» 


CO 


■^r 


CO CO m 


CO 


OS -H i CNr^ 


09 


•0 


w 


CO 


3o 


o 


■° 1 


Tf CN -H 


t~ 






CO 


© 


M 

03 


oo 


*•-■ 


CO j 


00 00 00 




»d i Oh 

i Sow 
i com 





id 


■H^t^HH" 


o 

to 


■* 




cncn"° 




CO 




1C Ol CO 
CNC» 






IO I 


'X | 


COCNCO 


oc 


OH . t^TX 


03 


■W" 


CO 000 


h 


2 


00 


ci 1 


C3' — CN 


•o 


'cd ! idci 


S" 


id 


CO »o 06 


CO 
OS 


"a! 


CN 


r i 


CN CN H 


^ 


HH 1 HM 


CN 




H CNH 




N 1 


■^ 


O COCO 


CO 


ID CD CRO 




CO 


CON CN 




co 
a> 
H 
«3 . 

CO 






Xl 


COCN — 


DO 


CNco ' on 


CO 


00 


NM 10 


o 

o 


X! 


*"* 


oo 


r~CNrt 


o 


1-Hr-C I OCO 


CO 




1C CO 00 




a 


id 


id i 


<£~*z£ 


CO 


odoi" ! i-TJ 


ui 


o" 


CO-'H'CO"' 




CN 


3S i 


CO CO ^-" 


oo 


HIO i ON 


a 


t>- 


■hh 00 »o 


o 


3 


00 




ON.O 




CO l H« 


t^ 




HON 


fc 


























>oco 




1 IOH 






CN !C CO» 


a 

2 

"o 

W 














i CN 












co 1 

CN 


C) 1 


oo r- io 

OOOOTii 
00 00 00 


CO 

«d 


b-00 «OH 
■HjiOs ! h"CN 


CO 


co 
o> 


00 COO 
CO CNN 


bo 

B 


00 


t- 1 


a 


•*00 i 0000 


<y> 


t^. 


ooooo 




■* 1 


CC 


CO cow 


F~ 


Co CN cor*. 
Offl • OOCN 
CO CN i COCO 


1? 




882 

CONIO 


•3 


CD 


N 

o 


8 


OOCO 
COO) CO 


s 


CO 

•* 


00 

55 






£ 




















o 


a 

3 


© 


s'l 


CN CO »d 


ei 


00 i occ 


as 


id" 


x"co"cn" 

lO S CN 

c5cn 




w 


00 


lOCNO 




CN ' t^cc 


I- 








£ 




! 


















CO | 


a i 


CN« CN 


Ol 


COCN O r" CO 


1 


00 


H COCN 

XCN0Q 
COiOCN 




lligSS 




CN 


SS2 


10 


o»ra o c» « 
coo o t" ■* 


Tf 




>o 


M 






o> 




331- aS3 


■* 1 


c-i ! 


l-H^.t~ 




y-"^ o CO >o 




Tf 


CO CO 10 
































CN 










_!,-— 


CO 1 


-i 


tO Tj< 1^ 


o 


OO O CNCS 
»OCO O -HM 

r-H o m CN 


<r. 


Ol 


cnc-.cn 




«<= T3o 


o 


OOOl 


s 


I- 




CO CO CO 




«j°5po 




* 1 


OS 


CO 


CN 




£<» £.2°. 


CC' 


CN 


§2S 


-< 


H CO CN 00 U0 
00 CO CN lO 


8 


10 



CDOCN 

* 








010>0 




co>o 












-*■ 




CN'* 






~~ 






o 


— ! 


rf x)<— < 


o 


on o core 


b- 





ciSS 




■S b£ 


o 


-f< 


^ oo >o 


o 


o t- O COO 


CC 







3 e 
O.S 

wo 

£ a 

03 f* 


CO 


cr, I 


a>oo t>. 


^ 


ot~ o t^oo 




CO 


HCOO 




CO 


cd 


t^^ 00 


o 


©*cd o" »dco 


oa 


s 


CN^OO 




Ol 




O — 00 


5 


ooo o O 00 
O O O OOS 


l£ 






00 


CO 


COt-CN 


00 


co 


0OH IO 




CN 


zl 


-- t-"t>: 




co"-h" CN CO »d 


CC 


CO 


lONN 








>Oi-l 




COh- 






HCN CO 




CO 




















^ 1 CO 




— 1 


CO COCN 


t^ 


CO CO H I*» f~ 


a 





HNt- 




£ CD hO 

C 03.3 


s 


>o 




5 


oo oo 


CO 


1- -H TT1 




CC 


NCO 


ooio r-^« 


CC 





OCO H 




CO* 




oi'os'o 


o 


h ■hTco 


r ^ 


t-T 


O'O'S'' 




CO 


Eq 


ococo 






X 




CD CN »0 








m-H 




H» 






COCN 








u-. 


CO CD CO 




HCN H f-O 


^ 




TfOO 




S22 
sfeg 






































^■^.2 
























>o 


COCO CO 




H CN H COO 


-T 




HiOO 




3 o o 5 o 






rH 














fc.e w 0,53 


























w | 


~> 




iH 

09 


•0 1 


gill 










a 1 


o 


r; 


' 










3 ' 


u. 


u ' 3 03 , t, i i 


3 

(H 

^r 



t-4 > 












■O | 




ft "o . 'ft ; ' 


Q. 1 






CD 






o 
*- 

&m 

■a t> 

S3 

C0T3 

■••3 ° 


o> 

o 
X) 


3 ;j=S^T3 ;<g 
■O 1 « 3 3 c ; g 


IH ■ 

a ; 

03 ' 
CU 1 

•0 1 


"3 1 ; cd 

E ' ■ 03 
a> 1 'hh> 

HJ 1 1 CU 

o3 ,- t! a 

i> m 3 
6x313 ? 

p ap fc; 

2' 5 H*CH 

3 co po 


i 


3 

P 


CD 
3 
3 


> 


•- a S? bi 

•= c O a 


i 

C3 

) w 

a. 

si 


C 'h CO c3 1 „ 

"- S M— g 3 
a ' « p >o .2 IS 

fl«ll|H()pBH 

3 3 a - c 03 xs 3 cJ 


TS h 

^£ 

c 
eg h 


p 1 
03 I 

h ' 

-2 






00 


gfe^p- 


e 


i_? PhOh O PhE- 1 


HH 






'C 






















B0 


H 


§ 













CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



283 



,^ t~ f« «5 



CO CO W3 



00 CO CM 

••reMco'' 
to Si 



CMr~ 



s lis 



© r-^c 



to ^Ji r~ cm 



OOCTN — 

oooor» © 



— 10 
coco 



lO©CM 

CO--© 

00 00© 



is s g 



!3 3 



cm r- CM 

© t^ co 



oooooo ~- 
-non r- 
r- to t*- 



—i t"0 



FSS 



— <COC0 O 



OCM 



050«0 

»»6 



t^Cr O? ~ 



to © oo >o 



© ;-i-H 



82 8 



TTOod 



00CO I 

"*•>* ^J I 00 

CM CM CM ■ -9< 



to-*© 
co© cm 



co ©c 
coooc 



— con 



TftO co oo 



S£ 8 8 



cmcccc 
■*< -*j« © 



•o — oo 



& s 



— ■"*• CN 

© cm cc 

— 00© 



ss 



-< ©CO 



X X I to 
r~ co cm 

co©co 

"3© © 
©r^ w5 
©>o~cm 



— <o © 

©-I go 



f~©U5 



CM CO CO »o 



-" I ©■* 

00 ©CM 

.-< Tt<.-i 

—" cmcm 



3 IIS 



C!CN C2 



s § 



r= ecc 



t^CMco cm 



co ~ >o 

CO CM — . 

•«« r- o 



r~ § 



t~CM 00 5 



•- © — *-< 

©CM© 

CM-*""©" 



SSS 



I- _ 5 



00C- P0 



S 1 
I 

•^ II ' 



CO CM •* 
CCOO — 
i-i r- CO 

832 



go 



O Q, 
8.8 



to D 

*-> ° 

3 — 



1^. CO CM — 



■;c:m — 





= 


c 










a - 






§ a 










- 


ji u S 


as 


— 


Z z. — 


c 








- 


& _ = 




>. 




ag-o 










c c 




— 
■- 
r 

- 


ill 

o r - 





— c: 



_ c - 




wt5— •£ as 2 « IS 






g e 



o f> 



-■gwoo 

I * 



o os c 
co * y 



284 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





- 


Per- 
cent 

of 
total 


t-eo t-w 

! , ! ! ! ^ r-i c* co 


10 
oi 




3 


1 1 1 1 1 0000 00 t> 


t~ 




1 1 1 p 1^4 WDCOCN 


OS 








1 1 1 1 iwoimio 






CD 

M 


d^> 


1 1 t 1 i^OJOiO 


■>»< 




30 

11 
< 


tiii 1 s w d d 


CN 






rMOt-CO 


r^ 


co 
33 
fa 

3 


03 


1 1 1 1 i0 010>i-! 




§ 


. 1 N-<f wo* 


CN 


43 

o 
o 












""a — - * 


1 . 1 . i'XIMNH 

1 1 1 1 1 oi co co cn 


CN 


fa 


2 ^S°° 


t 1 » 1 1 t>.coooco 


00 












XI 




1 t 1 1 icOOi^CN 




o 






1 r t 1 iCO CO CO <N 


o> 






1 1 1 » nocn^w 


00 




CD 








o 


fa 


,a 


1 . 1 . iOcOWM 


CN 


CO 

bo 

c 


08 


a 

1 


CO WD CN CO 


(^ 


CO 


■ ■ • 1 IciWef-^ 


WD 






t^cooo 01 


00 


T3 






.-( r-t CO 


l>- 












w 




feo»-2 


i'ii > Oi b- "*< <N 
I 1 ! 1 IHPJNH 


OJ 




be 

s 

2 

o 


SS°2 


J ; J J .~~~T« 


"■ 






-!• 




a- 


1 1 1 1 1 t— CO CO CO 

1 . 1 . .cocnco wd 


CO 






W 


s a 


! ! I i ltCt>cfi-H 


tc 






1 1 1 1 1 00 ^ t"** CO 

1 1 1 1 1 rir*^r 


00 








1 1 1 1 1 CO t^cooo 

















CD 
3 




! ! ! ! iss&gj 


S3 




"S 










1 1 1 1 . ClOO CO 






HI 

M 


3,-v 


OiCOcOCO 

1 . 1 1 iocScoco 


cc 

CO 




30 

§8 


1 1 1 1 1 WD~a0*f-*'cO*' 
COCO -** CO 


r--T 




H 


CD 




a 


3** 


« 1 1 1 >coas<N .-h 


t- 


to 

fa 

o 


§ 


1 ! 11 i-Tco 


IO 




!3 3 — 3 


rt<03«Ol 

1 . . 1 idtdcdiN 


O 


i 


2 


SS°2 


<N r-H r*rH 


1-1 


w 


"3 

.a 










1 1 1 ' iCDPDHH 




§ 


CO 

CD 


fa 

CD 


^hON 

1 1 1 . »UD GOtT Oi 


8 


t-t 


fa 


& 


1 1 1 1 1 oTaT t^Tr^T 


■hT 




XI 




CO<M lO i-t 


■* 


o 




CO CO WD CO 






oo 








so 

a 




z 


1 1 1 t ' CO t-- WD WD 


r^ 




i 1 1 1 iHNCCOD 


CO 














1 1 1 1 irH CO CO CO 




"3 




fa q* ^ 03 

n 5 CD O 


06 CO t-" 06 


00 


W 


CO 

ho 

.g 


00000000 


00 




1 1 1 1 rc-t^cOr- 


OJ 




2 




CO CO ^ cc 







Xi 


1 1 1 1 i<3i^ OiCO 


t>- 




W 


a 


1 1 1 1. 1 iC^r^Hcf 

1 1 1 1 i^rio ^h 


00 






3 


t 1 1 . 1 co as cn tj< 








fe 


! ! ! 1 1 h*m 


CO" 




•— a> 


1 1 1 1 iCT>coc»r- 


iO 


a> 


O CO i , t 


1 . 1 1 1 CO H lO N 





03 


2S 2 o o-oS 
as >«ja — >— — 

> 03 


(NQ0Wrf< 

1 1 ' 1 co'tj^wd CO 





3 










CO^P 00 WD 









1 . 1 1 1 CO CO -h GO 
WDCNJ CO CO 

1 1 -i i \cici / -0" 


1^ 








t > 1 1 .oot^^co 






1 1 1 . 1 CO ^hCN CO 






1 I CM* WD~r*Tco"" 


00 

CN 






. 1 . i 1 CM CN WD CO 


CN 






HiCCD-l' 


t~ 




s ,.s 

J5oB 

03 5 


1 . 1 . IHNlOH 

tiiii o'co'aTw' 


"O 




t- 00 r-- 00 






1 . 1 1 1 CO O CO WD 

! 1 1 1 1 i-Tcvft^t-r 


00 






i 1 1 1 iOSCO^ 1^ 








1 . > > < .-hCN ^ 


o> 






CDHlCH 


CO 




fa • CO 


1 . i 1 .1— 1 t-». COCN 


01 




CD CD 60 

& is a 


. 1 1 1 1 CO CO WD CI 


l-~ 




1111 1 10 -tjTcN CO* 


CO- 




1 . 1 1 iCONNTf 


CN 




3 M 'S 


r 1 t 1 1 b-o co 00 


O 




fcS.3 


1 ! 1 ! ! ^r^-Tco" 


t^" 






1 1 1 1 1 rr-t CO -^ !"- 


00 




P3 


. . . 1 1 -*J»CO WD -^ 




CN 




£3" 










. r . 1 lOCOCOTf 


O 




S°fa2a 


1 1 1 1 . ^}i CO WD t^ 


CD 
CN 




3 fa O S O 








!z5 S a« 








a 


i : i : : i|S ; 

i" lrt m. 1 .»». 1 

1 fa fa CD CD JS'3'O a 

:22 b a 3 3 5 








« 




**"' o 


O 

Eh 




s2 


,_ 3 B 3 3 3,__ 

33 sts-a-a 




« o 

g 


^22aaq§§§ 

"° 3 3 c3 03 ccj oqo 

P-Hin-H(N>0-HCN>^ 















O O. 
£ 03 

O.CD 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



285 









<o ^ ^' « h c» « d ^* «? n 

r^ccaoocooaouoaot-~<coo 






occcccooo-'rosoococ 
« « «o t^ t- - «iooo^re 



cmcn^-^^ CO^h 






■a I 



r^QOOOOOOOQOOOCX>t^OGO 












CNOHOOS COOCN o* 



^oco^cocO'-hcocnos^ooo 



8co-*rt"-OOi*o*o*oOico 
f-T co" *& d i-*f co" «> ~* of co <rT 



0-H"3M(N- ■ CO ^ CO 



iHtOiON«HOSOO«OX 

ccioo6cDobt^cdoscd-*CN 

C SJ_^_____C^COl-< 



Eg 

< 












co-^odcocot^ccSoiic^co 



^ P - rrt-^- ^* 



£>o 



COCNCOCOiOCMOI.©<<J , ~HCO 

^Hco^t^ooc0"<*''<j«*0'-*o* 



0*cOO*--<~«OCM^tOOl^H 



OJ CS CO CS CN CN ^ 



0>^HO>*OCOCJ>OiTj«OSOS01 

•*r co r^ cd cd ad co r^ q" ^ — * 

0000000000300000050101 






CS^OOtNOi — wCS-^CNCN 

CO COT- Ol 00 30 — CM -* CO 



SSpS Pag 



CJ » Bt 

B — — 






COCCOOSCOOlO*iO^HCOCO 

coC5t^oococmos»oio 
D f co -<i** co oT tC co r* 

00»CO'*'!000 | 0<-<tOCCCN 

00^'f'C* J 'C — o>xco 
t-CONOOX'fl'WOOOcN 

co oo"cc — ' ^" 60 00*0 oioi' 
^*'.t"*-ocotc^-•-^co■^J«^*• 

OJCCr^OCOCOCOOOJOO 

cn co io* *o of r-? <* i-f 

§*o»o»CMcoeo©r-oieo 
OrOCNO»O^OMNV 

8 33 p j" — : -r 1 - 1 -* -*■" 

•--. -o — fj ifl ci CO CO 00 CM 

— CD »C OS O OJ 00 CM OO *C CO 

— CO ri ci — — ——--/ 1 
*r cm oc cm co ri co — * co « 

CI M CI N 03 hlflNNH* 

- - - / ?: c - n 
c 5 — — ' "' — y. — — " — od 

" ■" co "O «5 

r^on—oi^aoc*— -r^ 



— - < / f : 1 ■ - > « CO 00 00 r- 

Ol CM CO CO CM Ol -h 



S - a 



£|8 

S8- 



5; o 



« -^ °: -. C4 ec -o t-5«*T3 

BOO > ♦» • - - 

gCOOOQQOO 



as 






286 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



co 

M 

03 

o 
o 

o> 
t» 

o 

"o 
be 

g 

j§ 

"o 

W 


CD 

3 

> 

03 
8 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


ot~ 

c a> 

OOl 


lOOfr-^^OCOCOCN^H 

■ t^ co ■*" o6' c4 *o ci © 

ta5050ioooct^ooi>- 




Amount 
($000) 


ooo 

CO 00 

oc -o 

•fCN 
CO t*- 

o 


147,966 
358, 759 
1,305,062 
1,688,842 
3,315,660 
3, 430, 733 
5, 085, 352 
5, 932, 617 


CO 

cnT 
r-- 

CO 

CN 
CM 


2 

CO 

03 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


ON 


.©OSMOOtHCOCNCD 


ei 

00 


§8 


i oo co -"a* t— "^ I s - *— • I s - 


i-i 

a 

3 


im co 

O CD 
r1C» 


,00-— I'-HCO-^icr^o 

i^-COCC^HOS^C^Tf* 


5 

00 
CN 

>o 

00 


O uo 
CO — 
— CO 


lOH0000t^Nt--O 

itNiOOH<CCON(N 


COCN 


■ ir$ ic c-f *— ©" cc" oo co" 

. ?-» CO ^r CN — i iO CO 
, ---CN 


bo 

£ 

2 

"o 

w 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


CNN 


>osaooocotNr~co»o 


o> 


— * CO 
N« 


lOOCOCOCDCOr-'COO 


Eg 


co — 


1,143 
4,690 
11,839 
38, 032 
102, 334 
163, 605 
195, 017 
320, 272 


00 

o 

CO 

00 


CO 

c» 
o 

CO 

CD 

3 

.c 

CO 

O 

o 
o 

CO 

bo 

a 

2 
"o 

W 


<0 

3 

"3 

> 

CO 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


oco 


iNMCOiO^NaOCfi 


o 

CN 


o 


iCNCOurj— b'-'^l'-CTi 


Amount 
($000) 


>ooo 

CN — 1 


4,066 

12, 429 

77, 227 

219, 874 

696, 923 

1, 125, 283 

1, 104, 274 

2, 527, 312 


CO 
CO 

CO 


2 

A 

CO 
03 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


OM 
O 


2.0 
3.1 

5.8 
12.2 
14.6 
22.7 
18.8 
22.4 


CO 


u 

a 

3 


coo 
*a cc 

COCN 
00 


108, '106 
492, 568 
1,992,367 
5, 728, 356 
20, 587, 420 
34, 214, 653 
36, 756, 074 
67. 256, 224 


So 

CO 

s 


be 

2 

2 
"o 

W 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


00 00 


irtNN^OOCONiO 


2 

00 


00 CO 
CN CO 


i — COrfOCOCOCOCOOi 

i - i - ao cc oo x oo oo 


|4 

CO 

a 

3 


W3CO 

"8 


2,811 

14, 976 

58, 549 

190, 397 

675, 817 

1, 237, 479 

1, 266, 961 

2, 742, .501 


OS 

o 

00 

:- 


Market 
vrlue of 
average 
share- 
holding ' 
(dollars) 


CO m 

co en 


,o»ooocot s -c^^j*cs 

<fl5r-*co*o*o*ococc 


o 
o 


S8 

OS CM 


• oo oo* o" oo* *o co'^of 

(CO r-L^H 


Market 
value of 
shares out- 
standing ' 
($000) 


»o CO 

ooo 

OP 00 


.CNCOOicOCOCOCOOS 

iCOCOOO^hOO'— 'OJfM 
iOHNN>OOCDO 


o 
o 


co r- 

o 


152 
371 
1,382 
1,908 
4.012 
4,656 
6,189 
8,459 


"S two 
5.2 

co-o 

£ B 
CO « 

^ CO 

OQ 


IO CO 
WCN 
NCN 


iMCOCOS*OCO>0 

• oooooaoco- ^cn 

< CN — — ^COH COCO 


CN 

00 
05 


Of 
CO CN 

>~* or 

COCN 


5,343 
16, 074 
34, 071 
46, 896 
141, 235 
150, 602 
195, 003 
300, 506 


Ui i CO 

■ss.g 

E-c-o 


CNOC 

tr> — 

CO 


3,954 

19. 666 

70, 388 

228, 429 

778, 151 

1,401,084 

1,461,978 

3, 062, 773 


CO 
C» 

ccf 
o 
1-^ 


Num- 
ber 
of is- 
sues 


1- o 


.lONOl-HOQO — CO 
I — — CO »OCOCN — 


00 

8 




3 c 


a 

cuj 3 

C CO 

2'" 

% 


; 

o 
o 

R a- 
ca Tt 

.R ^ 

** c 

£<= 


250 to 499 

500 to 999 

1,000 to 2.499 

2,500 to 4,999.... 

5,000 to 9,999 

10,000 to 24,999.. 
25,000 to 49,999.. 
50,000 to 99,999.. 
100,000 and over. 


"cO 

o 



0.S 

9 o. 



BS 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



287 



s 

C3 
BQ 

8 

co 

> 
o 

"o 

as 

a 

2 
"3 

n 


<s 
3 
"c3 

> 

^1 

|M 

03 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


os-m 


— ■<*< OS •<»> CS "0 T Tl> 


OS 


SS 


fOSMWOCN-H 

r-oor~r^r~coaoos 


og 

a© 
< 


00- 
CO CO 

os~ 


N-OC3NCS1DM 

CONOf O'O'ttC 

cSiNOO««ropi 


OS 

ei 

r— 

CO 

CN 
CN 


110 

39 

107 

239 

1,941 

6,226 

6,561 

7,098 


2 
"3 
xi 

' =3 

E 
03 
XI 

to 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


OS"! 

cdoo 

t- CO 


CN"oeN'n-<j"r~ocN 

osoos*coJo6^r»o 
r-oor~r~r~r~ooos 


CN 

OO 


u 
as 

X> 

S 

3 
Z 


r-r- 

06 «ra 


«M»M»00* 
— CDiOMXI-MS 
*C ■<»» 1^ OS CO *0 — r-- 


OS 
00 

CN 

r- 

t 


coco" 
r~os 


COCOOt^OSCO— ■*?■ 
OCO V-^NCNNN 


r-l lO 
CN 


aot-oscctfoos^co 

CO -N*OS«CD 


t>0 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


•ocn 


11.1 

13.5 
11.6 

8.3 
12.9 

9.9 
14.7 
15.4 


OS 


2 
o 


hi 

09 

X) 
3 


OS CO 
§03 


**f- OSOO-'fCOOS — 

N O) ■* ao CN aco 
CO C5 10 10 N c; to rH 


00 


I-" 

CO 

00 


W 3 
1 * 


~8 


— CN — 


00 

_i 

o 

i 

I 
o 

two 

a 

is 

"o 

w 


- 6«^ 


-CD 


OSCO- CO00»OCOCO 




CN 


1 

> 


£g°2 


CN CO 


10 os cn co ■>)• — r-oo 

CN — CI CN CN CO — 


C _ 

30 


NO 
CO •«■ 

•-I r- 

CN 

CN 


CN — •*** — COC~CNt^ 
0»0 — C CN — "WO 
iroiCCOTrCO»OM-CO 


CO 
CO 

r~" 

CO 

r~ 

10 


Marl 

A mo 
($00 


OOOSOCOOSOSOi — 

co co 00 co cc 0: r» 

CO 00 CO CO 

of — 


2 


Per- 
cent 
of 

total 


CO- 
CNCO 


20.8 
19.5 
20.8 
24.5 
20.6 
21.3 
16.0 
4.8 


CO 


.3 

03 
XI 
CO 


CD 

| 
3 


COO 

oso 
— V 


COCNCN^^Hf-CO^ 

CO -T C- "^ Ol (M tT — t 

CT> T CO O N O IN 00 


00 

CO 

S 


co"<n" 
CI ff 

CO OS 

- 


C'XOlX'COt-.O 
ONO'tNOO'OCO 


0<-'*OaOt s -C03iaO 
CO>OCN 


CO 

2 

"o 

w 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


OS CO 


os^o-wr^- — coco 


- 

06 
00 


□0 00 


00 cooc — r~ »o -w 
aooooooscoasaooo 


cs 

XI 

S 

3 


COT 


CN1-~00'WCO-*J-CO- 
*N--CDO(ONn 

osTroooost^r~os 


OS 

c 

<£ 

00 

CO~ 


CSO 


355 
85 

186 

347 
1,285 
2,182 
1,020 

275 




value 
of aver- 
age 
share- 
hold- 
ing ' 
(dollars) 


coco 

CO -* 


371 

493 

650 

860 

1,747 

3,754 

6,654 

23,831 


8 


Market 

value of 

shares 

standing' 

($000) 


o o 
ooo 

t~00 


asCN-rt-oocoocos 
co i~ — cn r~ x co 
r~i^co*caoasi^"o 




0" 

00" 


148 

48 

137 

325 

2,580 

9.095 

7,960 

7,769 




Shares out- 
standing 


ON 

o r~ 

ocs 


00 osos — 00 t~oo »o 
•"ro^oiNMXafj 

^■OS^OS-HOCOiO 


CN 

OO 

re 
r~ 

cc" 

CM 

O 

'"" 
1 


o"io 

OCO 

-r os 


068 
117 
500 
653 
547 

15-1 

293 
048 


— h-" 

CO 


00 OS -S* •«• cc M -r -ri 
-cr wna'OocN 

— C< — — 


Number 
of share- 
holdings 


NO 
-TO 
CO OS 


cooonnm-?i:« 
coccce»ocN'<rcoco 

lOXMCO-^ TO 


OCO 


400 
98 

211 

378 
1 177 
2. 423 
1. 198 

326 


E ° § 

Son 




cocooocotQ^eo 


i 


o , 2 

SS-2 
xWa*. 

r- " S 

»-, a c 


Jsp 

§2 = 


II 

c z 


$1 .000 

to $2,.5i 
to $5.IH 
to $10,000 . . 

ii and over 


tr 




80S 


i I 


»H — 1 *" ■. -. cT 





- 0) 

- 1 

CO CO 

. o 

cj a 

CD 

(-1 « 



XI 5 



268445 — 41— No. 2£ 



288 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 




2 


er- 


«•£!« 


CO r- 
OOOO 


03 


coco 


-H 


W 


bo P-l 


« 




OOOO 


00 


00 t^ 


00 




t- 




t-CO 


■-. 
































co 


00 CO 






W 


E 




O CN 


OS 


co'co* 


OS 






























1 


X 










CO 


































M 


3 ? cu S-C" 




m" 


OS CO 


CI 


OO wt 


o 




ofav 
ag 
sha 
hoi 
ing 
(do 


S 


COM 


"" 


CO 


* 










































- 


OOcO 


© 




■S2^|^g 






of 


OS — 


o 




y ca-S ■!-> — 
<• > w 3 










COCO 










t-H-^< 










O 






C» 










3 M 
o cl 








»o 


(MOO 


c* 








■*» 


Tf< 














00 


— to 


*o 




m T3 
,3 to 










ooo 










r-- ■* 


-. 


Tt* CO 










.-c oo 


oo 














<M 




00 
























t~ 






OS 










00 CN 


c> 
























■gas 






on 


00 




**■ 








Tf CO 


»o 


oo^ 


w 




IZo.g 








CO 




o 




















Num 

ber 

of 

issue 






lO 






o 

















Ssfc 






a o 



W 



3 « 



3 3 3 
KG ° 

&£ « 

® o x 

c c o 

o o ° 

» o» O" K 



^_ 



CO O 
OS 1- 



CO 



o a 

.21 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



289 



as 



f£ts°© 



3 o 

< 



fee-.* 

^°2 






Bs 






ao 
oo 



£«' 



Htoo ao 
oocmcm t)<-h 
^«or* to i~ 



O O 00 CD O CO 

©CO co to — cm 
i~- r» to ocon 



r>- t-- to co 



Sao r*> co ■* co — cm to ^ os 
CO to CO CO 35 00 O CO »o CM 
© — CO — --"COCO to — < CI «-t 



.-< f-oo 



lOON M-< CO 
CM t~ OS 00 to 

CO" — .-I 



"9<COt^ «IN 



NO 
00 CO 



00 CM CO ""J- CM CO 
CM CO — to o © 
•^ CO to CM 00 «0 



CO -HCMQ 

to — r-~ CM 

O COOCO 



CO O CO —CM 



»o os tO« 



tOOS CM 00CM I 



0«N OS t~ 
•<J"00'-< CO f^ 



© TO! 

oo ©to 



00 OSOStO 
CO* O* to 00 






os ■<*• os (M to 



CD CNtO 

co" cm'cn 



to to O t^ CM 



CM lO to © 
CO TT 00tO 

co* oo'ci 



tO00 — 

l^CM o 

COIM ■* 

■* CM- 



CM ©O 



•«<© 
co r^ 

CM CM 



.-i 00©C 



CM — • t- 

— ' OS OS 

oo toco 



CM — CM 00 
CO © OS to 
CO CM00CO 



OS to OS o 



rl i-l t» •» CO — t 



CM 1 *© 

co r^ r^ 



cm x 
co CM 



■^ CD CO 00 © 

-■^t OS 00 H »> 

COCO CM CM CM 



o o jH • bf. 2 

= = » 2^ — 



5 ca .> 



■c o 



1 a m 






■7: XI « 



I £ i. * § 

3vgoO 



COCO"-* CO 00 O —< O 

■Hiseo tj* — 1 co os co 



-<* CN GO 



CO O CO — ' CO CN OS 






CO O-rf Tt< OS 

CO O CO -HfO 

"COM <-" OS 

Os OS O O "^ 

OCOCO -""35 

•HOIN OS ■* 



CN 



CO— «CO COCN CN CO Tf CO 
OS OS CO OS OS OS OS OS OS 



) OS OS CO CO 



— < o cn t- 1 



-ft- 1 t-- CO 

— - c cn 

O CO iO 



C0CN 

co r-- 



oo-h r-.^* 



CO CSO CO 
CN •-« CO tJ< 

of co" o *o" 



CN OS »0 CO OS 



CO OS CN CO .-< 

CN OS »0 

— CO CO 

cn to" 



CO tt — ' ---t* OS CN -^h CN 



CftTf — • CO OS 



CO lO CO —< — < OS O 



coco CO CO — « *o o -* CO CO 



CO *C CO OS CO O O CO CO COOCN 00s <— < 



t"- »0 CN CO "<9* OS COOS 



CN OS"* iO *0 iO OS COOS iO i-H 
TJ* CO "<9* COO OS iO iO CN COCOCO OS CO CN — « 

r^t-- co cocNt- coos o o 



OS ~- CO "■J* CO 

* co -^ CO o 

■ >*■ 00 o •-« 

o*h-V o"cn 

COO- 
CN-. 



■o o --r h-o 



0OI--th OS CO co o> 



CO iO O CN CO CO -^ 



■^r ->r O OO 

■■■# « wa on 

CO t- CN t- »0 

co'icco coco 

co co r-- co 10 

os r- r* co --f 



r- 



10 OS Tf 

CO -^ o 

CNCO OS 

o o'oT os" 

CO oof. t^ 

OS CNOS *-* 

i-T CNtN cn- 



os r- wo CO "-"ti ^ OJ 

^-. CO •* ^h CO •<*« OS 



CO— ■ CO 
—1 CO t-- 
CO Tf »o 

t^CN~ 



r- ^o os co 

t~- CO CO f- 

iHOO CN CO 



71 -~ "- OS CN 

— ^ CN OS CN 

•«-r cn 10 r--Tt< 

■*r~C/5 CO— «" 

00— < —" CN 



co ---co 

CO OCCN 

OS coco 

tO IO CN 



0C CN -^ COiOiO 

O0 tC CN CO 



*- OS 
OS 00 

I"aT oTo" 

J CN CO CN 



^- 10 in 



-^CNCN --h(N ~ COCN 



CO OS CO 00 — < «-h CO 



—1 II ^hCNCN r^CN ^ 



SI 



oo g «- a 

•- "3 _ as 
0*0 ^ as "-* ■ 

C3 OXI > V. 

"3 o o as as 



CS O I 

3 a! 

■5 . ;i 

©Ml 

a.£ - • 

•5 33 

_ —"3 

^ --- 

w hi — 
"S C-3. 



: ^ 3 *^ .ir 



Ij-SB 

o lo 3 

(. CT3 P 

i-ct. 



as o o c" 






■5 - O-'S ~f 

a 3 -u -- ■ 

<o S 






»Q 













- 














- 








= 





290 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



S C 

r-g 

so 



&3 





CD 

3 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


P5IOCO 
ON CO 


00 


00 

c-i 1 


73.6 
55.0 


CO 
CO 


orj 
o 


1 1C 

1 a 


r-4 OS V$ 


o 


1 00 
CM 


CO 
US 




NON 


Oi 


00 j 


s 


cc 


i ""' 


CD CO *Q 


CC 


10 


CO 




us us n 


o> 


& 1 


K5 


N 


X 


1 •* 


II COON 


c 


o 


* 








OCMN 

ooVJVT 


of 


8, 

«S i 




N 




OCON 




CO 


CO 


in 


CD 


II 
<! 




N 

n" 


CO 


* 


■«J« CO QO 

oi"»c ^ 


a 

CC 


o 


N 

CO 




3 


CO CO CM 


CO 


tN 1 


s 


?, 


o 


01 


0>CN 


CO 




00 
CO 


CO 

o 


S 






















CO 






CO us CO 


Oi 


"* 


oo 


N 


* 


t- 


eoos i-< 


cc 


o 


o 


o 


2 

43 


t- jg,^ CO 


■*OCO 


00 


(> 


■^ ift 


f 


t- 


r- 


CO t^- 00 


u- 


CM 


N 


1m 

as 

> 

o 


00O N 


Ol 


oo 


h*«0 


N 


x. 


CC 


CO CO ^o 


cc 


US 


CO 




00 tN Q 
CO CM US 


95 


00 1 


oo >o 


CO 


•r 


CC 


1 QO CO ■— < 


IN 


112 


CO 






00 


C-l ' 


—1 CM 


-f 


-f 


f 


t-^ CO — « 


CN 


CM 


W 


CD 


■*CM CO 


O 


o 


ooc 


N 


Cb 


c 


!>■ iO CO 


a 


o 


00 


*o 


03 


a 

a 
fc 


03 t^^f 


CM 


■* 1 


«"»" 


■* 


e 


CO 


»OCfiO> 


-f 


oo" 


o 




03 


in * »o 


CN 




CM CM 




r 


c^ 


! t-< oo 


CN 


T-l 


us 
us 


bt 

g 

is 


43 


O * ~H 


CO 


OC ; 


00 

»o 


oo 

1(3 


* 


•c 


OS CM tN 
>OiOCO 


■* 
■* 

CN 






. *a -2 


•**tD 




■ O 1 


C4N 


CM 


CT 


cs 


CO -^ -<*< 




N 


N 


w 


m 




coco-" 


•o 


lO 1 


00 00 


X 


/ 


•x 


■"^^N 


CC 


N 


CD 




to 
P 


HH 


>5C 












II 










O CO CM 


N 


cs 


OCM 


CI 


>c 


CO 


1 OiCN — 






us 




Bfe 


CO OOO 


■* 


as 


t^oo 


IO 


CO 


] '~- 


COOCN 


a 


CM 


CM 




3 


"SCOrt 




o 


CO 


* 


cc 


1 — 


N«N 


tr 


CO 


CO 




W 


I* 






rH 




1- 




,H 


^H* CO CO 




j 


co" 




















CN ^H 


•* 




o 






»- t- v.. 'S 

PhS -S 


N US-* 




CN 1 


-*o 


* 


OI 


II ": 


cot^O 




CM 






03 

3 


onco 




^ 


CO »o 


CO 


c 


ii e 


QOO'O 


<x 


N 


•* 




"o8 
> 


CN <M 




~ i 


CM-* 


C) 




II § 


CO CO -^ 




■* 


CO 


■» 


ooooo 


CO 


■35 


00 00 


--C 


o 


IIS 


1 o »c CO 


a 


II rt 








a _ 


NMrt 


CO 


c 


O i-l 


-1 




t^- r^ O 




CO 


00 


CO 

cd 

Ih 

o 




do 
oo 


OU3 1C5 

eoecTeo" 






oo" 


00 
00 


5 


Ii : 


j CNCN »0 

" 1 ineco* 




J* 

o 


n" 


03 






M ! 


00 


A 




II- 
II 


Tt*i-Hi-I 


fl- 
CC 


r 


1^ 








■* us * 




CO 


r-1 o 


CO 


cc 


! y 


Tt<HC» 


■* 


II •"< 


o 


CB 
u< 

cO 
J3 


2 


CB d— « 


lOOJCO 


,_5 


CN 









! c- 


COtN -H 


•^ 


N 


CO 


Ph 8 ° o 


r-i 01 






CM-* 


':"i 




K 


coco ^ 




ll* 


CO 




O CN* 


CO 


00 1 


■*o 


* 


a- 


IIS 


1 T* Tfi 00 


CO II < 


IO 








O ■* Q 
OOCN 




f^ 


O OS 


QO 


■-- 


N"0 05 


CN 


1 00 


o 


o 
o 


cb 
ce 


a 


CO 

CO 


N 1 


ICIiO 
-* CO 


A 


o 


t o 


r^r-ao 


c 


o 

CO" 


N 

-*" 




N* * 




t^ 


>OCM 






c 


00 CO 00 


CO 


- 


CO 




ja 


3 






e> 


ce 


ffl 




0^ 


Oi Tt* CO 


oc 


" H 


CM 


o 

CO 

cx 

d 


cc 


fc 










" 




1 


t^CNCN 


CN 




Si 

CO 






CO US* 


CO 


■o 


00 CO 


XI 






rr OI CO 


CC 


1 n 




CB C "S-S 


COCO 00 


■di 










1 CO 


m »o cn 




CM 


CO 


73 

w 


bJD 


O 00 00 


IT3 


o 


oo 


CB 


? 


3 


Oi GO Oi 


a 


1 a 


o 


a 




woon 


o 


CM | 


cc * 


o 


1 ° 


llg 


^- CO o 


a 


|| US | ■* 






cocn 


o 


- 


^H CO 


30 




O *0 CM 


r- 


II CO 


CO 




2 




«oiro 




in 


f~ 00 


1C 


1- 


II "" 


iO 00 00 




|| 00 


CO 






,fi 






























lOl-Tr-T 




oo" 


cm" 


CO 


; o- 


112 


CN Oi Oi 


C^ 


CO 


o 




W 


a 






■H 


oo 


X 




in t^o 






o 




3 
















II 


cc 




CO 






z 














II 




II 


- r 






n us * 


o 


— 


CON 


1- 


! C 


II ■<* 


1 40 oo *o 


t^ 


II CO 


CO 




■g "J CB , bd in 


to-* CN 


CN 


So 


CON 


T- 


^ 


: ! 5 

;i o 


CO CO CO 


r^ 


CO 


o 




.M © « £.S cO 

*^ 3 1~ 0*T2-H 


•JON 

co* ion 


o 


1C 

t>." 


NCM 

co" 


to 


< r - 


-tt> as co 

CNCO'CN 


CC 

CN 




N 

CO 




g > co m j=S 














II 














CO 








1 


II 






II 








iO «»o 


CM 


U3 


— <CM 


re 


X 
X 


il f 


II SgR 


oc 


il ° 


U3 




*j"S TJO 


t^. c£> i-H 


CO 


~ 


on co 


•** 


11 = 


w 


II to 


■* 






OOOl 


CO 




CM CM 


w 




= 


O O CO 


o- 


II ° 


o 




^ Tf" h-" 


of 


00 


CO" 


to 


R 


li - 


*"oc"cm" 


>c- 


" 1 of 


o" 




5 cu^-S so 


iQCON 


CO 


-r 


CO 


:c 




11 CO 


LO CO *-> 


CO 


CM 


CO 










CO 


CQ 




II 

'1 


»-• COCO 


X 




us" 






r- rt* ^ 




g 


CM lO 


1 - 


M 


II? 


1 CM t^ O 


0C 


II ° 


— 




« 60 
5.2 




(M 




01 


— 


tOOOO 


■fl 


1 o 


CN 




T)<r-lO 


CO 


00 


IO •* 


o 


"" 


II" 


IOWIO 


CO 


o 


CO 




■^Tf r- 


CO 


CO 


OCM 


CM 


K 


1C 


N iC CM 


IO 


" i s" 


Tf" 




«I010 




'C 


00 »c 


CC 


3" 


CO 


! ON X 


w 


II CM 


lO 




rH ^ « 


CO 






X 


: oc 


c 


X OCO 
| CO N lO 


CN 


CM 


iO 




CO * 


,__,- 




CM 1 


N" 


N 






1^ 


" 


CN 


















CM 


c^ 




CO 




W 




























C -**" *o 


e-i 




coo 


c-i 


1 


1 .o 


| OO-h 




1 =2 


Oi 




co i to 

■^ fe d 


Tf CO t 1 - 


o 


f- 


00-* 


r^ 


o 


* CO * 


•* 




00 




CD CN lO 




lO 


oo 


o 




CC 


CM O lO 


N 




CO 




§.£•3 

/S ca 


wdoTt-T 




c» 


o 




■* 


ir 


■*csfoo" 


«- 


1 * 






i-H 






o 


o 






r^ O r~* 


0C 




Os 


















■* i-H 


cc 




CO 




t *— CO 


»o CO — * 


CN 




O— i 


o 





T 


■*ICCM 




1 N 




itel 










01 






o ■— 


oc 




OS 
























rH 




fc.fi .3 




























CO CM *-> 




t^ 


CO-H 


1- 


o 


c^ 


NCOO 


2 








Hill 
















CM 


CO 




CO 




























^ o fl= 














































s 73 












d : 

O ; 


Bl 

c 


' d 
i"ca 

1 o 
.. ■ a 
d ! 2 

•2a § 

CO ea-^ 


c 






* to ' 

£.% : 

C i 




■"■ CB 








8 

*n 

3 

•o 

d 


i CB g 

"i a"S 

•^ *-* 9^3 
.22 co £ »« 


B 

d ^ 

S no 

CB 
CO >~ 

s- 


3 

c 

C3 

o 

CB 

s 

■3 
o 

Eh 


o 

c. 

n 

CO 

"3 


c 
e 

oi 
c 


c 

c 

5 
a 

E 

E 


. 33 | 

fe& is 

O O i-r 

.3 ; ^ 
S M liS 

■S"gti.E 

~ d n*j 


i ! 

; 
I 

oo 
a 


cb co ce 

CB CD C 

k. c 
CB c 


OS 

§ 

dl 

* a 

o 
o 


'e3 
o 

d 






T3 a »- © 




■SP„ 
oil a 
a'3£ 

CO 

M 

Eh 


c 


f 


^^a ^ t - 


iS O CO 
0.CU 


1 


o3 








S K! D.-3 S H 




Eh 


3 

a 

s 

c 


1 

c 

'E 

■X 

EC 


■ - »oc 

is* 


CB 

c 


&H 


1 

d 


o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



291 



















t» uD 10 ^ 


CO 




9 

3 

> 


*" d*— * 
£s°2 












O CO N »0 

CO CO CO CO 


CO 














CO O CO OO 
OSCNcO — 1 


CO 




m 


B<-, 












©coo ro 


r- 




3S 












to 10 of 0" 








o2 












r- a B N 






as 


3 












cn coos ■* 




03 


£ 












«-? 


co- 


S3 


































*<*«os co 00 





g 




fed — 3 












Or -trcd r^ 




i* 


2 


n ® ° 












CO CO CO CO 


CO 


5 

fe- 
ci 

o 




















ja 














— or- oc 


co 
















cor-oso) 


IM 


en 
8 

i 


CD 

XI 












erf— — "cs 


00 
OS 




a 












■^ CN r— »0 


00 


bo 

a 


A 












r--o -<eo 


N 


00 


3 












^sfjW 


■0 


"3 
W 




















CO 

a 
■3 


a « ° O 












ti t>; 10 1^ 


co° 














00 r- 1*- co 


>o 
















0CS«5O 


CM 




■3 


8 >-< 












TT-^CNTji 


CO 




W 


3 CD 












t-."^H"-^'M"' 


co- 
















CNCN tj< 


co 


















CO 10 10 o» 


T* 




a> 


£§°o 
Eh is 












CO COIN TT 






3 

"3 
> 












CO CO CO CO 














~ c-c ~ r ~ 




















COCN 0C ■>»< 


00 




CD 


do 

3© 












CO COCO CN 

t-'est^of 




a 


a 












CO c: e© 
-"C3VI- 




cp 


2 


< 














rt - 


O 
en 






















ga-2 












eo-< t»CN 
uS co" cm' 




CO 


05 


2 


Ph§ 2 












CO CO CO CO 


CO 


A 


a 






























COO m -<J> 


•n 


o 




hi 












— < OCN O 


C3» 


o 




CD 












CO t~CC — 1 


r^ 




E 

09 


1 

3 

53 












10" -.-^CO- 


•^ 




00 












CO «5 O — > 


CO 


CO 

bo 

d 












OCSNO 

oTiC't^eN' 


CN 


is 

"3 

w 


be 
_d 














t-omo 
cN cn Vco 

Ol OS 35 OS 


g 














«03N«O 


■»■ 




2 














— CO -f CO 


CO 




A 












coooosos 


CO 




w 


a 












irTiO of 


o" 














OS CO CO h- 









3 












wm>o 


CO 






z 














-" 




■"s <° 












CO »C CO r* 


3 


1 














^ ~-.es-* 














COONiO 




1 


32£*o^= 












•* CO CO CO 


CO 
















CO CO TT »0 


















^■^--e 


■**• 
















t- Cftl-iO 
co* ^ OS of 


OS 

o" 




~ 3 2jx?S 












— OS CO 00 


to 
















— r — - - 
















*-<*^H"0f 



















t- CI a 






8 . .E 

^32 












OS ^1 T»«0 

00 CO CO OS 


CN 

CO 














co r- r- co 


s 




5 § 1 












00 OS CO CO 














o©-n 


CN* 




m 












~-«CN CO 


00 




<u a> 64 












— co ^-oe 
CfOro 
*- o» co 


C9 

00 
CO 




il-s 




























co"i-rVco* 


co- 














^oirtco 


os 




3 ">■= 












CO 


















-" 
















O) r- os 00 


s 
















co *o «o ■* 
















"" 




55.8 s . 






























- T^- 






3 fe 












CN «J"COO* 


CO 




















S5J8°£= 


















a 

_o 






e 


s 


- 
■--. 


|i§ : 








£2 CO 

'5 3 



»> c 




"^^ 'fc-t-k-CD©' 










t. J. cd cd aj-s-a fe 

CD CDti— 1— c C r. 








03 






c 




en 

-< 




E 
P 


E 
03 


E 


■ 




"ooo 
S28§ 







dco 

Oct 

3_- 



QCD 
5 



«5 
3 _ 

cn d 



CD CD 



292 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






e~ 



»*? 


e^ 




an 


a 




n 


^ 


ff 


~1 


o 


o 










B 




A 






B 


u 


CO 




K 


B 


o 










B 
S 


B 

o 
o 


4a, 




c 


o 


o 




s 


■& 






as 








Cn 


n. 


S~ 


B 


c 


-c 




CO 


■"-< 


T1 


k*5 


(0 




>- 




i- 


s 


^, 


■*a 


»' 



"B u 
c*> ■?» 

<- b 



0= 



s 

s 

03 

w 

8 
f-< 

S3 
> 
O 

o 

M 
3 

's 

w 


- 1 .-•■-! 


l0)«>O!D«O-HQ0N0) 


CO 1 
CO 


0J 1 

— 
> 1 

CD 
t-r 

03 


•" a— sj 

wo is 


'tO^CO-HCONOOOO-H 

O CO CC (^ "jD C C C CD CO 


If 

<! 


IcONOinOCONOINN 
i»H««01WNrfioCO01 
iCOOCtOCT>OCOCNOOr--Tt« 


CO 

co" 

00 
CO 


i CONNCD-H^fiOiO 
i CN n CM CO "O lO — I 


2 
"3 

S3 

S 

03 
02 


(? c ° o 


!t~co-HO>-*cNi-~c3>ioo> 


o 

CO 


lOOrtN^rtCNOJOOOrH 

icooocor~coco»ocococo 


cv> 
S3 
8 

a 


!r»»»<00r'~C0'*CCr^»OO 
iWCN- < r* r~ — < Q •*■ O lO 

it^aocsoococNOcoos© 


CO 
CN 

00 

oT 

00 
CN 

*n 


848 
4,185 
4,952 

10, 604 
4,746 
4,237 
5,086 
6,007 

13, 667 
952 


Ml 

a 

2 
"o 

W 




!iO~HC^COCOr~©UOOSCN 


CO 


looajt^eo-^r^^^iooo 


1* 

<E 

.O 

3 

55 


loNMOOOrtOlONH 

m-jotonma-ion 

HiNOOOCONOOaO 


CN 

CO 

co- 
os 


irtnOOINSOlOOOON 
I CN — i rt-H 


9 

u 

o 

£ 

OS 

B 

I 

O i 

Eg 

.9 

2 
"3 

W 


ID 

3 
"ol 

> 

<D 

M 

1* 

S3 


£l°5 


iHOCO^NOOJCNMH 


•<* 

CO 


<coiococccoaoa>o--ao 

1CO,-HCOCNCOCOCOCOCOCO 


0^ 

IS 


!a>MCO-<o«cOMO)N 

iCsOi^cNcNOsasasioas 

il^MiOO-^CNCNCONUJ 


00 


" CO CO © 00 CO CO -^ CO »o 

I CO-^OiWrtiOOOl 


2 
"3 

■a 

CO 

S3 
CO 




• nTTCiTHCDOOCS-HiOrt 


o 

CO 
CO 


"-CDCNOOCONOaJ-HOp' 
i0O-HCOCNCOCO'»'COCOCO 


- 

.O 

a 

s 


■ OOCSOmMO'OOCCDM 

■ ©■^r^oieouo**"©©*** 

>»Or>.a0CN©CO'«*<CNCN00 


s 

CN 
CN 


386 
820 
2,425 
4,152 
2,735 
2,577 
3,438 
3,852 
6,288 
586 


g 
2 

"o 

tn 


^a>~ sS 


luioaot^'O'coO'O— <oo 


CO 
CO 


• r-ONCOiONiOiC^-H 

(019)C7>COOOiO)C7}C330 


fcl 

a> 

.O 

a 

3 


iCO^f~©CDCD»Oa000C0 
iCNCO**CNr^eOCNai— 00 

iCO-hO'OCD'OCOOiOOO 


CD 
CO 

o" 
o 

CO 


"lON'fMiOOOm«CN 


s 


value 
of aver- 
age 
share- 
hold- 
ing! 
(dollars) 


.^C-cfcOCOr^OOCdcOCNOO 

t-*r*j"OO^foocN-*»0'<*r^ 

■HHOOMCOOIOOOO 


s 

co- 


rH N*rHMc{«Vc5 


Market 
value of 
shares out- 
standing ' 
($000) 


i-HNn O CD M 3 CN 00 
'•*J*-<3<a0OCNC0»0CN»0© 


in 
o> 
o 

CO 


■ cn Ootfoor^o -^^f m~* 

i ^OOOCCOCCOCDiO 
i --I CO CN CO »0 C^ CN CN 

i (N 


~ bo 

o.a 
£ s 

o3j5 
•a m 

CO 


235, 245 
006, 573 
378, 788 
757, 140 
482, 609 
814, 864 
524, 453 
859, 945 
956,111 
538, 893 


CN 

CO 

35" 

IO 

cn" 

oo 


'FHiot-^NCOCOOSOJ-H 


* § a 

pi 

111 


iCDrtQOJfl'NPJWiOf 
HOi 1 iCOOCNCJ'HH 
ir^COOOCDMNN-H^OJ 


C33 
00 
CO 

co" 
a> 

CO 


i co *o cn wTco~of o"co~^ -^ 

i^HCOCNCOCO— 'OCNCNCN 
, rt -H « ^CNCNCO 


III 


i-^cor-oo^o"^cococi 

• -H rt CN CN CN CN « 


CO 

a> 




8 
c 

a 

a 

M 
S 


S3 
© r-- 

03 C3> 

"Qeo 

£ Q 
a 


Less than $1 

$1 to $4.99 

$5 to $9.99.... 

$10 to $19.99 

$20 to $29.99 

$30 to $39.99 

$40 to $59.99 

$60 to $79.99 

$80 to $99.99 

$100 to $149.99 


CU 

> 
o 
V 

a 
a 
o 


"3 
o 



coO 
°> +* 

r-> l- 

CO 03 

. cp 

o H 

5 I 

3 Q. 

O ~ 
»■? 

o 03 



3 o 

•SiB 

«s 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



293 







„ 


^•HN^OOJf CON00-H . 


CO 




"i ' 


1 0>NcDOflb- i iO .— 1 1— OS i 

1 os as as r*- co r** co co »o *o • 


IO 




_3 

"c3 
> 


n ® ° O 


CO 




CO OS CO 00 —• "0 O CO CO CO r 


3 






Tj-^CCiOKNt^^cON i 




® 9s? 


tNOOOOfflCOOO^fh. • 


r- 




M 1 3 2 


co"* aT^r aTco'cN^r co'o^' ■ 


m 


s 

E 

a 


03 




co—<Tror--icosas»o^< ■ 


i 


JS 














■ *j — « 


»CO»C»ONM^N00^ ' 


o 


1 

o 

> 


2 

J3 


fe 3^5 


as as os t^» r* b* co co «5 »o ■ 


CO 




*D O CM OS »0 ^t* CN CO CO CO < 


CO 






O N (N IN N »C !3) 00 OQ0 ' 


CN 


o 


8 




00. 


o 


a 


^* of V"co cn aTco'cTco o" i 

00lC«O30C»CCCO"-"M i 
00N«COO00ON00>0 i 


oT 


03 


B 


s 




A 


eg 

a 


CO 


3 


r-l iQ aT^cN t-"cN 




2 






! 




"o 

w 










fe H'-l 


r*««ONHMHOTj<o ' 
as as o os oo oo r-» to t*» "* • 


CO 




a £s°.s 


CN ^H - 






n 










NOOiNHOMCOOO ' 
O •■*' os ■**• ■^ 00 CO —" CO Tf* i 


•o 




•O o 


CN 




1 1 
3 


fh — cr. c= 


CO CO ** CO CN ' 


CO 
CO 


MCNtO^O I 




-hCNCNCN 


OS 




1 * 








1 . *, — 


CO OS CO ^ «-* CO t>» 00 CN OS i 


Tf< 




~ fea-« 


O cn" co as o op -^ oo csi o - 

CN CO CN CO CO tt ^r I 


■^ 




S 

"3 

> 


pJ»°o 


eo 




*# iO O iC COOS CN X CO OS ' 








«ON0C«INNTf ^^© i 


00 




CB 9s? 


CJHOM" tD^-HNt'V© ' 






.* 3 S 


« co oo ~h ^ r. os os i 


t-^ 






»-» »-h CN CN CD "0 CO ' 




03 


^-> CN^O CN ** • 


t~ 


s 


S | «~ 




" 


ft* 

o 










• 4j « 


iO O "2 u0 CO 00 OS CO CN CO ' 


o 


s 

c 

CO 


2 


t? ® ° O 


O co o r-* ^ co — • os -^ •*}< i 

CN CN CN CO CO ^r ^ i 


CO 
CO 


A 










J3 




N'HOlNNiJ'NXO'O ' 

H^ao^Ntooiojoci • 


>o 








o> 


8 


s 


« 


^FHCNiOOONNOCN^ > 


l- 




k- 


A 


OaOtN^CN-*?«l-'-Tj<M«Os . 


>e» 




03 


a 


i-h co cn cn r^ oo j-< r^ ~h . 


CO 


o 


J3 


CN CO o *o CN -<r o - 


CN 


CO 


CO 


3 

z 


i-« CO CD 00 »C CN I 


t~r 


60 

o 






CN 


2 












fe 3— 1 


CO l^ »C OO OS OS OS O CO O ' 


CO 


"o 




OO OO — -h CN 3 1 CN CO i 

c^osoooosooosoos ' 


CO 


a 




£s°l 


a> 




CO 










c 




COO0CN CN O OS ro r^ oo ' 
•O 00 C - <C C' "-C CU - IQ ' 


■<* 








CO 




2 


o 


CNCOCDCOi— « X *0 « V « I 


CO 




"o 

w 


S 


^otaocNh-to i 

CD CN CS -^ CC CN - 


8 




^h CN T CN -h i 


CO 






* 


i 


rt 






C0O30— '-rrCDOO— 'OO ' 


s 


a 


P *« "5 — •- 2 
o » 5, 


CO CO OO — — — < 30 CO CO CD i 

^fr>o«oco«oooMr-(0> > 


o 


j«i 


t^ 




**rin ^*»c icuccc co'cn" i 


CO 


S 


co -^r cn « 

^ 1 








N^-hWOSVCN-CNCN i 


>ra 






OSCSiO — -hO— 'COQO■^ , • 
^-t *C »C iC 00 »C CO 00 00 "V I 






o o^ "U. 
•*<x>£.E2 

3 3 o"3£ 


a> 




r-oiocc— ■ m o o ft< i 


CO 




CO^ - TT l OCSt^-— ■CO^^i— < i 


CC 




-h CO t^> CN tt CO T • 


«5 






CN ^h ^ CO CN 00 OS *-• CO 00 ' 
CNQCCOO: os os cc -r CO CO ' 








CN 




3 °* 

o.S 


-^ oo *o r*» »c t^- r* os oo co - 

-Ht*«C5"»on-HVNO i 

OSCOX— XCC-- — 0QCO i 


CO 




"!"3 




£ c 


C©CN*OOOCDOCOOCNiO • 


»o 




£3 


-^ <o cn o o co *r ' 


CN 




-3 w 


^h CN CN ^h 


00 




CO 










QOO ^- -g" — • OS CD OO O • 

© cn © «c a re x - *?«os ' 
co ■*?■ oo CN r^ CN 00 « I s * »o ' 


o» 

s 




CD Co M 




•3 != 3 
— C3 .ZZ 


— > O OS O CN 0C COO 1 

~ CC "9" — ■ CO op CO « 

— CO -rr CN ~* I 


co" 




CO 








""■ 




a o 8 

3 fe ? 


re ?i '- — ~ ~ re r r. r j 

w* — 'rr n* "t" CN 


CO 

31 






^ 




aSa 








T3 




































° & 


















£ E « 
o oiS 

V.-3 t. 

« £ a) 

5- 


8 

I? 


3 


1 

Z- B 


s 

s 


5 3-. 2 £ 
55 OS Ci Ci o 

O O O 03 


1 






BN'fOCOOuuUj 


E- 1 




3 




Is 


= 


i 5 


c^ 


IC « cs »o ^^ 







<Q 



a-5 



— ^ 3 



•S8 
cB-r 



294 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



8 3 



8 a. 
8 ^ 

a « 






&5 <» 



« 
Eh 



coeoC'Oxooocoeci 

r-^-^iot^oooooJoJaor^co 
»o»ou3r~-*j<coco*o»ocoao 









.9 

2 I 
° 



S8°I 



^O^CCCT>wcD^»CiO^OO 



^-iC-if-CScOaiaO 



^GOOOOHOl^OHHf 
Oi^C»^Tt<^CO©CSTf«»C 

iO*o<or-»o*o*o<o<ot--oo 



CO CO i- < ^ CO CO CO 00 CS iC 



OiOCSt^-t>-OS^H01CO^-«»0 
t^COOOCS^COCOiOt^CJoi 



<3 d*~ * 









® m "K ■ ■ g 



a**' 






a 5*13 






r-~ cs as oo cs <o <— ixcoci^ 



— X CSOOCS CS CO 



^NNONNOOO^CO 

cscc^co~H<-H , «-;o6cscscd 



OsoOQ^^cocs^ooco^ 

( COCNt^-*J<CO»OtOC»»OCO^H 



loocs goioc 



» CO id cs 



TfNwoajiHOJocftCfto 

■^■^cOCST}--<f , '«rTt«COCS^ 



Cfi (N CO 00 CO C 

cocsr--^H>-«cs<c>osut>oaao 



^NcOOicO-f cOcOOCNO 



)r-HOOS«5-H 



^-tO00C0C0^03^H^«Olu^ 

N-^JNictdtd'^cidQ 

C^CbOOOOOCbCftCACo 



NG0>O^<a3<PiOCR)^HCj0t> 

t^COQpHOOWTfQOlCftCl 
-hcO«OC6000hONC1CN 



ON»0'*-ONNO' 



OONcOiONHNOOCeO 
«-HCSCO-^*CD00C5'^OiO5 



tortgcoonotowNOb 
Oiiococfc-^^coaocosco 

CO^iONTT'XiOlNOOlTf* 



iHHOHO^cicfi-: 



-*pioaocor*-aor^t^.*ococ» 

N-^o»0'oaiTON<ccao 
icoao^comTPNoooao 



CIOjiNOOINiOphcOC 
l^-tN^t^CSOi — OOTt-C 



COCS^CO — « ^H 



1) <» bfl 



923 

*22 



}^W^<NCON( 



'■-■Nvr 
CO "if IN 



es — r~ — oi ■*»■ r- 



rtfHWOMCO 



°2 

- "o ® 
<S OS - "" 

>- a is 
*j M s. 

a> ® 

3 2-9 




T3 &&&(&*&&* COO* 

Ooooooo^^^^ 

8oooSqo S S 8 - 

— — *S cc - 



r — M"5~ 



«<■ I 



_, b 



a 

a 


3) 


a 




t , 


CO 





u 








a 






























a 






P 






It 



SO 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



295 





3 

75 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


64.6 
61.0 

60.9 

79.5 

76.0 
70.8 


• 1 

•O 
CO 




« i « 


r-co CO CN QC — 

— CN ~-" Oi 00 CO 


s 






— I s - cn I s - I s - ~ 


I s * 


s 

E 

CO 

.e 

00 

S 


5 1 af? 
3 E^ 
* 1 ^ 


CS CD co Ci CO CD 


co" 


NN CO co a> 

CO CN CN •— 
CN 


00 
CO 


I fee — " 3 
2 1 (£, g ° o 


COCO CO »o o^* 
r^ — CN O CD- 


o 


u 


COCO CD I s - I s - CD 


CO 


CO 
> 








■S 


CSCN CN 00 COCO 


CD 


o 


>- 


t-CO <N CD OCN 

« — co ic co I s - 


(M 


s *> 


00 


"o 


2 £ 
S E 


CO CO Oi — © OS 


oi" 




I s - — « cd ci co I s - 


a 


So 

c 

is 


w 1 5 

1 A 


— O — i CD — 

s -"-» 00 CO CO 
CO 


"o 








co m C-— * 


r*co co o osco 


r~ 


w 


CO lO GO CO CO CO 


CD 1 




3 i 


cc r- co t> cocn 


»o 




"3 H te 


^* -^ *n co o o 


CN 




—< CO «-" CO i-«t^- 






B 1 35 


ofi-r ^r co ^* 


co" 




CO CN 


Ol 






1<0 -« *JO OCN 


■<»> 




a> 

3 
"cc 
> 




« OS OS O ^ OS 
COCO CO CN CNCN 


CO 




cn co co o r-<-< 








o^-. 


cc cO ^ h- -*r os 


00 


1 


<a 

a 


39 

Ee 


co os t*- uo i— ' co 

t^co of ■»** cn*© 


t>r 


COtT CO t^- 00 

CO -H ■ 


I s - 


o 
S3 

b 

03 
SZ 

to 


•< 


~s 


«- 




U p^ cfl 

<? » ° o 


CNOO t^ O ^00 


o 

CO 


COCO CO CN CNCO 






MN 00 CN OS CO 


■o 


8 




hi 


OSf"- CN "^ COOO 


OJ 


3 


3 

' i 


■^ o *C «5 •-" 03 


r- 




1* 

as 


OS CN ^h CO OS CO 


s 


"o 


A 


r- cc oo cs a» 


Cvl 




CO 






bo 




z 


00 -^ <-h 


I s - 

CN 


C 












1 ti'£ < _'a 
m > 5 ^« 


CO -^ CN O <-■ I s " 

co -*r ^h m< cc co 


CO 
CO 


w 


a 




Os Os OS OS 00 Os 


— . 


1. 


r-l O *«*» OS CO Tt< 


■^ 




■3 


O <— • 00 *C CON 
OS Tr CO ^ CO iO 


CO 




B | | 


CO 




o^* oo" CN CO* 


o" 




CO CO "-< »o CO 


o 




0C CN ^h 


CO 




Z 




M 






^r os ^« i>- •"-" '-• 


CO 


o> 


— i W> cere w ~- 
w ;o 


««*< t^- tO CN OS CC 


o 


■M 


CN r^. os »o o OS 


I s - 


s 


^« CO ^ CO CN »-i 


co" 






OS •— i CO CN »0 CN 






*»« "O 


r- os »o co co cn 






^ > m s 

o 


OS CO OS CO oso 

co'io t^* ^ oo"r^ 

~ CN CO CO "t^- 


OS 

I 




OS ^ Tf CO CN 

co" 


erf" 






iCCi O O »0 CN 
CO O iO ^ 1^ i-H 






t* bo 


CN 




o.S 
co -a 
£ a 


CO CN «-■ <-• I s * l> 


CO 




cn r-* — *o os* oo* 


•*»>" 




ic<o ■*• ^* r» t>- 


IO 




Cs CO O CO <— t 


CO 




3 fl 

CO 








r* ^h co ■f *o 


CN 




»o ^ 


00 






OS t^ CN CO OSCD 


ca 




© 0) cue 


-3*iO ^ CN cor>- 


00 




■OH 


O CN WO 00 r>»CN 


CO 






co*co* os" »o* >—" 


CO 




CN CO CO »0 TP 


cr. 




OS CN -h 


CO 






^~ 






I- CO "^ CO ^ CO 


CO 






CN CN ^ CN 


C3J 
















Z .2 








o 
<! 

es 

is 


03 cflZ; 


£ 


GO 








b. 


— 








3 

o 


3 








^■Cw- 


3 








33 

M 


X X ° 

-- - 


z 


o 








■8-°l 


>- 




ffl 








3 3 3 

coO o 


a 

V. 


— 
a 


a 

d 

— 






— g, 


^■^ SP 




C0 






'E- 


■- i: ^r 


p 
o 


a 

o 

5^ 


^ 






CO -r 




a 


>> 

a 

H 






ofe2 


"2 "2 S 






22o 

c c s 

o o o 


2 « 2^. ° 

C i- ^ 
"3 cB~ * £ 

or cor 


"3 
o 

Eh 




3 


c- - OP c -— X — 








.2 .22 .25 ^ "5 K "5 O O 






a 






s 




_:_;^ 


p 


p 


z 





3_T 

t- co 



— — ZJ 



eg 



•3.22 
1% 



c g 



296 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



JO JU80J9J 



000'0I$ WAO 



jo ^naojaj 



ooo'oi$-ioo'e$ 



pjjo:) 

JO %Ud019& 



000'9$-I00'I$ 



jo inaoJOj 



000'I$-T09$ 



1BJ0J 

jo jneDJaj 



oos$ 01 dn 



Hiotc-ne*o«t»tooHnonHoiio 
<n' oa o '(^.-''o-HcO'-'Mtb'.j't^iocjtoo 

•X ■* O — < r-< -H 



N»OiOfht1*« r— CD CO t-- 00 ^- ■* »C CO 00 CO 

cocncm co ■* ooraoiSooooeoo 

o"co*co ei>OrA ■«< co" a>" o* cn of i-T 

rtrt CN»0 i-l « CO .-H rt 



OOJOSHNOO 
MNOO 'CO 



> O CO COO (N 
1 Ol CD ft t* CO 



THfflOOO 

i-i t-i O co' O t-^ 

CNCOCO CO 



< I^CN -H — -H 
>>OCQ — •tOO 

> t~?5coe<ico 



co >ra r~ cm ■* w 
t>- od co i-* od cn 



ONrtNON 



lONMO^N 



OOlOiOCOCOrH 
-HON-* 00O 

tj< r~ r-- o »o 

oVoo" jf 



CNiOC0»OC0'»O^iOC0^03 



"OOHOJ«»OOWCOH^ 
O--N-1"Ox00«O1'H9) 



cor~co ^"qco««ho 



rt H CN-H i-l 



TPiON!OU300O)^O)CNH 
COCN-HCOCNCMCOCOCNCNCO 



-f^iONQOCOCCNNiOO 
Ot^S"OHOM^H»000 
t^CSCN-HCM-H^-HiOCNCO 



CNCOeOcNOiOiOOiOr^cN-H 
t-» ^ i— * i— toot— OSO-H^ 



r~cN-*f*o^»naa"3co-"*eo 

CO O (M - CD* »C O t^ -H CO CD t^ 



■ -**• r— -* os o 



W010HO'0 , 0»OQC^M 
CO CD *-t -H CO "J* CO CO H 



^OOOONfDN^H* 



CN 00 t~ -* •* — < 0> CO -* CO ■<»< 
0NCOCDCO''»'Tj<CO'>»"O'*<N 



HOOiOOTfONNrtH 

(0«rtM'*'OiOrtor^to 



r^NOON^WONnOtO 



^r »— io ccnofl 1 ' 



OcN OH 



CNli-llNCN 



Ost^tNO 
t^rf'QO 



CM »C O3C0 

in cN>r- 

•oooo 

-h"«o'-h" 



HO«lO 
i— OOrt 
CNCO-H 
rtffiH 



sSnippq 
-ai«qs jo jaqum>i 



•-* CO •<* O O O OlONMN'f -^iO-hOM 

ncoo»oqoio N^oooJccH^Tro'* 



00 O -h CO 



s8Tissi jo aeqnm^ 



mco«-H-HCirft»o>'*rt^o>oO'*N'* 



N«MH 



SU0I1BJ 

-odjoo jo'j3qmnjs[ 



IrtrtNxOOU'rtVaoOCON* 






CD 



•a o' 3 

O 3 O 1 
tj-C cu 
CO—, 

ca 



« 3 ■ a B 

•a o o a 2 

O b 3 c8 a 

«• h. . o sire !g ., co 

2 a "ie^j.g 3 £"3 

5-2 = 'Ocfl! K Sc3^ 
,3=5 -2 3 cp S~tS <» 

a g. 



; 'H3D. m -'SoS' 
c. a 2-co£ca'g .^2S°c3 • 

"S«^a a -- a ' a S.ga 



N — '-*-» ^ 03 

„ o Q..2 a 

35^*0 Cfl r] 

a a ° 2 
a ca w q,S 



a cs g g 

o *a °3 cp 

« 0.5 > x a "— « ■" t. °° « k 

03 



5— — 






* 6o£: a M - <u 

a .s°§^^ a 



C» M 

-T ® 

08 

□ ^ 

oft 
o> » 

.2 "3 

t. CO 

O-co 



2 •- ^ 3 



E'S* » 



D..g ?i3 g^ = 






T3 a "s °.S 

a-sS=o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



297 



lOkO 


•O 1 


Tf 


1 '* 


1 »-i COr~ 


SB 


OS 


1 °° 


coco 


so 


r~ 


e* 


rt -crid 




c-- 1 •** 
ir 






CN 


1- 


N«N 




s 


s 




s 






OON* 




h-00 


_ 




rHCtOl 






•o 


S 


E9 






CO OS* 


s 




CO 
CO 


— ■"»• 


B 


r~ 


o 


OHN 


O 


CO 


C3» 


IOCN 


id 


oo 


pH 


rt ided 


CN 


pH 


•»• 










II 




*"' ll 








1- 




s 


Tt< 




o>co 

OCO 










3i 




- 


1- 


OS WOi 


CO 








|C 




-«o 






CN 


CO 


co 








« 




CO 


<3>a 


o 


a 


CN 


O JN.CO 


o 


,- 


n< 


2S 


?. 














M 




<NCO 




CO 


CN 








$ 






CN 


R 














©CO 


CO 


A 


r- 


cooor- 


ffl 






8™ 






CN 


© i-i cn 








H i 


— 




x 




00 










i 








*rb-. 


T 


eo 


- 


CO "OO 


o> 


x. 


00 


lO'O" 


■.- 


r- 


CN 


oidoj 


PH 


IQ 


•o 


r " l * H 


"* \ 


1-1 


* H 


| HrtH 


""* 




" 


CJOS 












*"• 












CN 1^00 


r~ 






oo 




j: 


EC 


II * a> r- 






CO 


§ N 


ei 






r^ ides" 






_ 








y: 


O 












rH 


lu- 


-iN 


_ 


_ 


X 


oo^co 


CN 




COCN 


•-: 




CO 




CN 














t~ ■* CO. 


r- 




f 


moo 


re 




CO 


1 ir CN CO 






>o 


S3 


ro 


3 
E 


a 


oooo 

CO CN 00 


X 

cc 




O0 


t~r» 








CNCNOO" 


























M 






(35-1 


"~ 




CO 


S 3 


■-- 


- 


-1 




-, 




r^ 


x. x 














t- 


■■-. 


o 


rHNW 


CN 




r- 


83 

CO 




« 


■*> 


irS^Sip 


PH 






:- 


c- 




O COO 
CN CM iH 


•O 




CN 

O 










1 ~ 


- 




r* 


g« 


_ 


.- 


DO 


0«C) 


r~ 




00 








CO i-l 


-r 




s 


g« 


~. 


o 


ft 


00 lO CN 


uo 




1 


























- 




























a 














- 














o, 














5 




























u 














CO 

- 


























n , , , 


■o 












a ■ ■ ■ 


a 












a : 














° ,' .' ! 
















- 












a : : i 


90 












60 . i . 


1* 












■a • 


^J 












a ; ; ; 


- 














9 














A 


























OP i . , 








a 






"3 ! ; ! 

is : : : 






: a 


3 






o3 i : i 


^r 




•.2 


~r. 






« :» : 


— 




: ~- 

• O 


a 
A 




- 


1 | 


o 


a 

03 


a 


- 

03 






O ' O ' 




S q 


Sal 

as as — 




a :-« ; 


^ 


I i 


O 


2 


- 
E 

03 


S ii.E.5 

■- -3 09 a 


3 

3 


■g a 
"9 S 


car 


h 


E 
- 


c 


■2 ~ - r 




s? a 


c«0 




> 


r::: 




a 
"3 


E 




o 


- 






= 


p 




U 


W 




D 





s 
e 
s 



2"o 



C 05 

go 

CPi„ 



P 03 

&^ 

t> o 

- — 



85- 



a cs 

O O 

0J v. 



is 



a a 
So 

cu^_ 



a ca 

o o 



al-S 
5"o 

Z ox: 



Z^-2 



5 o § o o 
Zx>°c- 



COlf t^CO I 00 

co cd id -^i -j-' 



a*ot- 

Irt 00 t^ CO 

co"o6"odco _ 



-^ CO io oo 
co'id id^i 



1CN CO CN 

OOOOO -i 
100*00 

CN O idui" 



OCOMN 

oc r-^ cn co 



CN 00 -1 O 
CO OS T}« ^1 
~i CN -cfi OS 



o * a oo 
T*i id co" uo 



CON-iiO 



CN io — • r~ 

228S 



*C OS OS C*3 

oo os o e* 



«C- CO *C OS 

iC ^*o» CO 

NOWOO 



-^ r^ oo cm 



_8S§?? 

^ t. I. t. 4, O ' 

— z: - — ^ " > 

- E S E 3 3 O 



w w ^ c a c 

- c a a 33 o3 eo 

B 03 03 03^ _ _ 

Sc5 



~ 5 

a ca oa_ _ _« 



298 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



© 05 



ft e 



!?». 



is 
1* 



°> a. 
£~ 

31! 

-ft e 

B Ss 

c3^ 

Co °9 
2. B 



Eh 



c « 

aJ'S 
uo 

a> «_ 
P-i O 



o2 



a 03 
u o 

P* o 



o 

§1 



C 03 

u o 

- — 
Ph o 






a 03 

« O 

Ph o 



28 

— o 



© * * c* "* to 1^ ^-* 00 as 06 






1*3 



■CO'OOJ^'OMOJC 









'aooartcccCNco 



f >C CC !D « M N 



©cicci—'coos— ^to'cowr- 



co^^cwcocoojosccoco 

HNOtOCOHHOCOH 



i-H X •-»• »ft tN l*» i - " 



!NNO5'^INC0 



^h.^tOOO'COSOJOOOS 

©©Ma6*oaor^ccos"t^*M 



iOOJCOOCaCOSOSCCOSOSOS 

oo»ccoNa>>orttDao 



llNOTfO'O'fl'NrC 



ost-t»as"<t'©cot^eo*0'-H 
06 © to ec-ao* ei cd c* ei o£ ~* 

OSOsr^iC-*J"«J<cNcNtN.-i«-c 



INCOtJ-CDNiOOOONcDN 
•CNWOJ-HiH^r-lMOtD 



O '-D one >o V 00 'l>- 

■— 'dec © to to co *c 



01 co t 



CO t-* CO Tf ->J* CN -H 



cNcotN<NOsr*iOi^~H~-Tf 

SNWM-CC^'TOOO'^O 
cOcO^^i—aocoC^CN 



^CCiONCOCXtCWOc 
N©-h05h«NhN 



- CJ 00 QO N w, « M X » N 



ICCMNN — 



■£Q 



~ J- ^. w. Jj *. V . 
- . < OS OS OS OS OS OS °S £ 

Sciaiosgsasosasos — 

*>«*«» OOOOOO-W03 

<g 2 2 ** ■" ~ - *> ** o o 






Kg 

- o 

8 



s 

c CA 

.3 "3 

— o 



d 3 w 









>c*o 


CO>OOh>C&0SCO<O 


CO 








HiO it*^HOS00»O-^'*CC0 


V 


OS 




CJ« 






&3 




S£ 






»l 




Pho 






eo 










as 




W -H i«»OQNt)«CO0O»O 

cox > 00 «o CO o> cc »o 


00 


-e 






• OCNOiOJ'HOOXi 

ef co" o> CO* 00 CN 0* 


t>T 








•«■> 




























p. 










co 


^__ 


t-C* 1 CN W O CO CS -^ Tf CO 


OS 


■Hft 




as*; 


t^ t^ . co t-» 1** co *o »o "^ tT 


Tl< 


ft 




0-'. 






-e 




P4 O 
















^ 






-^ CO . iCOi *c ^ ocooo 

CN < -«• r-« CN CD 00 O CO GO 








a 








iC^^Os^«OeoeoiQ 


CO 

8 


3 


§1 


-h -r -* o*o^j-^ 











CO 


C 


be 


•o«e 


















"o 










a'ol 


U3 CO 1 ^ CO CO CO -^ CO i-t 






co 06 > «5 ^6 ^« r^ 10 »o cd »o 




>, 








co 


■O 


a. — 
















B 3 


c 


















•c 








S "" 




OS iO«QOCDXCN»OiO 




O s» 





■^O 




00 


ft « 


.c 


c§ 


. tH IO tC Of t^^^H Tf* 












HMWN 


t~ 


ft Co 

2 *» 


■c 


-<«» 
^ 




~" 


ft ft 




i 








o"3 
u 


0000 IrtOO^HHOh- 


00 




«coi ' ai tt cn tj* -<ji 1-^ 00 rji 


3 K 
6 


3 


Ph 






Ci-ft 








®>-B 






COW iflSt'OpOOONN 


CO 




*"o 

-< 


1CCN1- iQOt"-COO>CN 


00 








••» § 




1 rtlNW-* 




* ?» 




•»** 




« 












■2^ 

CO 


















a'ol 
u 2 


»o cn > 00 r» co co ^ co os i-h 


OS 


ft CO 






^H(N .^■Tr^TfTf.-^^lO 


•* 


g g 




c. — 






^ 












COCO iMXcOprHiO-Ni-l 


IO 















So 


-CONH»OOHOi 
- —4 00 d" M^D9H t*T 


■* 














P« 






Bo Ss 






CO 


e-=> 










tstj 










CM 00 ' ■* CO 00 OS <-h ^ 00 CO 




-ft -T? 






<it as Cao 

•° ca c 


CO 1 OS COCO T -h OOS t>- 
















b e 


CN t^. rr -"** O 




-ft "S 

00 w 


2;o5 


^wCO 


1^- 


O 






00 


3 fc 5 






O 








Z£.!2 






*> 












OS 

3 








ft 


vi 








O 










-2 


1* 










a 








-O 










». 


C 








"B 


2 

45 








CO 




















"e 


03 

si 








K 










c— 


"J 




! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ! ' 




1 


c 





' ' ' ' ' «' a? 0! S 

! ' 1 ' iCftCSOJ i 








; 010)3)0)05 01 






"q 


I? 


§? M *° OC O03 


3 




n 




JS'^'^OS O O O-*-*"^-^,;;, 








E 

3 


yiS-S-Sooooooo 




< 


5i^^,_ .OOOOOO^- 




fc 




^ 









CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



299 



n!3 



oo 



a os 
t> o 



2<= 
— o 



a ■ 



B <o 6i 

•2 fee 

= ■= — 

Z OB 



PCS 
§1.3 



t~£N 

Oi-J 



CltOtN«MO(NO 



o'cd 



"NOOOOOOOH 

oiootCTrr^o6ad»rf 



a>o 
aoci 



23 



' e« to ad *o 






HW^N»C3> 









coco'odaooeooo 

cncc^jto 



^CONOMCOO'30 



00 O CO ^ O! Ol oj o> 
ui S so -^ re i- X N 



© 00 O iO N O ■<»« OS 

CO r-HQIOCO-H^ 



NONNOtONN 

cd^'oiwrcdo'O© 
ao ao oo <- »o eo c^ ?5 



— OQ0N-h»>0>0 



■vaor^orcs^c;-^ 

CO »— t CN 00 30 CO 



oc»<cw-*coco 



) CO « » n rt -o c 
) O ~-« r- t^ cn a» CN 



OOCO'O'I'JO 

•-h -h -«r -^ cc *o 



T:**WW%£««V? O O O CO 

§2225 ° ° *" ~ W S 

- - fi « -r in ( . - n ..-. - 

f*- V? V- ** <i* Vj. <y> V> <*• V.- ■:/;• 



8 S*« b d 

3 -1 u- — 73 a 



3-T 



s 


p 


- 


I 








l~ 





a 


9 



- 

3 






p 


i 




a 







^ o 



3§ 

« <3i 

8^ 

8 ©" 

8 N 

c» e 

*--8 

e u 
©4 2 



•8 2 

CO * 

8 t 

s s 

i: 

§ 8 



8-° 

-c CO 
ca to 

00 



5§Q "? 



.c.2 


- 


~i 


^ 


o a> 




OJ= 




3 O 


ci 


z s 


« 


«"S 


K 


pa £ 


J 


- o 


- 




-< 




H 





















a as 


ON« O00 


■<»< 




So 


l-H^H 














• »« 








Ph o 








O0C3JCM O0-H 


S 

IO 




*8 


— • 1>ao op 

•OO— ©06 




o2 








CO 


CO 




«* 








-^ — 


















lO«H CO CO 


^r 




3 o 
























Ph o 








oa oo tf o »o 
tOOOC-J oo 
0>iOi-H oooo 

-juoo ^r 

CO 


^^ 


s 

o 

M 


I o 

II 


gg 

CN 

CO 


a 


«*<» 












o 








•o 


a as 
So 


« ^oo ■«<?» 


•<»< 












CN 












CD t, 






a 


Ph o 






■3 














*o 

S3 


lo 


VON OS CO 


8 

00 


£ 


88 


CNlOO CO~rH 






00CO ■>»• CN 




A 


£«* 




t>- 




































a"3 


t^OiO 0000 


00 


B 


COCO 00 CN ui 


"5 
















Z 


cd,^ 
Ph <= 






o 


CN CNCN !OS 






8 








t^ ■* tT OCD 


CO 




s» 
























s 


rt 


,-T 




«» 






a"o) 


T}< rl t- lOO> 


^ 




"5— 'CN O'H 






§ o 


■* CO00 1" CN 


Hf 












«•« 








Ph o 






o 










tON OO CO- 












o 


ION* -H 




























t> 




CO 


u 


iS 

03 .S 


aOCN CN CO lO 


C«3 


J5 


coeooo io ■* 


^ 


E 










c 


— O 

0£ 


o 


Z 


CO 


t-" 


E 

s 




IOIOM TJ* -H 




»- 5 




8 


Z 


£.2 


















o 


i ifew 








< 


?> > *X1 








-j 


9 H * 3 










03 C3 CU r -, 

«W°o 






( 


pa 


MU Sz 


s 

Bl 

a 

d 
















^1- 


- 
>> 
p 

CO 






3 rt 


a> a* t>*o 








3 


c c B ^ a 

ooo-^s 


c 

•a 

s 


"3 




03 


■c-a-o-^ g^ 




/2 








i .i .'£ C o o 








J--_ 


X 





300 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



S 



so 2 
.5 e 



V. CO 

v. «o 



^ 



jo laoojaj 



000'0T$ J9AQ 



JO !)U90Jaj 



000'0l$-I00'G$ I 



yam 

JO ^U00J9J 



ooo's$-ioo'i$ 



jo ^naojoj 



000'T$-I09$ 



jo ^aaoaoj 



009$ 0% dn 



sSuippq 
-8JBqs jo aoqinriM 



sanssi jo jaqmnjs[ 



saoiiBJ 
-odjoo jo jaqranjsi 



CMCO«~tX^COCMCOOS<-'iaC©CMr--G'--i 

666hu5 "ocou^or^CMo6co*oos 



(NWCO«(N- CDOCOSCCCOI^CMQC 

>on i-T ed cm" eC rn co co* cm i-T 






CM OS O CM 
Tt« CM CO 



Tt« CM (^ iC CM b- i-H CM 1^. Oi t-~ CO CO ^ CO CD I 

GOCOOS^^"cO«OI^^(^CN"r^'^F-4'^ 



CONCONM«TpQOfCCOO<NOSN>OCO 

NaHiCOXCO'f'^f^- ' — CO OS OS 



^" co <<*<" co* ^Tcocoof 



MOOOi(NiCHNrHrtCCO'*'-W05 

c^oSoc^tot^^r^^cji^aocdcdaio 

coccco--cm»--<cocm''J<cocococO'^cm*-?' 



n oi 00 a o c t^ 1^ o x o © >n o fc c 
o«c»p:M«-ox»ot*'CO'H'OcDt-a 



00 "^ CM ~ iO 00 CM • 



1 <-» CM ioh. 



^iooS"CO"CO^CM'r^odt^occi-^eo 



>o •*$• r— ©eoaioccsiccoicooNa:* 

a«NCCNCR0C.ON»N«CQr«' ' ™ 



CO CO CO CM -V C CC • 



■ CO i— CM 1^. O C 



Gf rt ^ « CC iC >C 00 «3 00 »C 00 CM —- i-H 



cO"**Ca CO I 
CO ^ iO OS 



I eocMioost^cciooscot^r^o^-O'-HCO [ tt< 

I OM»O^OCNod»OC»©^OJN«N 

CO ^h CM t^ rf CC CM CO •-< * CO •-• CM 1-1 tJ« 



CMiOCCCOr^*ah-OsmcCOCMCOCO~'CO 
«3Nr-CCC"-<NNOl'XO100CO-'ON 
iflrtftN^OJOMiCN OS."^ CO t"- OO i-* 



!■— iC^h-OOCCO 



• «C C C"l (N ^ 



CM CC CC OS CM CO w c 



' " C or, — ' OS <-» CM 



; CM OS CM CO GO CM — 1 CC iO tO -*t —< 10 lO 
■- --TPOSCO0000iCCMC0OSGCOS*O 



f HOOO-- 1 *C »0 CM 00 rf — < OS OS O » 
00^ ^ CM ^ CO T* tT iO CM CO CN 



•*J*CMCM^-CM<-hcOCM^COOjCOCO^H'-'( 



*— CM CM vt CM ^ ■** CO rf* CO I s - O CD ■-< r- CO -h 



b- 10 t^CM 
©CM © CM 



OSIO00CM ^ 

cd r^ 1* cm co 



■^f* co 1-^ OS 



^■a 



Ills. 



II 



is 'is 



.5 •« To 



§ £.5 



S.-C 

'5 a 

.S „ V o 
^™ a- M 

^o3g3 
— 2- t; * 

M c-2 £ 

.S ~- ^ O [/". O 

x ~ ^'~ C ^ 

■a o » •§ 2 § 

^ ^ ,c x Sr 9^ 
an 

C 3 



_ J5 s 

c o ££.£ 
"S to 6 ^ « 



B'S c~ 2 






djS f-i 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



301 



r-cc 


CO 


r~ 


I" 5 i 


ci r~ cn 


00 


n 


IO 


* 


T 


a 


pi "N co 

1 


CC 


>-o 


"* 




CC 

- 


00 


00 

2 


CN O — , 

2SS? 


CO 


s 

S 


oc 


■»)• 


■^ 






MO t~ CO 


CC 

c< 




CO 


OS -■ 


00 


- 


hi 


os r~co 


r~ 


CN 


CN 


■o 


Ifl 




r\ 


•* r-t~ 


>o 


CN 


** 


o — 


- 


M 

O 


m | 

oo 

o 


r-cocs 

■W-O" CC 
O— 'O 


CN 

2 


y 

s. 




*o 


•o 






ccc-Too" 


O 
CC 




© 
o 


-^ CO 


CO 


ph 


o 


cocoes 


~ 


O 


»o 


r 


CN 


£ 


t- 


CN CO 00 
CNMCN 


US 

CN 


rc 


85 


§s 


o 


2 


LI 


CC CC 1^ 

■*coo 

-» t~ CN 


CC 
00 
00 


OS 

1 - 


o 

8 


cn 


CN 




CN 


} CO ■<*" 

on cc 


CO 




cc 


050 


X 


•- 


CC 


corr a> 


cc 


~l 


CN 


CO CO 


co 


t- 


CO 


*-* r^cN 

CN — CN 


CN 


f 


OS 


S3 


X 

■o 

'-- 


i> 


»o 

o> 

"5 


CO ©CO 
CO CD 00* 
CO — — 


ol 


to. 


CO 
00 
00 


CN 


c i 




CN 


NCON 
O — c CN 


K3 




|R 


— CO 


« 


3 


1 ° 


OCS-* 


00 


>c 


CO 


CN — 

■OOJ 


CN 


re 


CO 


or or~ 


CO 


•«J« 


cc 


M I* 

•ace 

— X 


7 


1 IC 


t- 


CN — — 

oo cc r- 

it* r- CO 


5 


CO 


CO 
CO 
CO 




r* 




, X 


CN-SS 
CN 


CO 




I s 


coco 

OOJ 


CM 
M 

O 


- 

12 


II .o 
1 CI 

CO 


OO — 

■*r co t 
CN as to 




CO 


OS 

00 
CC 


g 


- 


-r 


1 


'•£ Ci 00" 

r^. cs — 


DC 
CO 


T 


CO 

OS 


£~" 


r 
: i 


CI 


■* 


-c»o CN 

CO 


00 


CN 


CO 
OS 


CO — 


| fe 


n 


CC 


recces 

CN 


CO 


~* 


1 - 

I 2 



•- « 



•r C te ~ '5 



a ;- 



5 U.S.: 

SJ.S - - 

— "O 

Z. = -- 



j3 u.r.r _ 



^ - 

— o 

Ob 

c — 



o 

si 



si 



8 

e 
s 



90 



00 CO 



>^ 



C CS 

So 
I- -tJ 



a ca 

CJ o 



go 



B ca 
o o 



B 0! 
cu -*^ 
cj q 



■<J«!C 






3Sgo.9 






-HCOCNOO 
CO CO ^ o 



CO X CO CO 
CC lO O 00 
CO — CC C^ 



cN r~ioco 

oi o cd oo 



f-OO)^ 
"C" t~CN ■» 

— OCO tf 



r^*o" cc ad 



— CC ^00 
CC 00 00 00 
CN O CN CC 



ooooio 



oor~ooo 

oocc — 

OCN — — 



_g< 

T3-CC C" 1 



-ca 33 3== 



■ 3 3 -5 

gBCoao8o8 00 

w> — irt — C^S— «CJ« 



302 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



*- e 



a 



a * 
o o 



OS 



o 

O ic 



is ! 









3 fe 3 



o> r~ 



© " " ^ cm* id t* *** o" »-" 



« Oi ■* CO rt r-l oo ■*)* ■* 



t- ^f CD O) Ol CN O 



i-Hr^-iooO'«t*oOh-Tr<t^cD 

© * CN tJ< H ■*' 00 O -^ -h 



H-*pH(NN01»0'tcDCn 
CN -H O tN CO »0 CS »0 CO 



COOOCMiOt^COr^cM 



ooocO'uO'^coioio^ao 
cm cd « od t^ Tt* i-J 00 od <-* 



Oh-'t'OcOcO'HOJON 

^•oscoeo^ogt-wj^^ 
C^coi^ao^cooocd'o 

— iTftM-^cOcOCN^ 



CMcOcOiOaOCO<-iOScO^ 

eo *-" o" »d id © cm' id «-♦ cm* 

rtHrtHWCNCNCNrt 



iC Ol C7J CN iO O -H S rt >o 

«cotro«TM^-coa 

|0001CON«COCO"50 

^c^idid-^^r^asco 

i-H CM CM <M rjiic CO 



COOONCDO^OOCNTf 
<*' © CM' CO CM id CO O 00 CM 

Oi00t^.^coeccoco<-t--i 



i— io-f No^wr-'co^ 
•occcccococcaioonai 

CO CN O CO ■-< CJl M CO iO O 



lOOOOit-CM'-HCDOOCCCC 
r-.N»h.O-*COCO«0 



coMOCiTft-mco»of 
ic^moococNOHH 
r-coooco(Mt--r^— <->*os 



CO >0 CN iO tO C7i C M ^ ^ 
^ CO CS CO CO h O CN CN CN 
_ ,_ _ r^ c^ CM CO 



TJ»CDNOO^O«CCOCOO> 
i-h i-i CM CM CM CM iO 



c aic 



' os os as os os o> 2 



■ 'OS 0> OS 'OS 03 A - 



: — cn « u*j t-- a * 

OCOOOG-^cB 






»oo. 

^ — < io -^ C-J CO *r ffi 00 »-h — 



tc 



GO 
I 

OS 
© 






c 

a. 



U or, 
S 05 

£ v. 

O 40 

it 

oo ■>» 

<*> -2 

©5 © 

e 



as 









a.- 



C CO 



03 3 



c £ 

o 0*> 
3-S 



"« 



ooi »s; 



"to O 

°°« £ 

fens-, 

Q » ® 

■- fi 

O ^ t 

Oft .5 

ot_a> -^ 

S"3 S 

l- M .© 

*£ g 

la -2 



iS 



H 
►J 

03 

■< 



1 




HCNt^NcOOOHHHcO • 












>-« t- io os t» r*- eo io co co < 


1C 








o o 




















Pl, o 




















fe5 


i-< 1-1 OS CO OS r-t •** cc co > 






OS 


lO OOSCMQOOO ' 


te 










€» 








c"c3 
o o 


00CM^t^-*^-lb-cMt^CM ! 


CN 




O ^ iO 00 OS OS CO 00 iO »o i 


f-^ 


















«<— 








Ph o 












^H 




2o 






CO 


HXiONOh»»ON • 


<a 


3 
o 


i§ 


CO CM i— I iO CO CO ' 
HNCOH 1 


s 


fe 


Sl w 




























o 




eocooON>oa)t^rHios 


IQ 


C 03 

go 




oo 


•a 


0"cOOS*OCM*CDod^^t^- < 
CO CM —t CO CO CM CM CO CM CM i 


>> 






a>^_ 






a 


P-l o 












T3 










OOr^-^o CM COCO CM o < 






•" o 






a 


oo 


CO CM t- OS CO O CO i 


t- 




CM CO00CO 1^ CO I 


re 


















Ut 


c"ca 


HiOOJ-l'OCcOtOOSCN^ I 


39 


.O 

P 


00 O0 CO ^ CO CO GO O — ' iO i 
















y. 


Oh o 












EO 












s° 


CO^NCNCCOO-hO 


» 












" o 

O ,J 








-« CM >0 OS CO CM i 


to 




v><* 


! 






a"3 
" o 


NiOCNONCDON>OH i 


EC 




OSOSCNt--COOSOt'-0«0 i 


















o<— 








Ph o 


















COCOGCOSOOOCMOiOO i 


£ 














CO CO »o iO W ■— i 00 


^; 












£«4 


: 

! 








9> 


















M 


i— t co -^ <— ' CO 00 CO . 










Z-o-g 


; 


" 




CO CM iO ■«♦" O O CO 00 OS CM i 


ce 








Sir? 
Z.c.22 


: 

! 




bO 


;;;;:;;;:;: 




a 












■a 












o 






X 


















03 






r; © 






tn 3 






■a « 












2 •- 












£a 








> ! i i I i ' ! J 1 >s 




o 


; ' '.' ' « -ososos^ 
(— i ' , ' ' ' OS OS OS •z 
o ' ' I OS OjLOS OS OS OS O 

zz Oj os os * _r _r _- 








en 


cr 


a 


H 


*-* o o o'* J *^* J oooo 










&__„oooooo_r 

«8g8 ."i.°.oVdo 

iJh«0-.NiOhNIOH 















CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



303 



p 3 



a^3 
o o 



c ca 
*> ■£ 
o o 

CU_ 



o, CM-*«cor~ooor-«coco 

OO ' ' ' i-i Cm" co' — i CO 



N^-^nNiCtOrHMMN 



i-t 00 *o 00 — < 



© ' ' —' cm co 06 cm co 



-n-HNoi'on-Hioto 

r-< O 00 CD O ■")" 00 



O>iO«-l'**NCl«00O> 

© co co* co cd co" »rj co' *«' ©* r>" 

— — < CM CO *r CO 



■Hoooxmo^ooooo 
oxt^'OfNi^aowocjco 
~h 60 -*•«*• r~ © — os cm o> 

—"oO"CM CM 4o"oi"cO 
CM — 1 00T en CM 



C 03 

o o 



S» 



C CO 
! CJ O' 

P« o 



•So 
2** 



co ~< *? CO* — " »ri ©' ©' CM t>^ CD 



CMt^COiO^CMCOCOCM — -H 
■^•.TCDCDr^t^OlCO — 00l~ 
CO N^ic^iOOicaoi 



CM CO CO CO T — > — 

n«coca-*-H 



ocoosc&oocon»ooi^ 

cd-^'oo'cM"©*ao"©coa"t^»o 

oiacoaixcoo^cN^-H 



— NO:rtWt--'fNiftCN^ 
OCrJOX'OiOO'OSN 
CO-^COCDOOCSCO— iNifN 



OCMOTrr^cOOOOCCMCO© 

— . ~ -»r -^ co cm -v *- 



- 1 - * c 

E-c'-c 
7, 0.= 



0> ©■*»" CM — ocot-00 
-tfojiont^^N-vx 

0"OCC-O^^C3N01CO 

—" cm ui »o cm" V Os" >o cm" co" ~-T 

CO -«1* CM 



n-i.-MTi- 






1 ~ CO »C CO CO 



» O O O CC r 



268445 — 41 



— CM Sir is t- — w ** w O ■£ 

t«»»**WOOO« 

Ooooooc~~"" — 
© o © © 00 >o . . .0 

- - :i ?; t <.- t- - w k; - 

—No. 2Ps 21 



a 




s 




a 












c 


u 








- 


9 


u 


_ 


-: 








- 





a 


91 

- 


• 




s a 



1, cp 
J=-S3 



•5 eo 

e »-, 

S c" 

^~ 
£ o 

e ^ 

CO *> 



a a 

o O 

hi -W 



t^ooco 
CO >o'co 



00> -H op 

CO — 00 "o 

^ OS *0 CO 

-tJ"— '00* CO 



odod'V 



OS ~H f- 40 CO OS 



a c3 

o C 

ft, o 



8§ 



co 00 ao w Tt* -f. 
co'co'ej 8 g^j 



lOiOOJ c* 



£~- NNO l> CSl 1 

© w a> o o co oit 

o o - H w ^ w rt < 

0*M 




304 



CONCENTRATION OK ECONOMIC ^WER 



S 



S3 S 






cn 1-1 m -h 



t- t~ f- rH 



fea-5 

n a ° O 






3 £ o a 
Zx-x;- 



MCO CO >h CC M 



-* GO ^f CO io OS 



© © OS O •— ' <— < 



-tCOHCOOM 



© t - © CN CI © 

O GO CO CO Ol 
(M © ^ rH 



cs«o Oi Ol '^ «c 



NhNOOW 



) CO © CO CD ■* 



O il O) t^ O ■* » Ol 

CO PDONF-TJ-5D 



iO © t— © CO 



cm © *o ■** -* go co r- 



GO Ol »0 CO <— ICON 
© t^- t^. •— i>CC10)'* 



CO CO i— I CO CO CN c 



tOON-HCOiCNO 

NiNON>otoa>x 



©©cocncj©cocc 

-«^ CO ^h Ol co r- GC 



OHQOiNOMiO 



CMCNCOOCNCOCO^ 



OO^OQhiOO 
COOSOSCMOSI^GCt^ 
CO CM (M CM CM —<CO 



NCSNfNWWINC 



■*rio©oi©t^-©Tj« 
os ■* © x o ~- ■** o 
TrcocM«*<CMr-©co 



)«H HMXIS 



■^^©^©^©GO 
hOMOONhW 



c» n •* ro «o n ■* n 



aOOOOOiOt 



eO'<t 1 -*r^'Or^CM>0 
COCMOOIOICOCOTt« 



CO©*-*©©^©© 
os" co~ ©~ i-h ic"cO~of —T 



TPcoeO** 
©©' co^i 



CM CO CO ^H 
CO t- OS 
CO CM ^ 

of — r 



iOQCC 

oi oi tt o 



I-- CO TJ- CO 



_ ^H r-«01© 



© t^OI t- 

■<* w -«s* ©' 



oi oi ©»o 
r^ O) © 

©"■^"tC 



£ 3 cfl- 



CMOS©©»OCC©©CO'*-< — X C « W t- C OJ 

oco©cor^'-t©t-co©o)QOco^coosO'-t 



© tj- r-- w 



O © © <-i ■— < CO CM t - -r © iO ~ CO CM CO ^t* © CO 
CM ^ CM COCO f- © CO © © CO rf *tf« CM CM © 

CO © O ©CO iHCOOCOCSOfhX 



HTfHOOWON0105Cf»0 05iOOM^ 

© co *o © © r- © ** x ^ © os >o cm © © © © 

©©r-©©r-©iO'— < © co ■*f ac © r— osos© 



tJ< h M O O C C * X *t O X W 30 M CM CD O 



Tf h » c c / : > 



r -r i — r. r ■ * os »o cm ** 



l-*©©©iOCN©CO-«J«CNiO' 



lONN CO-^CltK'tmcC'HNOCO^O 



Q 02 tSfi 

Ecd — 



££.2 



S °i ga 



CO CO -^ O O O COWrti-NifH OM 
1O1OO1O00 1O C » 31 C X Oi H N O ^ 



liJJOO — < MCOI'WM^tO 



CNCDCO~*i-ieN^H*OCOCO-*COaOOa:CNCN^i 



NMM-i«NrHflinco-irai»oa-iiN^' 



00 CN CO t^ 



NCNCIh 



tDMMrt 



&2 



o 3 



fc-'O 



.2-o ! 



33.8 C..SS MX! Si W 

2 3 s-^. a £ g t- ' 
■o"2 o3 3 oi i-fj-a g a. 



3 , , 



a 
a -9 

c c 



3 3 

■fi ,2 

— OS S3 



co « a 

So 03 
n co w 



o 'O 03 cv '.£ c 

OS OX! > X B 



w 03 'O -^ E_ . 
iM t,gt4S3 , O l , SJ-T3 

S-2 fe'5 Eo M fJ2 a 



■3OO0)e3cS'KiSa;--ai3o 

gbHHCQHJpHflHUPHHHjmA 



3 i:~ c Si 

S fex os g 

h a °i:5 

1-.3 C *"^ — 

Or 3 fc- <V 

"2 -go a< p 
i O « 3 fi •• 






3 13 



■3 a t°Ji 

os s r-Sx: 
c-x3 iJ^r; 



•S a 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



305 



•OOJ 



"" II ** II "* 
00 o -< 



OS I — 

Si 



2 11 



OS CN UO 



»rao o> 



oo"q-«" 

CO •» « 



co co co 



CD CN "0 

— i oc o 

OS t^OS 

to— 'co" 



i; o 



O o 

OS ^ 

- cv 

CO CO 
. <D 

o C 









306 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



05 

GO 
I 
N. 

GO 

C6 






<3 

e 
«£. 

^ 3 

>~ -*-> 
e a 

~» o 

so 



-* 5 










00 


- B* 


c 


Si 





r-O 


S-e 








2 






*>-> 



iQ 



t- a v- ffO 



§£2 a 



t- "3 . 03 



£2 = 






IS2S 
fc-S-a- 1 



£s ° 



Nf<00*OCOaO©»Q«OiOftc0^tN-CO©01ft 

c» c* ^ oi ^ cd © a> cd n co ob id 

CN CO iC 00 -V © ^ iQ CN CO ■«*< CO 



** ■* O"^ GO 



cn © co 00 r^cN 

J- 1 CN © CO CN ft ■ 

010101 co © ' 

CN COCO CNhM CNO'^h'cN CO~h^CO~0 CO 1— T CN 



>io-*fiGOcoeocoo>cO'-i«-H 

<hu!)O«DC000hiCO00 
tCOCOCN^lONcO^ftCC 



CNCOiO CO "*« O -rj* CO CN CO CO CN CO C^ © ft CN 

oooo^oooo'Of»oooo'oo*o 



^OCCtDScOHHSiOcOCDOiacONOO 
lON-CO CN CN «CBO-<NCONrf n. r>- 
CDWH ft fl lOcDHHCO^NlO fl 



CN>OHiOHCO 
•^t cd id CN* © |>^ 



t^COOONCN 

coosf* cNr- 



N.© t^CN Tt«ft 



> CO GO lO CO ft 
JNNCNphcO 



CN N- CO N. CO N 

t^ cd to" co f<" «d 



co h o moocN 



C2o 

C3~30 



S3 fl "■""*;■< 






rjt co co cn r- co 



I °^l 



£22 



£§*j 



a 22 a 

5 S3 o c 



CN ft ft CN ft 



O O CO ^ CO CO 



*ooacO'^«cot^.coeo 
lO >H 6 N CO ^' «o CO 



) Oft 1- cn © to 

) CN CO CO CO CO tO 
)©*OCN ft h*o 



COCN fl CNCO iO^ 



CNCNCOCOt*CO©iO 
ft -I O CO ft ©' ft © 



cooscor^t^t^oir^- 

^•iOfO«OCCONN 
t-CO^CNO*OCOOS 

fT co" ft" ft" cn" fT 



Q)*OON CD CO CO CN 

<j»dt^^«cdcdcdt^ 



coor-r-cococOft 
■* © co — '»ccTf « 



WX>NOX)NCOW 

f»* -»' © co f" o" ft' o 



«CON»>0'tON 
CN"Olp^OcOO 
©CNrUCNftaOCN© 



©cn^^n-co^io 
co'^o^cdcocdid© 



©n-ioiOio©oocn 

o> a »o <-" ^ co ci co 

Hf 01NX>ONCl 



ft CO 10 to 



NCNOSNNf CON 

OS O Ol N 10 «o - iCO 
COOCOCO^NOl^ 



co«c»o t-iO-^N 



.2 i2 



a) 3 



J — 

3X) « — -a 

o-f^§ 
2 0.3 co a 

^oj ° wis"; 
s.S.Sf-'-uiS »- S S; ■ 



w* 



h*0 a] 

a S-a 



00 00 

00 



•o 00 
co 3 

co 00 



— iPJtttO 



t^OOi-c CO 
CO^-H IM 

■<# CN r- 



So8oo2 

CD COM* 
N i-T 



T»< e>» Tj< ■* 

•*co"t^i-i 



oreoH 

OtOrH 

OMOO 



OCOO-H 



C0»O CN —I 
■>J>COCN 



•O — iNO 

00 -H — i O 



8S2 

o"-HCN 



: 3 

^13 

c.a 

5 c 
3*13 

3 3 



Jill 

p 2S"2 fcl 

C fl O w 

03 co a a 

. 5!»iO 

CD- 03 

t. .3 C *^ S 

1 y ^** 3 *j ^u 



.-ojp ''d'O eO d aj ^~ 
3§»aSs a c.2igi. - 



* 



.2 -2 



1 i a « 

bt£ a i. • cu 



2° 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



307 



38 



do 






oo a 

do 



tboo 



tc II r~ 

si N 



£s 



r~ m co 

-i si 



Sf~ 



onr» 
r- — leg 



snap 

« CN5N 

odd 



•o-^oo 
d ■* CN 



coon 

-; -; d 



IOCS CN 

■o — 1 oo 

t^ OS 00 



g 

E 

o 5 — 
O oo W 



■2-s * 



!(flOO 



308 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



e 
S 

5! 



"oo-Q 

is 



s « 



OQ 



03 
< 






■ ■•-» "3 



1 22 a 






HO ONNlOHflOOOHni-M ^<t- 

cn ■«? oco^oaJwoic^owi^^ o<p 
con iNrt-H-H h h rt rf « « M cn N 



OCT lONINOHOOOOiO-i. 



IOShjc 
'HHCOOC 



»0 CO CO »0 



o«s tt ooooncooaw ©a> 






N t»00«»OC)iCOt£)««'H ^>co 

*oco »OTj^t^ tncoofo co"coco »o*o 



NCO CON 



ON 

S3 



NVOCJMClTfOOOliOOM 
N^COCOOS-HOioO^^NiO 



oco 
r^ co 



IHC( NnnHflBH «M 



toco 

00>S OGN 



_. Nco — < r~ ao co co co ■* 

lOClqjtC-HCOOJQ'tNOtD 
■|C1«)OC<«1MO 

hicoT co© 






32 „ 

q o cm 

gn a 




o»2 



1-35 



MOO »C CO CO 00 ^H CM CN ON CO t- © 

cn cd dcc^NNHd-- < co oo' w? oo 



) 00 O GO O 00 O OO 00 O t~- O0 O0 



N^M^^Hnotooja QQco 
Oj»oo6mNOi'H'«t>oNao»o cm cm 
cm cm t- o ao cn t*- ft oo cd on co oco 



co^co^h ^raor- cm ^ 



3 t^»o 



^r N^<P»Ot>'t»iHN^«OJ—P CN C 



OOQOCDO^OCOCNCXOQCOCN 



3 «5 co co *o a> oo 
co^ 



cm cm co : 



22 



^•ti cn 



SO O CO »C 00 CO "5 CN CN t- "■*■ 00 O COW 

Q 00 00 f "& CM GO 'S 1 CO •£? CO * OS COO 

COO 00«-»CO*OCO^O-^00^'0 COO 

S*o « Cjffl ^*CO* ^Th «iC 0*h 0**0 

•^ CO CO O CO fH -h ^ »0 ^ Q CO O -^ »0 

0000 N«CCOacC000000(DOTfN -^^ 

cmco" ©odadr^iNtrrodNi-roo'co oi"-^* 

CD CM -* CN CN -^ 

-h <* CM ^h 00 00 CM ^h CM 00 t^ I s - Q CM OO 

coo oo o as oo *o r— co o co co o cm »o <■" 

*0O HNiOO-HCONfl^Tj" O.CN CM 

oo"' cm* r-~c?co""t*"o a? *&** -too^h ao"o 

COCO N^rtH ^tj» O >— i CO t"*- CO "£ CO 

CO CM rp COCO *0 



,-, ^ ^h CM CO i-< ^-< r-< rH CN i-i t- CO iH 



,-, _, ,-t cM CO — * "-" t-H *-" CM iH t-- CO i"H 



3.9 

"9 2. 

o o* 



o.-- sec ^j 

"i^ a ^ c , 
2«feS^ 



Oau. o 
o « i 



3 > 
3« 



cxt? 



» a M a o S g >-- S S.2 S - 

■eg g S-g S-2 § o«-s « 3£ cx.s 
2 S£o£S 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



309 



a> OS 
n ® 



■3 o»-3 

n v ° O 



3 d- 
£0 



Ph8' 



§?3 
jaJaS 



lS ® ° o 



3~- 



& w '-' O 

HO iS 



too 



&s 



MNam 
10 <* 55 bi 
<oo-a 



fH -IO 



r-t i-« W ^« Tf C* 






HONn«eo 00 



■OCO>8iO<N 5 J<C-« 



3§2§ 



t-©*^ ago 

COCO *C OOO 

CNaTco" *o f-T eo<-<" 



NNHkOHOrt -H^ 



CO 00 « "*« t- »0 © CN t-. OS t-t © OOTf 

—< _H — < -H t , -M ?S rH ^H i-H »H ,-H 



CO ^< C* -^ O O OC OS OS «# o» CO CD »-H 



h» 1-1 »OCO ^ CO 



dO*-*t*<DiQ<DO*<£t^O>*&t 



CM .-• CN 



00 OS 

00N 



COCOO^OSOCOOOOOOcO 
COcDcOW5CO»Oo6^'i0^cd*0 



co o3 



cpt-gs^»--©-^p<Ncoo3i 

OSCOCNOasOSCOCNOOCCCNC 
CO »0 •-' — ' CN -<*• Os OS CN C 



R8 

00 CO 



20 



•^ ^ Nioaoo>^aioccoocM« ct» 



o»Oi-»roiaoro»0'3'roocp 

U3t^tO'-<^HiJ*C^tD^^O53DC0 

■o* co* in" ei** 



&~ M^JO 



■ •"o a! 

St3 — 



3 »• 



llal 



;j3S| 



.3 SB'S 
o 0.1. o 

O 03 J- 

c§G« 












rOlc<J«13£ 6£.2 

E-5-2-- S--.2*fl 



Si3o*3?aE--roa CJ 






310 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



8 

e 

© 
8 

*> 8 



8-o 



BQ 



a «s 
o o 



a a 
o o 



SO be 



a a 

o o 



"2 = 



c ce 

»*; 

o o 



£2. w 

SO b£ 

2o 




«2« 

.C-C be 

B2.2 



*" — S< 



3^° goo 



tOcCrr CO 

oo'tswoi 



MQGW 

ccStooo 

O* CO CO r~* 



BOON 

ci com >ra 



»oo«io 



CO CO CO CO 



s: «.-"■< 



dS82* 



I4 t- L. Qj & 



Siflfl o — 



•a o o a § 3 o 

i O 3 3 3 

I 3 ■OXJ'O 

'"©©©ggg 

i « — N 25 ih o) 55 



a-2 



!r a — .2 

£s ° 



afeoB 



si ; 



53 



§2© 






3feofl 



£X!S 



& o a 

OJ3 — 



fc-M 






C2b 

CO qj o 



fig' 



te h — 3 



z° 



E~ 



CO OS CO 00 

rj *o t- <d 



COOOON 



■*S< OS t— OS 



CO 1— . lO -s* 
^ CO ^ 00 

rHi-H«Opr 



00 <M OS OS 



MC00O 
CC 00 Q O0 

lOcTr-^co"" 



CO H«00 
«5 -^ tJ- CO 

»ooo*"r-*Tjr 



O ^ CN CS CN 



•ROCOCO 

co" ic c4 co* 



coooo 

co'o'oi'or 

^H CN rH« 



ooooo 



00 tP iO -^ 



Hr-IHM 



IC C_ OS t- 

oiooo* 



'Sis'"' 5 
i^5^ a a > 

3§§§3Do 

' a a a as as as 

03 c3 0J_ oo 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



311 



o 5 



mot 

JO (ii.i.u,!,; 



(000) 
ppq saxeqg 



IBJOJ 

jo ^aaojaj 



sStnpioq 
jo iaqmtiM 



1*10} 

jo juaoaaj 



(000) 
ppq sajcqg 



[BJOJ 

jo jasoiaj 



sanippq 
jo jaqtnnjsl 



jo jaaojaj 



(000) 
ppq saJBqs 



[B50J 

jo jaaojaj 



s3atp[oq 
jo jaqmnisl 



IBJOJ 
JO 5U3DJ3J; 



(000) 
P[aq saieqg 



IBJOJ 

jo jnaojad 



sgaipjoq 
jo jaquinfvf 



pjjoj 

JO JU3DJ3J 



(000) 
ppq s3JBqs 



18J0J 

jo jnoojaj 



s3nipioq 
jo jaqtunK 



(000$) 3nipaB}Sino 
sajsqs jo arqcA ja^JBj^ 



anipuBjsjno sajeqs 



s3tnpioqojBqs jo laqninM 



sanssi jo jaqmnx 



snoijB-iodjoo jo jaqnmx 



E5 

a" 3 

B 

I 

< 






8*4! 

rfrf S! 



«of 



-H CN — < —I 



SOOiN 



f— rf 05 OS 
ION — f< 

r~r~oooo 



tOtDOJO 



co -^ »o 
Ooooooi 



oo.-oo o 

Vt; CN CO 



— c IN "51 



"^ 00 ~H ^t 

HH CN4N 

tCOOJO 

01 ~ t^ ^J* 

csoo 



■ * 



iOO"OTO 
CN — CM 03 

OOON 

as" eo — cm" 

t~ r-> Q? CO 



t^cgCM ~ 
CM*cc»o"r^." 



CN — 3-U5 



.88 : 

i_ i_ o o o-c-a 3 _ 

_- .£ ~ T3 13 ccj CO 

.•o'S c c o a 3 o 'S 
S-o-o'H'2'2 8 § 2 



,_ o = ~ C ( 



1 B 



312 



CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 






.52 « 

d O bo 

BfJ 



. o-- 

u .. 03 
a> tf -*^ 

Ph ° 



i 2 I 



Sg° 



CM^cocicocscoco^CMCM* 



■I 1 ^ <C 00 h- M H H iO ■* >0 

•hOxom co^*o ^h co -^ cm 



HNecwccN. 



omoooqo<ononoo 
^wcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm 



NNOCC^iONWOOOOr- 

©COiOiOCOtPoQtPiOOSCO 



i-<OSTr 1 H«CMTPCMl-"-OS*OcO 
»OcOaOCMf~COiO^HCMi-i 






t^OOiONCIHHOHOOO 

cocM^eocococococo^Tri 



SO bfi 

£o 



"So g fl, 
cj JE! □ c 



cOOSCOCO.-icOOSOsr>-'H*»0 
OscoOSOSCMcOcOiC-iCM© 
NNCOO«DCO«OOJN(0^ 



> lO rH pH IC rH ^H ft Tf Tf 



JQiCOOiflNH 

■ *OCO«OOSCOf*cD^ 

co ic cm" rt~ co co coco* os" os" 

CM i-h CO "<* — » 



« 5 



u, . an 

a> oj a 

652 



55.2. 



§8 



>-<*<CMCM-*T*cO*a©t^-»0-*j< 

)«»CcDNtJ«MN01»00 
)0<NOMOir-cO--iO>cO 



rHto^oa>»ooO'*coo>oo 

OOOCOI^rH^CO I-H 



oO!ooaiHcco)r-.QaiN 
HN^o)rto<o>oo5o'0 



'SSSSSSS ^ 50 






■ 0) 



i aj 



> oi cX cS os e» § o 
,«»«» oooooo-Sos 






-So 



CO t"» ^< ^ ^ >o *c 



ph H -h iO N (D O) 
CM O CO CM cm co r- 



)00CSCDO»H 



CO 


00 CO <© CO lO-^ 


Per- 
cent 
of 

total 


w CO <N CO COCO CM 

© 



zss- 



■BjsB 



s°2a 



|2< 



tn.^ 03 



i^2! 

3 5 61 



£8 






ph m io a. to ^ « 

r-t O CM 00 CO Oi "5 

oo co «-» ■<** oo co 



,_CM ^H ~ ^H 



fNOOMOlHN 
iO CO <-J Tr" ^ CM CM 



rH C5 tH Q <P W «P 

^00(C003 01CO 

<m ^ o> oo ce os os 



*>• OS GO i— CO OS 



O CO CO -H ^H OS OS 



cxNcoseooc 

©OS ^KOIN C 

-as toe" " 

*"od»o cb h* 



CM TT CO *C W3 0C CO 
00 C* iC CO CO *6 *0 



io oo co oo co © t-^ 

r-( iCtO^ CM ec rH 
CM* Tf" go iC CO*" "^ 



' CO 00 ^T CO CO ^H 



H CM »C CO CO Tf O 

lOQO»OH^«fO 

HioM^oao 



CO CO i-i t^ oo »o 



CO CO 00 »C OS CO i-H 

w n « «i »o t»; ^i 

CM 1— ^H ^H .— ,-♦ 



O 00 CO -"** OO CO OS 
CO iO i— ' .— < IQ OS CO 

CO O CO CO CO ^ o 

odcoo'cico'H 

hCNhhh 



CO CO-**- CM iCiO ^ 
CM CM* 00 ^h O O O 



Ofl CO 

2 o;g 



£2* 



S8' 



a,S w 3 



£o 



SCO 
OS 

e~ 

Oco 

© ej 

8 9 
-0 



S* 



00 OS Tf t^ Tf CO ( 



rH »C CM OS *0 Tf t^- 

CO CO 00 iO [s- lO 



COM ©CMOS ©CO 
OS to »o oi CM cm' CD 



^H CM OO OS TT OS H* 
t^ CO OS OS GO OS CO 

CM t^. »o OS CM r*» CO 

CO* CM*" iC ©CO 00 



CM CM »C 00 CO i-i © 

CO »0 t^' «-* © CM t*" 

CO CO CM CO CO CO CM 



> CO i-h r- Tt» 00 



"*"* _. _ o o o o 

V, O O -*-a *J -W +J 

<£ *^ w ©©©© 
i— ( «© «e </* *ft *e «/? 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



313 



« — i « 



nfinx tN 



<o — <e t •-> 



O O ii 08 



gS? 



8822 



CO 03 
. O 

Q8 






ss 



e- 



s « 

O-S 



>S .2 



CO 



3© ^ 



lt)JO} 

jo inaoaaj 



(000) 
p[9q s9JBqs 



jo jueojaj 



sdaipiuq 
jo jgqtmi^i 



imoi 
jo icaoJSd 



cn ■<*■ tj" e* id co 



"Otocia^' 



OO OO >0 CS UO ■»■ 
i-HIN -4 cn -H 



oconcifHcc 



00 00 00 oo os r~ 

00 **" CO OS r- OS 



(000) 
piaq sgjBqs 



IBJO? 
JO }U90i9d 



sinipjoq 
jo J9qu:nN 



JO JU90J9J 



(000) 
pjgq sajcqs 



IB40J 
JO 1U80J8J 



sauipioq 
jo JaqninN 



IBJO} 
JO ?U90J8d 



(000) 
ppq saJBqs 



IBJO? 
JO 1U30J9,! 



sSuipipq 
jo jaqtunN 



IBJ01 
JO JU90J9J 



(000) 
piaq seaeqs 



IB^Ol 
JO 1U90J9J 



s3nipioq 
jo aaquitiK 



(0004) ampuBisjno 
sojuqs jo an|B.\ }93(jej/v 



3uipaBlsjno S9JBqs 



s3m 
-pioq9JBqs jo J9qnniN 



sgnssi jo J9qrariN 



%%'< 



Si o . 



~ O© C* 00 C 

«CQ-NC 

c5 1^ oc«oc 



-*« r— oc oo eg co 
co" uit^ooccod 



Tfnoo»cN 



S*0 QO t^OS 00 
NhNNOJ 



oo cd »o t* "* ad 



■x -■ r tc io •-* 

OS "K Os OS 00 ^* 






-* cc co CO CN CO 
tT CO cc -*"cs TP 



I -rj ■ 



oo —<oc o x r- 
os tp t- co co *o 

0' > CONOJ'»CCO* 



^h to as e>i co — < 



25 (N OC CN CO iff* 

co r>- 25 co to a* 



to co «— t tN co r*- 

iC CO CO »0 CM CO 



CO CO CO ~h id N 

■h -xj- r-^ *h os as 



w »o OS 00 00 00 



r^ ©r^ *o cn »o 

CC 00 QO 00 OS 00 



cn coco ~-< e* "2 

SSSsSSS 



Os co CD t^- ~* Os 



ti> OOO 



t~X CM— • > 

CO co wo -^ ' 



88 s 5 8 i 8 

■Si 55 co •«■ * co 



rt t^OOt^OTf 



to io »c 



CO CC o 
CS O CO 



IOOJ»C 



•*J< OS t~ 

e4 co>ri 

CO »C ~* 



fi S <2 
So oc 2; 

o-^'co 



IB to -r 
^ £ ?! 
co'oo'trf 






as > 



) as os o* 
' "" o o o o o © 



»oo-"- CO 



8-3 
c w 



So 

"SJb" 



314 
I 



s 
rffi 



s 
a 




s? 


CO 


f 




o 


hS 


3 




< 


o> 


!? 






a 


a 




~c 




IB 


CO 


"a 



-* ©• 

00 .© 

s I 



e 



o- 



u 

n 

< 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



SIS 



■oai 






2 = 



£g° 






• co •d«o>o> *omcO 






t>- o i »o o tTOOO ^ co 



rt i — .-! cocococ 



«0 i^iO^'HOSNON 

* > A co a> co co r- r- o 
.ooB'^Oi-iO'f 



HCO OCO f~ co 



>-HC0''1'OC0r*OO I CO 
O O ' ' •-! r4 CO *H J I ri 



>00O^H»A»Qr~a0 

SSeooJcqrHQOM 

HrtiOMMO 



(SSI 



55 s 



* ° 5 a ' r 



o.g 
co-a 

C5^ 



oi cm' ! cm j> op cm cm' «d cm* co" 

CM > CN C^ CM CO CO CO CO CO 



<HNON I 



■ COiO CMrp ^hCMCO. - 

^lO CM OCT ©CM O lQ 
co oo »o co .-< t- cs. 

»o" Oi COO 00* SO CO 

CM CO CO CO 



iCMQOOSCO*OOSOS"<t< 

iCOOOOO^CM'O'^'CO 



O • ~* CO CO CO^CO c 

»m I ^h ^-Tco*co»ocm 



' co CO co *o co as 

ipJOOOO^OH 
, CM rt t-H *0 OS OS 



lOOH^N 



> cm i tP r>- r- cm co as cp cs 

«oo ' co oo ocas co © © 



COCM i iOcO-^00 



S23?3 



S g a 

g»10 

I - 



ZS 



O cp 

-1 



CM 00 . -r^cOC 



»0 ■— < i *C CO 



OiOMCO^NOi^ 



'COOS©CMCMCM©CM 

hSXOOJMCD 



t^ CM ■ «0 CM OS »0 *0 t^ CO h- 



OS OS OS g 
O O O C3 



■■ Jl 3> 'jl j^ •« ^ 
CS ■*£ OS OS 

.aco 



So o *? t! t! g; 
jgg ? 8S8Si 



s" e 









5 s 2 



S8' 



UI 



i US 00 CO Oi-« 

!oboor»S3 



92? 



iioo>-*'-'oo 



.-CIO 



. »o oo t- -a 1 «o 



OOOCOcp-H 

I , *r iO iO ec 






1 00 00 00 £• CO 



£2s 
2 «2 



^3 



S.8.S- 



Cm o i 



23 



iCON'O'OO* 



ON 



iO0—'(»O0C» 
! Til" M -M rt rH 



irt « 0)0000) 
" Sonn« 



U5 HNMOB 
> ' ' CO' CO CO t^ "5 



'2 ;2!§Sg?5 






5 s 2.S 



Mt§°2 



£8°S 



^S^™ 



£8 



1^3 



OS O i t^ CD OO CO 

rA id i co co c-i co i-< 



HO i lO CO 



. _ co aod 



io ihooco«o 
> ' i co »c d co co 



co'^od 



^4 ic ' o* d co co' o 



00> ■ -l« 09 TCO 

■^< .coco oo«o ■* 
, oco »o O 00 






550 



tJ^co*5-HCO*d'-HCO"0'-^ 



"S 3 



5 iJ 
.0 o 



f-« t^. ■ 1^- h- CO OS ^ 

< 00 X « O "3 



CO CO ' CM O CO Tf CO 
^00 ' CM O CO O i-i 
r-( CM 1 COCO COCO CO 



CO <-< 1 M* CO CO CM » 

os « r- oc co co - 



1 i-t co co *o os 



03 -^ OS C. 

W—.— k— .0000 

«8g8°.'°. .d 

iMrtMiOMIN'OH 



o& -*r co 

SS3 


a 




40,791 
61, 620 
58,363 

352, 929 


NNN 


CN 




(O 

8 


15.3 
14.0 
12.3 

12.3 


S8"- 


to 

r~ 
O 

pi" 

00 


00 0,00 


o 


8,167 
9,598 
8,047 


o 

s 

CO 


-* t* to 

r^ tb*ri 




ge too 
5 * ™ 


•o 

to- 
rn 


— e» o 


e» 


10, 787 
13, 139 
10,091 


SB 

8 

oT 


CO CO — 


00 
CO 


IO OC X 

cn »c ca 

8 ci ?3 


»o 
a> 


oiod 


O 


m x c* 

» — O 


s 


tO •»'V 


■a 




to toe* 

3S?3 


«5 
to 


^•>0 « 

888 


d 


»~ 1- Q 

8S? 


o 

ro 

V 
— 
CM 


ii 

_ : 


3 

8" 


3 

c 

E- 





T3 
^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



jo lueojaj 



U 07 

£3 

e a 

90 § 

•<*> 00 

u v. 

■2 8 

CO 2 

s *■ 






05 



(000) 

p[9q saJBqs 



|B}05 
JO )U.uj,',i 



sSmpioq 
jo jaqtnn>j 



reioj 
jo inaojaj 



(000) 
pjaq sareqs 



psioj 
jo laaojaj 



saaipioq 
jo jaqarriN 



IBjo^ 

JO JU90J8J 



(000) 
pieq sareqg 



JO ?a90J8<J 



s3nip[oq 
jo jaqnm>i 



IBjo; 

JO ;U90J8J 



(000) 
ppq sai«qs 



jo ^uaojad 



sSnipjoq 
jo jaqnin>j 



jo jnaojaj 



'000) 
ppq sajeqs 



jo jaaojaj 



sSaipfoq 
jo jaqamx 



(000$) SuipuBjsjno 
sajeqs jo 8n[BA ja^-rejv 



3aipnBisino sareqg 



s3ai 
-pioqaiBqs jo jaqtnnM 



sanssi jo jaqmriN 



iSS 



'CO ~ CO 



CONNKh 



2 38S2 



OW^OOC* 

■^ 1^ to »o e*i 

CO rt r* ^ rt 



O 00 O >0 ~H 
-*NOXO> 

c-a>^oo© 



•^ o»n c* »o 



00O6 -<«0 TT 

uiicNtctd 



t^ CO ~- -"T OO 

•>»• to 00 cn a> 
tNco"© 



U3 CO CP -^r~ 



)Ca-N 



•t^com 
>Sco 



^»» ^H CO tO t*. 
^* t^ Q t>-' a> 



.:' ?-. cS : 

ho>5i 



^ r-* 00 00 -^ 



t-OCNI^CO 

COCO OC4 06 



o> — c» a> cn 



tDCS-NN 






-- o cc CO -^ 
i-T^— *oi*ao"c4 



•itDOil'Tf' 



>C*CO CJ c^ 

> "2 ac cc c 

) O t- N iC 



05 uo »c r- cc 
co »o co o 00 

CO T O O 
^-iCNOCO 



cmcc <-« ^ -* 

CO «j OS CD »C 
Oi-fl' — CO cN 



r- '.o C C: x 



oc — 01 as w 



• "O X 1 - c 

• 1^ O CO CO 

■VMO 



CC O ^- tft CO 



»»S55a 

5 5 3(3 • - .o'«o'q*8 

^-^-cN*S^-C^iO — CN t5 — 



315 



316 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



© 

8 s 

e 
s 2 s 

*.§ 

<» *> 



"S. 






60 <U 






ESQ 










v, 


-r CD 


NO^«C«KOON 


X 








u °*c3 


CM CO 


M>OMt« COfO CO 


CN 


















cmS2 












° 












co*o — ^©t^-coco 

t^O'VCOOCDCO 
iC^t^^CO — OCM 






CO 


£2o 




3 


a 


£ 


.331 




i— i ^MiOM--i 


00 


3 


S3 










o 












11 


CM 
O 










^■3 


C "7 


0*OCMt^THCOiC--H 

OHpNpjiCiOH 
CMCOCMCMCMCMCMCM 


00 

S3 


•a 


-c 


a, 9 ° 


H ^ 


3 

S3 




o 






















32 CO 

sou 

S-3 a 


t-O0 


cCuOOi^OSCOCOcD 














a 






0><-HCO*0-»*a>ai'"#' 


o 




1-i CM 


Oil— tcO*CCOCMOSiO 




00 

■a 




£o'~ 




t-COCOt-OOQQ — cc 


00 

o 


a 

08 
















CO CO 


30ioosr-cococo-<* 


" 


be 

a 
"3 




Ui ^ C3 

o 




H-HHWHHF4 


"" 














S3 






00 CM 


Tt*OsCoCOCOi— iCTl^O 


CO 






CO 

22S 








03 






oo — coooaocot^co 


00 


S3 


55 


■CcS 
CO 




— CM — 


O0 




£1 

CO 


















J2 


o 




1^ rf< 


HION--OONM 


tf? 





o 




iO tT 


OOJOCMCMCMOiCM 


CO 


z 


co*o 


^CM^TTCOCOCMCO 


CO 




CO O 


r-- os *o ^ — Oiccco 


t^ 






la« 












r- r-» 


TfHTj.NC*«00 


oc 






d O M 






CO 








CDWt-Tf"iC«C»OJ5 




















fco 






— 




■ 






^ 




"31 all 


o*c 
















CM 




CN 


CO 00 iO CO — OS Oi Oi 












3 S ca5^ 




— 00**0 t*^ 


Os" 




■£ ho 


©CO 


xaoiT-«N*--ic 


OS 

1^ 




005 


^O10r-Ml0^"l0 






§1 

51 


OOl 


OOt^OSCOCMCOCOCM 


8 




Tjir- 


Oi-hi^oooooo-^oo 


t-~ 




oq 


















O CO 




CO0Q*OCOt--t^-CO*O 


— 




tOOS 






3 » a 

sji 


iCOO — CMCM*0— -CO 








o od ©""co* ■*" o> co o 


to 


















z" £ 














^ 




, _ 


i-t CM 




*o 














§i-3 










£JJ 










to 


















3 


















.2 


















k* 


















ft 


















M 


















.9 


















-o 




































o 


















A 


















o 




































CO 


















A 






















































03 




































S 


















t> 


















B 




































O 




































3 

-a 








; gg1 








> 

cu 


^gs 


s§g 




"3 




M 




IWC4C^«^ OOOCd 






is 


goc 


oooo* J * J * J g 


H 




2 


§2£ 




















€* 


M>« 


► 6©-a">V= 


** 


&**/$</* 










at 1° 2 



a°2 

*ZJ0S3 



5 2.9 






^2-3-= 



a-S 



I 22 a 
5* 29 



zzz- 



f? « ° o 



:2° 

C3 <p p 

S3 .eP. 



£S°3 



gj3 a 



2 5 



•ai 

03*5 



-cOOOOiO 



i eo -«er i*-i <o c» 
■ CM""co"crrco""»o" 



.-•CMCMi-<C» 



' CO t~ CD -^ t* 



■ »C i-i CM CO CO 



iNNN>00 



. CM ^-.^t. 



CM CO 
COOi 



NO^ClOl 
i CD* m' *o C£> 



'CO CD — coco 

■ iO Tf t»« CD •**■ 

■ CM iO — CD CD 



- coat GO l^-CO 



' o o r* t^ >»* 
i i—i c» — < h co 
' CO CO CO i— I CO 



COCO 
CM ^O 



'iO 00 — CM CM 

' a" — cc t^ o 



CO CC Oi CO CD 
' M* »C CO ^- CM 

HOlCOTf 

1 CO*" — ^* ^ CM 
■ CO i-i — CM CO 



'00O>OON 

■ *o eo co* r>" t»J 



cooc — rr ^o 

I — X 'TOCO 
;CD — TP tP CM 

i i-T— co*«5* co" 



CM CD 
CO — 



COMOTT^i 



s^i 



iO *C CM OS CO 
1 — CM iO CO O 



|§Sgg£ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



317 



r~ ■ooc 



— COCO 

.: — _z 

CNcC 35 



CNCO"5 

t-^cdcN 



co" — ' *jz 



88 ' 



« — ■ 

»c co 5 

0C 35 '. 



■«• — co 
oct^c, 

©"«r<c 



Nl-N 

Si* 



Co 



o o a 



O 05 
If 

Is. 

8 2 
■Sis 

00 05 

CO 

05 O* 

K 3 



a 




> 


05 S 


e <o 


■C 


2^ 




© Si 


§2 


js -o 




£-« 


u. m 













<jj CD 




ttS 




"■* 


^5 


a j* 




a£ 




3 O 


iO 


"O v 


lO 


3-S 


w 


ffl g 


-1 




« 


1 


3 




H 







11310} 


CO 








Oi t^ Oi I s " O OT 


t- 






o 
c 


JO 1U90J9J 


?i 






Tj*corti ^ co «5 


& ' 


(000) 


8 






i-h Q -- CO 00 OQ 

m to cc os r^ in 


(35 

O 






PI9i4 sajeqs 


oo 






»-• *C OSOS i-H 
c>* ^T r-. 


ri 




«o 














moi 


o 






CO fH ^S ^H CO « 


^ 




s 


JO JU93J9J 




















NOCONOOJ 






O 


s2atpioq 
jo jeqainN 


* 






OU CO I~- ^h |-» ^« 
^h ^ OS 


(35 
CO 




lejoj 


X 






o^ortcoi 


" 




cd 
E 
03 

CO 


JO JU90J9,! 


od 






CO CO to — * ■-- CO 


<# 


(000) 


n 






— -T ""- "M co j; 
CC CO Q "0 — ' O 
•* Tf CD >OlN M 


S 

00 




g 


pieq S9JBqs 


« 






^ CN ^h" 




a. 


>o 












CO 


mo% 


-r 






CO »0 OB ^*" "^ OB 


1^. 


o 

E 

M 

>> 


o 

8 


JO }U90J9«I 








""' 




sSuipioq 


CO 

3 






^ojor-cotj. 






-H 


jo jeqranM 


^ , 






tO"»0 Tji" 




2 

"o 


















H>W 


o 






©NONTfOl 


o 




JO JU90J9J 


oo 






*c ^J t>^ io t^ »d 


CO 










NiON^fOf O 




i 


A 


(000) 






O CC 5 1 CO O CO 

?5 1— occoo ^ 


r~ 


a 


§ 


Pl9q s.9JBqs 


e<f 






uo »o CO 


cc 


\no% 


(35 






CO CO " to CO ^h 


05 


co 

.a 


© 


JO JU90J9J 








rt rt ^^ 
















s 


s3nipioq 


Si 






os r* -^ oo »o r^ 

WNWhhm 


CO 


O 

,4 
cp 

b 


jo jgquitiN 


* 






t-OOiO 


KO 
(M 




ma 


CO 






CO O <-" OS CO to 


CN 


A 




JO la90J9<I 


8' 






s 




OONCD 
CN « -« rt 


CJi 




cr 






oo 


MOOO 


t^ 






(000) 














03 


o> 






oo -^ to i> as co 


o 


3 
& 

B 

a 




piaq S9i«qs 


o 






-rft^OO 


.3 


moi 


co 






COCOONOCOO 


CO 


£ 


O 


JO }a90J9<I 


rt 






OS ^C — CO *-« CO 


oa 




X 












© 


sSutpioq 


s 






^ io ^ to CO CO 


OS 






jp J9qamN 


8 






t^ooco 


CO 
CM 




I«10J 


m 






NCfiOCCNS 


>o 






JO JU90J9J | 


CO 






»c i> N ci <d *d 

- :i m ci . 


CN 
CN 




e 






fCOiCiCON 


3 




CD 


(000) 


3 






CO t** OS ^t» t^ f 
io t^os «o to CO 




as 


piaq s9JBqs 


,j 






icmoo 


CO- 




I 












00 04C35C75 


CD 

o 


[eWi 


- 






c: cn 




JO JC90J9<I 


00 






oocococ 
r-osaoosaooo 

CSNOiQNO 


00 




CN 














s 

S 
■* 












- 1 


s3uip[oq 






co co o r*- o os 


•# 






jo jaquinN 






CN tJ- CC O CC ^ 
»C CN CM 


»i5 














rt 


LN — 


CN 














t- ^ CO CO 








^5 






OCM — i CM CO O 
















00 


(0 


x*)a 


iiptmsino 


q? 






CM OS OS tO «-h OS 

CM CO CM CO' CO O 

OCM O CO 


r~ 


-.Ui: 


^S JO 


iqBA 593lJBJ^ 








00 














i— tO CM 


00 








m 






q t^ to co r* os 


CO 














ot^w^oo 






Sujpm 


ns^no S9icqg 


CO 
1- 






ONionic^ 

t- f* CD CO GO CM 
CO CM CM *-h i-n CN 


CO 
CO 








co 






1- — iO 


8 










5 






CM C» O O tO t^ 

cm os r** ^j« ^r os 

CM CO 00 tO CM tO 


CN 








3ui 


(35 






o 
















-pio 


^eieqs 


jo J9qninN 


i 






co -rf r- oco -h 

CO CO CO 


(35 
00 
















X«Oh 


CN 

CO 














^HCO^J 




sans 1 


n jo i9qaiiiN 














i 






























e 


M 






























a 






























| 














B> 












•° i 


I-. 










S;»< 








a 
p 


3) 


:««*«6«« o o o * 


CO 

1 







) W CD 


l233S32-«-E 


ir 




< 


1 5 




• 




- 


:l 


t 


5 


Is 

s 




S 




! 



QS 






a 




s 


u 


3 


- 


CD 




fS 






5* 


c 


8 


1 

3 






CD 

— 


i 


w 


-. 


C 


H 


H 


A 


a 


3 






7. 





318 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



e so 
«.-5 






P« 


a 


u 








% 


SQ 




k 


e 


<sj 


o-e 


| 


e 
s 



05 s> 

-K; CO 

ct> Oi 



*0 



BQ 







4* 


WOftOO 'O 


co 






da 


MNHH 1 


ci 






o o 






























Ph o 










2? 






















a 


co 


to | 


00 


3 


XI 








e 

bo 


CN 

o