(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]"


School of Law 
Library 



-AV9 VV^^;VV9W9V^ 



^^S oiL^f^^^^l SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT 
oa Session J 



INVESTIGATION OF CONCENTRATION 
OF ECONOMIC POWER 



TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC 
COMMITTEE 

A STUDY MADE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE SECURITIES 
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR THE TEMPORARY NA- 
TIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, 
THIRD SESSION, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 113 
(SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT- 
ING A SELECT COMMITTEE TO MAKE A FULL AND 
COMPLETE STUDY AND INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT 
TO THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER IN, 
AND FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER, PRODUC- 
TION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS 
AND SERVICES 



MONOGRAPH No. 50 -32 
SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 
1,710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 
ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 



Printed for the use of ihe 
Temporary National Economic Committee 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1941 



NORTHEASTERN iJNiVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW DPRARY 



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. KING, 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, Commissionei 

Representing the Securities and E.xchange 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 

JOSEPH J. O'CONNELL, Jr.. Special A.ssistant 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 CC 

DEWEY ANDERSON, Executive Secretary -- 



THEODORE J. KREPS, Economic Adviser 



MONOnRAPH No. 30 



SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1,710 CORPORATIONS WITH 
SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

BY 
HELENE QRANBY 
II 

REPRINTED 
BY 

WILLIAM S HEIN &. CO INC 

BUFFALO. N. Y 

1968 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

This monograph -was written 

by 

HELENE GRANBY . 

Research and Statistics Section, Trading and Exchange 
Division, Securities and Exchange Commission 

Under the general supervision of 

RAYMOND W. GOLDSMITH 

Assistant Director, and Chief of Research and Statistics Section, Trading 
and Exchange Division, Securities and Exchange Commission 

and 

REXFORD C. PARMELEE 

Research and Statistics Section, Trading and 
Exchange Division, Securities and Exchange Commission 

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

The status of 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 recommenda- 
tions, nor acceptance thereof in whole or in part by the merhbers of the 
Temporary National Economic Committee, individually or collectively. 
Sole and undivided responsibility for every statement in such testimony, 
reports, or monographs rests entirely upon the respective authors. 
(Signed) Joseph C. O'M^honey, _ 
Chairman, Temporary National Economic Committee. 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Washington, D. C, October 15, 1940. 
Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, 

Chairman of the Temporary National Economic Committee. 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. i 

Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Commission's representative on your 
committee in charge of this matter, I have the honor to transmit here- 
with a report on a "Survey of Shareholdings in 1,710 Corporations 
with Securities Listed on a National Securities Exchange," prepared 
for the Temporary National Economic Committee by the staff of the 
Research and Statistics Section of the Trading and Exchange Division 
of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

This report summarizes and discusses briefly data on the number 
of shareholdings in 1,710 corporations with securities listed on a 
national securities exchange and on the distribution of the total 
number of shareholdings by the estimated value and the size of indi- 
vidual holding. The report provides a background for the more 
detailed study of the distribution of stock ownership in the. 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations.^ Most of the material on which 
this report is based was obtained from a questionnaire addressed by 
the Commission on or about March 15, 1938, to companies with an 
issue of securities admitted to full trading privileges on a national 
securities exchange and, therefore, subject to registration under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Some preliminary results of the 
inquiry, which constituted a part of the regular research activities of 
the Commission, were presented in part II, section 3, of "Selected 
Statistics on Securities and on Exchange Markets," published in 
August 1939. The Commission has made some adjustments in the 
preparation of this body of material in order to coordinate the study 
with the program of the Temporary National Economic Committee 
and appreciates the opportunity for the inclusion of this survey in 
the statistical studies of the Committee. 

The main findings of the report, duly qualified in the text, are the 
following : 

1. The 1,710 corporations covered by the study which include 
financial and investment companies with securities listed on a national 
securities exchange had nearly 14,000,000 record shareholdings or 
about 55 percent of the shareholdings in all American corporations. 
Their total assets aggregated $103,000,000,000 or about 40 percent of 

1 Submitted as Monograph No. 29 of the Temporary National Economic Committee. The survey of the . 
shareholdings in the 1,710 corporations differs from the study of the distribution of shareholdings in the 200 
largest nonfinancial corporations in that information is presented only for groups of corporations arranged 
by industry, size, number of shareholdings, and other characteristics 'lut not for individual corporations. 
Because of the large number of issues covered, i'. was furthermore impracticable to study separately the 
holdings of officers and directors and of foreigners, or to make a separate analysis of the 20 largest share- 
holdings, as has been done in the report upon the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 



VI LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

the assets of all domestic corporations, except commercial banks and 
insurance companies which are practically unrepresented among the 
1,710 corporations. 

2. There were 1.584 common stock issues of these corporations 
which had a value of $35,500,000,000 representing 11,500,000 share- 
holdings and 797 preferred stock issues of these corporations which were 
valued at slightly over $6,500,000,000 and comprised about 2,500,000 
record shareholdings. 

3. The 2,381 common and preferred stock issues of these 1,710 
corporations covered by the report had a value at the end of 1937 of 
about $42,000,000,000 and were held by approximately 5,000,000 
shareholders. 

4. Of the 14,000,000 record shareholdings about 7,500,000, or 54 
percent had a value of $500 or less. These numerous holdings, how- 
ever, together accounted for slightly less than 5 percent of the total 
value of all outstanding shares of the 2,381 issues. About 2,000,000 
shareholdings had a value of $501 to $1,000, and about 3,000,000 
were valued from $1,001 to $5,000. These 5,000,000 shareholdings, 
representing about "37 percent of the total numJber, accounted for 
only slightly more 'than 20 percent of their aggregate value. Thus 
91 percent of the shareholdings accounted for only 26 percent of the 
value of all outstanding shares. There were about 1,000,000 share- 
holdings with a value of over $5,000 each, but they comprised about 

74 percent of the shares of the 2,381 issues as measured by their 
value. The largest 10 percent of shareholdings accounted for over 

75 percent of the value of all common shares and for about 70 percent 
of that of all preferred shares. 

5. The number of shareholdings per issue ranged up to 67,000 
among preferred stocks and 641,000 among common stocks. How- 
ever, a relatively small number of widely held issues accounted for a 
large proportion of the total shareholdings; thus 79 common stock 
issues with more than about 30,000 shareholdings each accounted for 
around 6,700,000 shareholdings, or 58 percent of the total while the 
54 preferred stock issues with, over 10,000 shareholdings each ac- 
counted for about 1,000,000 shareholdings or 44 percent of the total. 

6. The average value per common shareholding was about $3,100, 
and that of the average preferred shareholding about $2,900. How- 
ever, the average value per shareholding was $1,000 or less in nearly 
two-fifths of the common stock issues and in one-fourth of the pre- 
ferred stock issues. At the other extreme, almost one-fifth of both 
common and preferred stock issues had an average value per share- 
holding of over $5,000. Great variations existed in the average value 
per shareholding among major industries. 

7. About 82 percent of all common and 90 percent of all preferred 
shareholdings fell into the odd-lot category (less than 100 shares). 
However, despite the heavy numerical preponderance these odd-lot 
holdings accounted for only 15 percent of the value of all common 
stocks and about 28 percent of that of all preferred stocks of the 1,710 
corporations; There was considerable variation in the proportion of 
shares outstanding held in odd-lots by the major industry groups. 
Among common stock issues the proportions of odd-lot holdings and 
of the shares included in such holdings rose slightly but steadily, with 
an increase in the size of the issuing corporation. Among preferred 
stocks, the tendency was more moderate and less definite. In both 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL VH 

common and preferred stocks the proportion of odd-lot holdings tended 
to rise with an increase in the market price per share. 

8. The manufacturing companies accounted for abput 6,500,000 
shareholdings, worth about $26,000,000,000, or 47 percent of the num- 
ber of shareholdings covered in the report and 61 percent of their value. 
Electric, gas, and water utilities were second, with about 2,700,000 
shareholdings worth about $5,000,000,000, equivalent to 19 percent of 
the number of shareholdings but only 12 percent o^ their value. Share- 
holdings in railroad stocks numbered nearly 1,00 ,000 with a value of 
about $2,500,000,000; shareholdings in financial and investment com- 
panies were relatively more numerous or about 1,300,000, but they 
had a value of only a little over $1,000,000,000; conversely, communi- 
cation companies had less than 1,000,000 shareholdings, but these were 
valued at over $3,000,000,000. 

9. The proportion of shareholdings valued at $500 or less was con- 
siderably higher among common stocks than among preferred stocks, 
or 56 percent compared to 45 percent. Conversely, only 36 percent 
of the common shareholdings,' but 44 percent of the preferred share- 
holdings, fell in the $1,001 to $5,000 value class. Holdings with a 
value of over $5,000 represented 8 percent of all common sharehold- 
ings and about 11 percent of all preferred shareholdings. 

10. Among major industry groups the proportion of shareholdings 
with a value of $500 or less was highest among the common stocks in 
electric, gas, and water utilities (73.5 percent) and financial and invest- 
ment companies (77.5 percent) and lowest in communication com- 
panies (28.2 percent). It was relatively low also in manufacturing 
(49.2 percent) and merchandising companies (51.4 percent) and Rela- 
tively high in ra'ilroads (59,9 percent). Conversely, the proportion of 
holdings valued at over $10,000 was considerably above the average 
for communication companies. Among the preferred stocks, the pro- 
portion of shareholdings with a value of $500 or less was highest in 
the railroads (64.5 percent) and lowest in the manufacturing issues 
(33.4 percent). It was relatively high also for financial and invest- 
ment companies (57,4 percent) and electric, gas, and water utilities 
(48.6 percent). It was relatively low in merchandising (41.3 pei:cent) 
and communication issues (34.5 percent). 

The report was prepared by Helene Granby of the Research and 
Statistics Section, Trading and Exchange Division, of the Securities 
and Exchange Commission. 
Sincerely yours, 

Sumner T. Pike, Commissioner, 
Securities and Exchange Commission. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1,710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURI- 
TIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

Pag« 

Introduction , xvii 

CHAPTER I 

Scope of study and nature of data _ _ 1 

1. Scope of study 1 

2. Distribution of the 1,710 corporations by size of assets and industry 

of issuer - 2 

3. Distribution of the 2,381 common and preferred stock issues by 

listing status, asset size, and industry of issuer, and market price. 3 

4. Source and nature of shareholdings data __ 4 

CHAPTER II 

Number and value of shareholdings ^ __ 7 

1 . Aggregate number and value of shareholdings 7 

2. Distribution of issues by number of shareholdings and by value 12 

3. Average value per shareholding .' 13 

4. Proportion of odd-lot and fuU-lot shareholdings _ 15 

CHAPTER III 

The distribution of total shareholdings by estimated value of individual 

holding 19 

1. Method of computation 19 

2. Common versus preferred stock issues 20 

3. Differences among industrial groups 20 

4. Differences among issuers of various sizes 25 

5. Issues with different number of shareholdings . 27 

6. Issues with different market price per share 28 

7. Issues with different average value per shareholding 28 

8. Issues of different listing status .-_ 28 

CHAPTER IV 

The distribution of total shareholdings by size of individual holding 31 

Introduction 31 

1. Common versus preferred stock issues. .- 32 

2. Differences among industrial groups 33 

3. Differences among issuers of various sizes 34 

4. Other differences __- 34 



X TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER V 

Pago 

The comparative distribution of shareholdings in closely-held and widely- 

held common and preferred stock issues 37 

Introduction 37 

1. Comparison of closely-held and widely-held common stock issues 

in terms of aggregate number and value of sharfeholdings. 38 

(o) Differences in listing status 38 

(6) Differences among industrial groups 38 

(c) Differences among issuers of various sizes ' 40 

(d) Issues with different number of shareholdings 40 

(e) Issues with different market price per share 41 

(/) Issues with different average value per shareholding 41 

(g) Differences in the proportion of odd-lot holdings 42 

■ 2. Comparative distribution of shareholdings in closely-held and 
widely-held common stock issues by estimated value of indi- 
vidual holding 42 

(a) The over-all picture 42 

(b) Differences among industrial groups , — 42 

(c) Other differences 44 

3. Comparative distribution of shareholdings in closely-held and 

widely-held common stock issues by size of individual holding. 44 

(a) The over-all picture 44 

(6) Differences in distribution by various characteristics 46 

4. Comparative distribution of shareholdings in closely-held and 

widely-held preferred stock issues . 45 

CHAPTER VI 

Concentration of stock ownership in the 1,710 corporations — 47 

Introduction 47 

1. The measurement of concentration • — 47 

2. Concentration in common versus preferred stock issues 50 

3. Concentration in issues of different industries 54 

4. Concentration in issues of companies of different size 54 



TABLE OF CHARTS 



SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1,710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECU- 
RITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

Page 
I, Number and value of shareholdings in 1,710 corporations with secu- 
rities listed on a national securities exchange — classified by major 
industries 8 

II. Distribution of number and value of shareholdings in 1,710 corpo- 
rations with securities listed on a national securities exchange — 
classified by major industries 9 

III. Estimated distribution by value of shareholdings of common and 

preferred stock of 1,710 corporations with securities listed on a 
national securities exchange 21 

IV. Estimated distribution by value of shareholdings of common and 

preferred stock of 1,710 corporations with securities listed on a 

national securities exchange — classified by major industries 23 

V. Estimated distribution by value of shareholdings of common and 
preferred stock of 1,710 corporations with securities listed on a 
national securities exchange — classified by asset size of issuer 26 

VI. Distribution of number and value of common shareholdings in 
1,5'72 corporations with securities listed on a national securities 

exchange — classified by major industries :. 39 

VII. Estimated distribution by value of shareholdings of common stock 
of 1,572 corporations with securities listed on a national securities 

exchange 43 

VIII. Concentration of ownership of the stock of 1,710 corporations with 

securities listed on a national securities exchange 50 

IX. Concentration of ownership of 1,793 common and preferred stock 
issues of 1,247 corporations with securities listed on a national 

securities exchange — classified by major industries 52 

X. Concentration of ownership of 2,170 §tock issues of 1,565 corpora- 
tions with securities listed on a national securities exchange — 
classified by asset size of issuer 53 

XI. Concentration of ownership of 1,138 common stock issues of 1,127 
corporations with securities listed on a national securities ex- 
change — classified by major industries 55 

XII. Concentration of ownership of 655 preferred stock issues of 530 cor- 
porations with securities listed on a national securities exchange — 
classified by major industries 56 

XIII. Concentration of ownership of 794 common- stock issues of 785 cor- 

porations with securities listed on a national securities exchange — 
classified by minor industries 57 

XIV. Concentration of ownership of 472 preferred stock issues of 369 

corporations with securities listed on a national securities ex- 
change — classified by minor industries 58 

XV. Concentration of ownership of 2,170 stock issues of 1,565 corpora- 
tions with securities listed on a national securities exchange — 
classified by asset size of issuer- _ 59 

XI 



APPENDIX 

STATISTICAL TABLES FOR SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1,710 
CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SE- 
CURITIES EXCHANGE 

LIST OF TABLES 

RECORD SPABEHOLDINGS OP COMMON STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 
1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table Page 

1. Industries --. .__ 60-64 

2. Size of corporation ._, 65 

.3. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 

1937 66 

4. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 67 

5. The market value of average shareholding per issue. _ 68 

6. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1 934 69 

7. Record shareholdings of common stock within the period 1937-39 in 

1,572 corporations with securities listed on a national securities ex- 
change — Corporations classified by size and number of common 
shareholdings 70 

8. Distribution by value at December 31, 1937, of common stock issues 

of 1,572 corporations with securities listed on a national securities 
exchangi^ — classified by major industries . . 71 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 
IN 645 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECU- 
RITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

9. Industries : 72-76 

10. Size of corporation ._ 77 

11. Market price of preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 

1937- 78 

1 2. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 79 

13. The market value of average shareholding per issue 80 

14. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 81 

15. Record shareholdings of preferred stock within the period 1937-39 

in 645 corporations with securities listed on a national securities 
exchange — Corporations classified by size and number of preferred 
shareholdings • 82 

XII 



APPENDIX XIII 

Table Page 

16. Distribution by value at December 31, 1937, of preferred stock issues 

of 645 corporations with securities listed on a national securities 
exchange — classified by major industries 83 

17. Distribution of total assets of the 1,710 corporations by industries 84-85 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WIIHIN 
THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A 
NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — CLASSIFIED BY 

Table " 

18. Industries 86-89 

19. Size of corporation 90 

20. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 

1937 - . 91 

2 1 . Total number of record shareholdings per issue 92 

22. The market value of average shareholding per issue . j 93 

23.' Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 94 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK 
WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 645 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 
ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

24. Industries 95-98 

25. Size of corporation , 99 

26. Market price of preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 1937. 100 

27. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 101 

28. The market value of average shareholding per issue 102 

29. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1 934 103 

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN 
THE f'ERIOD 1937-39 IN 1,429 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A 
NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

30. Industries 104-113 

31. Size of corporation 114-115 

32. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31,' 

■ 1937.— 116-117 

33. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 118-119 

34. The market value of average shareholding per issue 120-121 

35. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 122 

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK WITHIN 
THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 595 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A 
NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED' BY 

Table 

36. Industries 123-131 

37. Size of corporation 132-133 

38. Market price of preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 

1937 134-135 

39. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 136-137 

40.- The market value of average shareholding per issue 138-139 

41. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 140-141 



XIV APPENDIX 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 
334 "closely-held" ISSUES OF THE 1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 
LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table Pag« 

42. Industries 142-145 

43. Size of corporation J 146 

44. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937_ 147 

45. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 148 

46. The market value of average shareholding per issue 149 

47. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 150 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 
1,250 "wIDELY-HELD" ISSUES OF THE 1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 
LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

48. Industries ^ 151-155 

49. Size of corporation i 156 

50. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937. 157 

5 1 . Total number of record shareholdings per issue 1 158 

52. The market value of average shareholding per issue 159 

53. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 160 

DISTRIBUTION BY VALUE AT DECEMBER 31, 1937, OF 334 "cLOSELY-HELd" 
COMMON. STOCK ISSUES OF THE' 1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 
LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

54. Major industries 161 

DISTRIBUTION BY VALUE AT DECEMBER 31, 1937, OF 1,250 "wIDELY-HELD" 
COMMON STOCK ISSUES OF THE 1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 
ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

55. Maj or industries 162 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHpLDINGS OF CQMMON STOCK WITHIN 
THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 334 "cLOSELY-HELD" ISSUES OF THE 1,572 "CORPORA- 

, TIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

56. Industries 163-165 

57. Size of corporation 166 

58. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937. 167 

59. Total number of record shareholdings per issue )68 

60. The "market value of average shareholding per issue 169 

-61. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 170 



APPENDIX KV 

VALITE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHABEHOLDING8 OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN 
THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 1,250 "wIDELY-HELD" ISSUES OF THE 1,572 CORPORA- 
TIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — 
CLASSIFIED BY 

Table Pag* 

62. Industries _ 171-174 

63. Size of corporation ^ 175 

64. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937. 176 

65. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 177 

66. The market value of average shareholdjing per issue 178 

67. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 179 

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN 
THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 316 "cLOSELY-HELD" ISSUES OF 1,429 CORPORATIONS 
WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — CLASSI- 
FIED BY 

Table 

68. Industries 180-187 

69. Size of corporation 188-189 

70. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 31, 1937. 190-191 

71. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 192-193 

72. The market value erf average shareholding per issue _.. 194-195 

73. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934... . 196 

SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN 
THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 1,126 "WIDELY-HE^D" ISSUES OF 1,429 CORPORATIONS 
WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSI- 
FIED BY 

Table 

74. Industries i 197-205 

75. Size of corporation 206-207 

76. Market price of common shares of corporations at December 3 1, 1 937. 208-209 

77. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 21 0-2 1 1 

78. The market value of average shareholding per issue 212-213 

79. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1 934 : :_ 214 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 
IN 86 "CLOSELY-HELD" ISSUES OF THE 645 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 
LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

80. Industries.. 215-217 

81. Size of corporation 218 

82. Marketpriceof preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 1937- . 219 

83. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 220 

84. The market value of average shareholding per issue 221 

^ 85. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 222 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 
IN 711 "widely-held" ISSUES OF THE 645 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 
LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

86. Industries 223-227 

87. Size of corporation.- ._. 228 



XVI APPENDIX 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OP PREFERRED STOCK 
WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 86 "cLOSELY-HELd" ISSUES OF THE 645 
CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE— CLASSIFIED BY 

Table Page 

88. Industries 229-230 

89. Size of corporation 231 

90. Marketpnc6of preferred shares of corporations at December 31, 1937. 232 

91. Total number of record shareholdings per issue 233 

92. The market value of average shareholding per issue 234 

93. Status under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 235 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OP RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK 
WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 711 "wIDELY-HELd" ISSUES OF THE 645 
CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

94. Industries 236-239 

95. Size of corporation , . , 240 

96. Estimated distribution by value of record shareholdings of common 

and preferred stock within the period 1937-39 in 1,710 corpora- 
tions with securities listed on a national securities exchange 241 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 
174 LARGE NONFINANCIAL COMPANIES AMONG THE 1,572 CORPORATIONS. 
WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A N.'i.TIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE — CLASSI- 
FIED BY 

Table 

97. Industries 242-243 

98. Size of corporation . 244 

RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF PREFERRED STOCK WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 
IN 123 LAI^GE NONFINANCIAL COMPANIES AMONG THE 645 CORPORATIONS 
WITH SEClfRITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSI- 
FIED BY 

Table 

99. Industries ^ 245-246 

100. Size of corporation - 247 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK 
WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 174 LARGE NONFINANCIAL COMPANIES 
AMONG THE 1,572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

101. Industries 248-249- 

102. Size of corporation 250 

VALUE DISTRIBUTION OP RECORD SHAREHOLDINGS OP PREFERRED STOCK 
WITHIN THE PERIOD 1937-39 IN 123 LARGE NONFINANCIAL COMPANIES AMONG 
THE 645 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURI- 
TIES EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED BY 

Table 

103. Industries... 251-252; 

104. Size of corporation 1 ■- 253^ 



SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1,710 CORPORATIONS 
WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE 

INTRODUCTION 

This survey of shiireholdings iii 1,710 corporations with securities 
hsted on a national securities exchange provides a background for, 
rather than a supplement to, the companion studj^ of stock ownership 
of the 200 hirgest nonfiuiincial corporations.^ It presents, in a broad 
sense, the composite pic I: are of which that segment embracing the 200 
corporations is the most important part. The basic material in this 
instance, however, is hmited to companies — financial as well as non- 
financial — with an issue of securities listed on . a national securities 
exchange, 2 and the discussion is confined to a summarization of the 
statistical data accumulated on the distribution by size of sharehold- 
ings of the common and preferred stocks of the 1,710 corporations 
covered. Because of the magnitude of the task involved, no attempt 
has been made to parallel the analysis in the study of the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations of holdings of officers and directors, foreign 
holdings or the 20 largest record shareholdings in each stock issue. 
Emphasis in this study of a larger number of corporations has been 
placed on stock ownersliip of the 1,710 corporations viewed for the 
most part as anonymous \mits. In consequence no reference is made 
to the extent of control b}^ various specific groups over individual cor- 
porations — a subject discussed in some detail in the report on the 
200 largest nonfinancial corporations. 

In order, however, to facilitate comparison of the two reports, a 
parallel method of presentation has been used in the analysis of the 
main statistical features of the two groups of corporations. The 
statistical discussion thus deals in chapter II with the total number 
and value of shareholdings in the 1,710 corporations as a whole and 
then in grqups classifif 1 by industry and size of issuer, type and price 
of issue, number of shareholdhigs, average value per shareholding, 
and listing status. This larger study permits a more comprehensive 
analysis of differences among corporations of various industries and 
dilTerent sizes. In chapter III emphasis is shifted to analysis of the 
distribution of these shareholdings by the estimated market value of 
each holding and in chapter IV to a classification according to the 
specific number of shares included in each holding. From these data 
certain conclusions can be drawn regarding variations in the degree of 

> "The Distribution of Ownership in the 200 Largest Nonfinancial Corporations." 

» Only 185 of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations covered in the earlier study fall into this category. 

The remaining 15 companies did not have any issue of securities listed on a national securities exchange. 

The unlisted stock issues co.Liod in this study represent corporations which have at least one issue oi 

securities fully listed on a national securities exchange. 
In tables 97 to 104 of the appendix, statistical aggregates are presented separately for those common and 

preferred stock issues of the 185 companies, among the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, which aro 

Included in this larger study. 

XVII 
2 72188— 41— Kg. 30 2 



XVIII INTRODUCTION 

concentration of ownership existing among different types and differ- 
ent groups of issues (ch. VI) .^ 

Except for a few particularly significant figures and charts, the 
mass of statistical data on winch the discussion is based has been 
concentrated in the appendix in. the form of 104 tables. 

' There are several differences between the various relationships indicated in this study of 1,710 com- 
panies and those suggested by the similar analysis of the 200 largest nonflnancial corporations. These 
diflerences are attributable for the most part to the fact that the 200 largest nonflnancial corporations had 
considerably different characteristics than the 1,710 corporations and, furthermore, constituted a more 
homogeneous group of companies. Assets in the case of the 200 largest nonflnancial corporations were 
unitprmly in excess of $60,000,000, the price per issue was on the average higher and the industrial cover 
age was less comprehensive. 



CHAPTER I 
SCOPE OF STUDY AND NATURE OF DATA 

1. SCOPE OF STUDY 

The 1,710 corporations covered in this study are represented by 
2,381 common and preferred stock issues. Only those issues of each 
company were included in wliich there was a significant public inter- 
est and for which a reasonable market price was obtainable within a 
limited period around December 31, 1937.^ The most important 
single group of issues excluded because of tliis limitation were the 
common and preferred stocks wholly owned by a single other corpora- 
tion or individual. A small additional number of issues was excluded 
for various other reasons, mainly incompleteness or inadequacy of 
the original data. Coverage finally was as follows: For 1,377 of the 
1,710 corporations all outstanding common and preferred stock issues 
are included. For an additional 195 companies data are presented 
for common shareholdings and, except for a few cases, for holdings of 
all outstanding preferred issues, other than those wholly owned or 
very closely held. For 138 corporations, complete data are presented 
for preferred shareholdings but none for the outstanding common 
stock issues, 96 of which -were entirely owned, for all^practical pur- 
poses, by a single individual, a privately owned company, or a 
publicly owned corporation (all biit 6 of which wer6 themselves 
covered in the study). Almost two-thirds of the common stock 
issues and about one-half of the preferred stock issues omitted because 
of ownership by a limited group were those of electric, gas, and water 
utilities, mostly operating companies wliich formed part of a holding 
company set-up. 

Around the end of 1937 there were almost 14,000,000 record share- 
holdings of the 2,381 common and preferred stock issues covered, 
which together comprised about 2,000,000,000 common and preferred 
shares with an estimated aggregate value of a little over $42,000,000,- 
000. Inclusion of those stock issues omitted would have increased the 
combined number of shareholdings by only one-half of 1 percent aiid 
the aggregate number of outstanding shares by a little over 5 percent. 
Judging by the type of issue excluded, one would seem warranted in 
assuming a small increase in total market value as well from this 
source. For all practical purposes, therefore, coverage of the out- 
standing issues of the 1,710 corporations is sufficiently comprehensive 
to warrant acceptance without important qualificatioiv of the con- 
clusions drawn. 

' In the study of the 200 largest nonflnancial corporations all outstanding common and preferred stock 
Issues of each of the corporations were included. In cases where a market price was unobtainable, book 
value was accepted as a substitute if reasonable; where book value was unusable, a somewhat arbitrnry 
value was assigned on the basis of the price of similar securities and c :irnings. This proo-dure was not 
idhered to in this study becau.se it was not feasible to value with accuracy the much larger number of such 
issues occurring here. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEH 



2. DISTRIBUTION OF THE 1,710 CORPORATIONS BY SIZE OF ASSETS AND 
INDUSTRY OF ISSUER 

Total assets of the 1,710 cDrporations, based upon consolidated 
balance sheets around the end of 1937, amounted to about $103,000,- 
000,000. There were 14 corporations with assets over $1,000,000,000 
each, 48 with assets in excess of $500,000,000, and 201 companies with 
assets of $100,000,000 or more. This small group, comprising but 12 
percent of the total, accounted for almost 80 percent of the combined 
assets of all 1,710 corporations. In the largest 1 percent alone — that 
is,- the largest 17 corporations — there was concentrated almost 27 
percent of the total assets. Conversely, it took the smallest 644 
corporations, or about 38 percent of the total number, to account for 
1 percent of the combined assets and 88 percent of the corporations 
was needed to aggregate 20 percent of the totah assets. About 57 
percent had assets under $10,000,000 eacl\, another 25 percent fell into 
the $10,000,000 to $50,000,000 group and 6 percent ranged in size from 
$50,000,000 to $100,000,000.2 

Distributed on an industrial basis (table 17), about one-quarter 
of the $103,000,000,000 total of assets was accounted for by railroads 
and another 25 percent by the electric, gas, and water utilities; about 
8 percent fell into the communication group and a little over 4 percent 
represented financial and investment companies. Manufacturing 
corporations accounted for 31 percent out of the 'remaining 38 percent 
of assets. Over 60 percent of the assets in the manufacturing group 
was represented by six dominant subgroups wliich comprised less than 
one-fifth of all the manufacturing corporations included, namely, 
petroleum refining, iron and steel, nonferrous metals, automobiles 
and trucks, heavy chemicals, and meat packing. 

Viewed in relation to all domestic corporations, the 1,710 com- 
panies, though constituting less than 2 percent of the total number, 
accounted for between 35 and 40 percent of the aggregate assets of all 
such corporations submitting balance sheets to the Bureau of Internal 
Revenue.^ Asset coverage exceeded 50 percent in a good number of 
instances, in particular, railroads; electric, gas, and water utilities; 
and among the industrials, petroleum refining, iron and steel, auto- 
mobiles and parts, heavy chemicals, tobacco products, and meat 

' The detailed distribution by size^of the 1,710 corporations is given below: 
Corporations grouped by asset size 



Asset size (millions of dollars) 


Number 
of cor- 
porations 


Percent 
of total 
number 


Amount 
of assets 
(millions 
of dollars) 


Percent 
of total 
assets 




214 
515 
252 
215 
205 
108 
81 
72 
48 


12.5 
30.2 
14.7 
12.6 
12.0 
6.3 
4.7 
4.2 
2.8 


94.6 
1,404:9 
1, 809. 2 
3, 063. 7 
6, 659. 4 
8, 048. 3 
11,905.1 
20, 995. 
48, 520. 5 


0.1 




1.4 




l.B 




3.0 




6.5 




7.8 




11.6 




20.5' 




47.3 








1.710 


100.0 


102, 500. 7 


100.0 







'. Both the figures for the aggregate assets of the 1,710 corporations and for those corporations reporting to 
the Bureau of Internal Revenue include certain duplications resulting from inter-corporate shareholdings, 
loans, and other transactions. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 3 

packing. In textiles, paper and printing, and leather manufacturing, 
asset coverage amounted to only about 10 percent of the total but it 
was somewhat more substantial in merchandising, particularly among 
chain stores. 

3. DISTRIBUTION OF THE 2,381 COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 
BY LISTING STATUS, ASSET SIZE, AND INDUSTRY OF ISSUER, AND 
MARKET PRICE 

The 2,381 size distributions of shareholdings of common and pre- 
ferred stock in the 1,710 corporations were divided into two groups, 
one for 1,584 common stock issues representing 1,572 corporations, and 
the other for 797 preferred stock issues representing 645 corporations 
of which all but 138 were duplicated in the common stock analysis.* 
Lack of a one-to-one correspondence between number of corporations 
and issues is explained by the fact that 12 of the corporations had two 
common stocks outstanding — one voting, the other non-voting yet 
without any preferential rights — and an even larger nmnber of cor- 
porations had more than one preferred stock outstandmg. 

Of the 1,584 common stock issues, 20 were not listed on any ex- 
change, an additional 10 were admitted to unlisted trading privileges 
only, and the remaining 1,554 issues were fully listed on some national 
securities exchange. The fully listed group comprised 98 percent of 
the total 1,584 issues, subdivided as follows: 44 percent listed on the 
New York Stock Exchange, about 19 percent listed on the New York 
Curb Exchange, and 35 percent listed only on exchanges outside of 
New York. Of the 797 preferred stock issues, 84 were not listed on 
^ny exchange, 42 others were admitted to unlisted trading privileges 
only, and 671 issues — 84 percent of the total — were fully listed on 
some national securities exchange. The smaller proportion of fully 
listed preferred stocks, as compared with commons, was reflected 
entirely in relatively lower percentages of listings on exchanges other 
than the New York Stock Exchange. 

Of the total 1,584 common stocks almost 60 percent was issued by 
corporations with assets of $10,000,000 or less, an additional 30 per- 
cent represented companies with assets of $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 
and only about 11 percent/ was issued by corporations of over $100,- 
000,000 in size. Of the 797 preferred stocks, on the other hand, only 
about 31 percent was accounted for by -corporations with assets up to 
$10,000,000, a little over 42 percent was issued by companies ranging 
from $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 in size and 27 percent represented 
corporations with assets of over $100,000,000. 

Almost 92 percent of the total number o*" issues, among both com- 
mon and preferred stocks, was concentrated in these six nxajor indus- 
trial groups: JVIanufacturing; electric, gas, and water utilities; rail- 
roads; merchandising; financial and investment; and extractive. 
The manufacturing group alone accounted for over 55 percent of all 
common stock issues and about 42 percent of total preferred stock 
issues. The extractive industry ranked second in proportion of com- 
mon stock issues (13.6 percent) and last in percentage of preferreds 

* By definition, an issue Was nssigned to the preferred stock category if it was preferred as to assets and/or 
dividends over any other outstanding issue of the cmi)oration in (luestion. This definition resulted in 
inclusion among the preferred stocks of 77 class "A" stocks, very often designated by the corporation as 
common stocks, but by nature of their prefcrenc£< provisions— usually over the voting common stock i 
lieu of voting privileges— justifiably regarded no preferreds. 



4 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

(2.6 percent); the electric, gas, and water utilities ranked lowest 
among the six groups in proportion of common stock issues (3.6 
percent) and second highest in percentage of preferreds (22.0 percent). 
As of December 31, 1937, almost 56 percent of the total 1,584 
common stock issues was priced at under $10 per share. About 31 
percent ranged from $10 to $30 per share, 8 percent fell within the 
$30 to $60 price range, and only 5 percent was priced at $60 or more 
per share. Of the 797 preferred stocks, less than 18 percent sold at 
under $10 per share and only about 23 percent was priced from $10 
to $30". On the other hand, almost 19 percent fell within the $30 to 
$60 range and somewhat over 40 percent was priced at $60 or over 
per share. 

4. SOURCE AND NATURE OF SHAREHOLDINGS DATA 

Most of the material on which this study is based was made avail- 
able to the Temporary National Economic Committee, without 
identification of the data referring to individual corporations, by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission which had collected it through 
a questionnaire sent early in 1938 to companies with one or more issues 
of securities listed on a national securities exchange and, therefore, 
subject to registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.^ 
This portion, of the data refers to the period between November 15, 
1937, and March 1 5, 1938. Important gaps in the basic material caused 
by the failure, of some large companies to comply with the original 
request were filled from direct reports made to the Committee in 
connection with the study of distribution of stock ownership of the 
200 largest nonfinancial corporations. In these latter cases the 
requirement as to time of report had been' relaxed somewhat, with 
the result that §ome of the material refers to periods as late as the 
spring of 1940. However, the predominance of the earlier data is 
such that the material can be regarded for most purposes as reflecting 
the situation prevailing around the end of 1937. To conform with 
the greater mass of the data obtained from the Securities and Ex- 
change Commission, the 15 unlisted companies among the 200 largest 
nonfinancial corporations were excluded and this study was limited 
to companies with securities listed on a national securities exchange. 

These data, as originally submitted, were expressed throughout in 
terms of number of shares corresponding to certain size groups of 
holdings. Except for the ; elimination of treasury stock in most 
instances,^ no adjustments were, therefore, necessary for the tables 
showing aggregate number of sliares by size of shareholdings (tables 
1 to 6, 9 to 14, and 30 to 41). For analysis of the distribution of 
these shareholdings by value, on the other hand (tables 18 to 29), the 
original data were converted on the basis of the price per share at the 

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

• Treasury stock was eliminated from shares outstanding and shareholdings except in the few cases where 
it was expressly held as an investment or reserved for a definite corporate purpose. 



CJONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 5 

end of 1937.^ The method used for this conversion is explained in 
chapter III. 

All of this material on the number of shareholdings and shares 
included in certain size groups of holdings was obtained from the 
records of the corporations or their transfer agents. Inherent in this 
source is an important limitation which should be given due recognition 
in appraising the implications of *hese shareholdings data. The 
information, as thus reported, treats m identical fashion the registered 
holdings of beneficial owners and those of nominees such as banks, 
brokers or trustees, without any recognition of the fact that such 
nominees represent a group of stockholders, the number of whom in 
many instances is probably quite substantial. In other words, this 
study deals throughout with record shareholdings and not beneficial 
shareholdings.^ There is, as a result, some understatement of the 
actual number of individual shareholdings in the corporations covered 
and, more important, some overstatement of the degree of concentra- 
tion of ownership existing among the beneficial owners of the stocks 
Ox icse corporations. 

A. regards the first deficiency of the data: On the basis of estimates 
dv^veloped from a small sample of the 200 largest nonfinancial corpora- 
tions,® it may be estimated that the number of beneficial shareholdings 
in these 1,710 corporations was probably about one-eighth higher 
than the number of record shareholdings, that is, that it amounted to 
almost 16,000,000 rather than to around 14,000,000. Similarly, 
from another sample of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations, the 
conclusion was reached that, on the whole, the distribution of owner- 
ship was probably only slightly less concentrated on the basis of 
beneficial ownership than on the basis of record ownership, though 
the difference might be substantial in individual issues. Since the 
factor accounting for the second deficiency — namely, the tendency 
for shares owned in relatively small blocks by numerous individual 
stockholders to appear as a smaller number of relatively large share- 
holdings standing in the names of such nominees as brokers and banks 
— is probably most strongly at work among the largest and most 
widely -held corporations, it. seems likely that there is even less over- 
statement of the degree of concentration of ownership in the 1,710 
corporations as a whole than was found to exist in the 200 largest 
nonfinancial companies. 

Finally a word may be said as to the reasons for the use of the term 
''shareholdings" rather than "stockholders." In speaking of a single 
. issue, one usually refers to published figures for record shareholdings as 

' Prices as of. approximately December 31, 1937, were assigned uniformly to all distributions regardless of 
the specific date to which they applied. This procedure was believed justified by the observation, confirmed 
by the experience of a number of corporations, that the number of shares outstanding and, particularly, the 
size distribution of holdings undergo little significant change with the passage of time except under extraor- 
dinary circumstances. 

' In the study of the 200 largest nonfinancial corpf.r.itions it was possible to go from record to beneficial 
ownership for certain large holdings, though not for t"ie mass of registered holdings. 

» See "The Distribution of Ownership in the 2)0 Largest Nonfinancial Corporations", oh. II, ap- 
pendLx I. 



Q CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWRH 

synonymous with stockholders. When referring to aggregates for a 
number of issues, however, it is necessary to distinguish between the 
terms "shareholding" and "stockholder" because any one stockholder 
may own shares in more than one equity issue of a single corporation 
and an even larger number undoubtedly own shares in more than one 
corporation. The number of separate stockholders who owned the 
14,000,000 shareholdings reported by the 1,710 corporations is 
actually not known. Here again, however, estimates were made in 
connection with the comparable analysis of stock ownership of the 
200 largest nonfinancial companies.^" Assuming the duplication ratio 
found there to be applicable to the 1,710 corporations, the 14,000,000 
record shareholdings (or 16,000 JOO beneficial shareholdings) may be 
estimated to have represented only about 5,000,000 stockholders. 

I'See "The Distribution of Ownership in tho 200 Largest Nonfinancial Corporations", cii. II, sec. le 
and appendix I. 



CHAPTER II 
NUMBER AND VALUE OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

1. AGGREGATE NUMBER AND VALUE OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

The 14,000,000 record shareholdings reported by the 1,710 corpora- 
tions, around the end of 1937, consisted of 11,500,000 holdings in 1,584 
common stock issues with an aggregate value, at the piices of Decem- 
ber 31, 1937, of slightly over $35,000,000,000 and 2,500,000 holdings in 
797 preferred stock issues valued at about $7,000,000,000. Compared 
to all domestic corporations, these 1,710 companies — only 2 percent 
of the total number— accounted for more than half of the total share- 
holdings and somewhat over 40 percent of the estimated value of all 
outstanding stocks. 

Less than 1 percent of all common shareholdings and less than 2 
percent of their aggregate value were accounted for by the 30 common 
stock issues which were either not listed on any exchange or admitted 
to unhsted trading privileges only (table 6). Among the 1,554 fully 
listed common stocks, issues hsted on the New Ybrk Stock Exchange 
dominated the picture with 78 percent of all common shareholdings 
and almost 89 percent of their aggregate value. Issues listed en the 
New York Curb Exchange accounted for only a little over 7 percent 
of total shareholdings and slightly under 4 percent of their aggregate 
value. Stocks listed only on exchanges outside of New York repre- 
sented 14 percent of total common shareholdings and around 6 per- 
cent of their aggregate value. 

Among the preferred stocks (table 14), highest proportions of share- 
holdings and aggregate value were once again accounted for by issues 
listed on the New York Stock Exchange but the concentration was less 
striking. Almost 86 percent of total preferred shareholdings and 
about 92 percent of their aggregate value were represented by the 
671 fully listed issues; corresponding proportions for the 365 issues 
fully listed on the New York Stock Exchange were only 58 and 74 
percent, respectively. 

The distribution of the 14,000,000 shareholdings by t-he industry of 
the issuer is pictured in charts I and II. (For statistical details see 
table 1 for common stocks and table 9 for preferred stocks.) About 
50 percent of all common shareholdings was accounted for by the 
manufacturing group alone, which comprised 55 percent of the total 
number of common stock issues. The -electric, gas, and water utili- 
ties with less than 4 percent of all common stock issues ranked second 
in proportion of shareholdings with over 14 percent of the total. 
The financial and investment group with almost 10 percent of total 
common shareholdings ranked third and the railroads, with a little 
over 7 percent of aggregate holdings, fourth. The extractive group 
on the other hand, with the second largest number of issues, 14 per- 
cent_of the total, accounted for less than 4 percent of all common 

7 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



CHART I 

NUMBER AND VALUE' OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1710 CORPORATIONS WITH 

SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 




DOLLARS 
PILLIONS 

50 



LUE OF SHAHEUOIDINGS 



All Other 
Fin. i Inuest. 
Merchandising 
Communicat ion 

Electric Power, 
Gas and Hater 
Railroad , 



Hanafacturins^ 





1584 COMMON 
STOCK ISSUES 



797 PREFERRED 
STOCK ISSUES 



ALL 
STOCK ISSUES. 



about Beca*ber 31. 1931 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



CHART II 



DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER AND VALUr OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

IN 1710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 

ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 

PBRCENT OP NDMBKR OP S H A R B H 1 D I N G S 




1584 COMMON , 797 PREFERRED ALL 

STOCK ISSUES STOCK ISSUES STOCK ISSUES 

'Based on market p'ricts on. or about December 31, 1937. 



10 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

shareholdings. An even more extreme contrast appears in the com- 
munication group which, with less than 1 percent of all common stock 
issues, took precedence ui number of shareholdings over the mer- 
chandising group which ranked third in number of issues. About 7 
percent of all common shareholdings was concentrated in the relatively 
few issues of the communication group as compared with a little over 
4 percent in the much more numerous merchandising issues. In pro- 
portion of aggregate market value, the communication issues ranked 
second only to the manufacturing group. This exceptional showing 
was accounted for by the relatively high priced shares ojf the American 
Telephone & Telegraph Co., which alone reported almost 6 percent of 
all common shareholdings. 

Disparities in the proportions of total common shareholdings and 
estimated value of the shares held, in relation to the number of issues 
covered, were even more marked among the various industrial sub- 
groups, most noticeably among the manufacturing issues. Almost 
75 percent of both total shareholdings and aggregate value^ for the 
group were accounted for by petroleum refining, automobiles and 
parts, food products, electrical machinery and equipment, chemicals, 
iron and steel, and nonferrous metals, all of which together represented 
less than half the number of all manufacturing issues. 

Among the preferred stocks, the manufacturing group accounted 
for almost 43 percent of the total 797 issues and 49 percent of their 
aggregate value but for only 33 percent of all preferred shareholdings. 
The electric, gas, and water utilities, on the other hand, with only 
about half as many issues led with almost 44 percent of total pre- 
ferred shareholdings but ranked second with about 32 percent of the 
total estimated value. The only other conspicuous divergence of 
proportions among the major industries was in the merchandising 
group which, with 9 percent of the total issues, accounted for only 3 
percent of all preferred shareholdings and about the same proportion 
of total calculated value. Among the industrial subgroups, iron and 
steel, with only 6 percent of the total manufacturing issues, took the 
lead in proportions of shareholdings and aggregate value, accounting 
for about 20- percent of the respective totals for the entire manufactur- 
ing group. Once again, this marked disparity in the three ratios is 
traceable to the influence of a single issue. United States Steel Cor- 
poration preferred, which occupied only a moderately less dominant 
relative position among the preferred stocks than did the stock of the 
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. among the commons. 

Contrasts revealed in the classification of number and value of share- 
holdmgs by the size of issuer (table 2 for common stocks, table 10 for 
preferred stocks) are equally significant and even more striking. 
Around 35 percent of aggregate common shareholdings and about the 
same proportion of total estimated value were accounted for by the 
47 largest -corporations (each with assets of $500,000,000 or more), 
only 3 percent of the total. The largest 7 percent of the 1,710 cor- 
porations, each with assets of $200,000,000 or more, embraced half 
of all shareholdings. The largest 12 percent, ranging in asset size 
from $100,000,000 to $5,000,000,000, accounted for over 60 percent 
of all common shareholdings with a combined value in excess of 70 
percent of the total. Among preferred stocks, the top size group 
of $500,000,000 and over included 5 percent of the corporations 
covered but they accounted together for only 27 percent of aggregate 



CONCENTRATION OF EOONOMIC POWER H 

preferred shareholdings and 32 percent of total calculated value. 
Again, however, about half of all shareholdings were in issues of cor- 
porations with assets of $200,000,000 or more and over 60 percent in 
issues of companies ranging from $100,000,000 upward in size. This 
latter group, on the other hand, embraced relatively almost twice 
as many corporations among the preferred stocks as among the com- 
mons. In other words, the same proportion of total shareholdings was 
distributed in the case of the common stocks among about half as 
many companies as in the case of the preferreds. Thus, while pre- 
ponderant proportions of total preferred as well as common share- 
holdings were accounted for by the relatively small number of large 
companies, common shareholdings were much more heavily concen- 
trated in a handful of very widely diffused corporations. 

The same tendency is clearly reflected in tables 7 and 15 in which 
the combined number of shareholdings of each type of issue has been 
directly related to the asset size of the issuer corporation. Among the 
issues of common stocks, 173 of the 1,572 corporations covered had 
assets of $100,000,000 or more; among the preferreds a relatively 
larger number, or 143 of the total 645 corporations, fell into the same 
category. In none of the latter did the number of shareholdings per 
corporation exceed 100,000 and in only 32 percent of these 143 cor- 
porations was the number of shareholdings per company in excess of 
10,000. In the common stocks, on the other hand, almost 8 percent 
of the 173 corporations fell into the top shareholdings category of 
100,000 or over, and iji almost 69 percent of the cases the number of 
shareholdings per corporation ranged from 10,000 upward. Below 
the 10,000 level there was much more gradual tapering off among 
preferred stocks than commons of the proportions of companies falling 
within the successively lower shareholdings limits. In other words, 
there is apparent once again a pronounced tendency toward lesser 
concentration of preferred than common shareholdings in a small 
number of large corporations. 

The distribution of shareholdings by price of issue at December 31, 
1937, is pictured for common stocks in table 3 and for preferred stocks 
in table 11. About 37 percent of all common shareholdings was in 
issues selling at under $10 a share, almost 31 percent in issues ranging 
between $10 and $30 in price, about 21 percent in issues priced be- 
tween $30 and $60 and a little over 11 percent in issues selling at $60 
or more per share. About 5 percent of the total issues accounted for 
the 1,290,000 shareholdings in the price ranges exceeding $60 per share 
and two-thirds of these latter holdings were in the 26 issues priced at 
$100 and over. A little over 7 percent of all common shareholdings 
was thus apparently concentrated in less than 2 percent of the issues. 
Eliminating the. influence of the American Telephone & Telegraph 
Co., however, the percentage of shareholdings and issues accounted 
for by these few high priced issues are about equalized in relative 
proportions — less than 2 percent of total shareholdings in around the 
same percentage of issues. 

The greater preponderance among preferred stocks of higher priced 
issues finds reflection in heavier proportions of shareholdings in the 
upper price ranges. Only about 13 percent of total preferred share- 
holdings was in issues selling at under $10 a share, 20 percent in issues 
priced from $10 to $30, another 20 percent fell into the $30 to $60 
range and almost 47 percent was accounted for by issues priced at 



12 CONCENTRATION OF. ECONOMIC POWER 

$60 or more. Almost 21 percent of aggregate preferred shareholdings' 
was in issues priced at $100 or more compared with about 7 percert 
among the commons. 

2. DISTRIBUTION OF ISSUES BY NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS AND- BY 

VALUE 

In tables 7 and 15 the 1,710 corporations were classified by the dual 
criteria of size of issuer and combined number of shareholdings in aU 
outstanding issues of any one type of stock. In tables 4 and 12 the 
2^381 individual issues have been distributed according to the latter, 
criterion of comparison alone, namely the number of shareholdings per 
issue of common or preferred stock. Among the various criteria of 
classification applied thus far, none has provided more clear-cut indica- 
tion of the pivotal importance of a relatively few very widely-owned 
issues. 

Among the 1,584 common stocks (table 4) the number of share- 
holdings ranged from 1,000 to 10,000 in approximately half of all the 
issues. The number of shareholdings per issue fell below 1,000 in an 
additional 37 percent of the total. Only about 25 percent of aggregate 
common shareholdings, however, was accounted for by these 1,386 
issues which constituted almost 88 percent of the total number of 
issues. By contrast, the 183 issues with 10,000 to 100,000 sharehold- 
ings each — not quite 12 percent of the total number — accounted for 
almost 46 percent of all common shareholdings. Almost 60 percent 
of aggregate common shareholdings was accounted for by the 79 
issues with largest number of shareholdings — ranging from about 
30,000 to 641,000 each — which represented only one-twentieth of the 
total number of issues. Even more impressive was the concentration 
in- the very small number of issues with over 100,000 holdings each. 
Even eliminating the American Telephone & Telegraph Co., which 
alone represented about one-fifth of the 3,400,000 shareholdings in 
these 15 most widely difi'used issues, less than 1 percent of the issues 
still accounted for almost 25 percent of total common shareholdings. 

Among preferred stocks, there were not only fewer issues with a 
very large number of shareholdings each than among commons, but 
their proportionate share of total shareholdings was more restricted. 
A relatively small number of widely owned issues still accounted for 
a very substantial but not, however, preponderant proportion of all 
shareholdings. The 5 percent of preferred issues with the largest 
number of shareholdings— 12,000 or more in each case — accounted 
for only a little over one-third of total preferred shareholdings as com- 
pared to a proportionate share close, to 60 percent accounted for by 
the similarly selected 5 percent of total common stock issues. Only 
54 of the 797 preferred issues — less than 7 percent of the total number 
compared with over 12 percent among common stocks — had 10,000 
or more shareholdings each and the maximum number in any one 
issue was around 67,000 in United States Steel Corporation preferred, 
about one-tenth as many as in American Telephone & Telegraph Co. 
common. The 54 issues with 10,000 or more shareholdings each 
accounted' together for 44 percent of all preferred shareholdings. 
The remaining 56 percent was divided among the 743 issues with 
less than 10,000 shareholdings each in the proportions of 48 percent 
of the holdings in 356 issues with number of shareholdings ranging 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER J3 

from 1,000 to 10,000 and about 8 percent in 387 issues with less than 
1,000 shareholdings each. In other words, about 93 percent of the 
total 797 preferred stock issues had less than 10,000 shareholdings 
each and together they accounted for 56 percent of all preferred share- 
holdings. Among the common stocks, only about 88 percent of the 
total issues fell into this shareholdings category and their combined 
proportion of aggregate common shareholdings amounted to only 25 
percent. 

The lesser importance among preferred stocks than commons of a 
relatively few large issues is also apparent when the individual issues 
are classified by. their calculated value at the end of 1937 (table 8 for 
common stocks, table 16 for preferreds). The average market value 
per issue of common stock was about $22,000,000 but almost 65 per- 
cent of the, issues had a value under $5,000,000. Among the pre- 
ferred stocks the average value was onlj^ around $9,000,000 and almost 
70 percent of the issues had a value under $5,000,000. Only 20 pre- 
ferred stock issues had a value of $50,000,000 or more as compared 
to 129 issues among the common stocks^ — more than three times as 
many proportionately — with a value exceeding that limit. These 
issues accounted for over 75 percent of the aggregate value of the 
1,584 common and only about 30 percent of that of the 797 preferred 
stock issues. Among the common stocks, on the other hand, it took 
only 18 issues, or only 1 percent of the total number, to account for 
somewhat over 30 percent of the aggregate estimated value. 

3. AVERAGE VALUE PER SHAREHOLDING * 

In contrast to the classification by number of shareholdings, the 
2,381 issues are distributed in tables 5 and 13 by the average value 
per shareholding, derived by dividing the total estimated value of 
9ach issue by the number of shareholdings. For the 1,584 common 
stock issues as a whole' (table 5) this average value, at the prices of 
December 31, 1937, was slightly over $3,000; for the 797 preferred 
stock issues (table 13) it was moderately under that level. The 
generally higher price level of the preferreds was apparently off-set 
by the larger average holding in the commons. 

In proportion of total issues falling within the groups over' $1,000 
average value, the preferred stocks were consistently in the lead; 
below that level common stock issues were relatively the more 
numerous. The nearest approach to equality in proportions was in 
the over $10,000 class which included almost 7 percent of all preferred 
issues and only a fractionally lower percentage of total common stock 
issues. However, in proportion of total shareholdings accounted for 
by this highest value group, the common, stocks were slightly in the 
lead — 3.7 percent against 3.4 percent for the preferreds; in proportion 
of aggregate value represented by these holdings, the common stock 
differential was even greater — 22.4 percent of the total for common 
stocks against 17.4 percent for the preferreds. 

Among the common stocks over 600 issues, or 38 percent of the total 
had an average value per shareholding of $1,000 or less. Together 
these accounted for a little under 4,000,000 shareholdings, or about 
one-third of the total, but their aggregate value was less than 5 per- 
cent of that of all 1,584 issues. By contrast, almost 44 percent of the 

> The average value per shareholding reflects not only individual but corporate shareholdings which ia 
some cases exert the more substantial influence. 



J4 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

total value and only a little less than half of all common shareholdings 
were accounted for by the 705 issues — again about 44 percent of the 
total number — which had an average value per shareholding ranging 
from $1,001 to $5,000. On a cumulative basis, almost 83 percent of 
total common shareholdings but less than half of then- estimated aggre- 
gate value were represented by the 1,309 issues in which the average 
value per shareholding was $5,000 or less. More than 50 percent 
of the total value of all 1,584 issues, on the other hand, was accounted 
for by that limited proportion — less than 20 percent of the total 
number — which had an average value per shareholding in excess of 
$5,000, indication once again of the dominating influence of a rela- 
tively small number of important issues. 

Among the preferred stocks, only about one-quarter of the issues 
had an average value per shareholding of $1,000 or less but their pro- 
portionate share of total preferred shareholdings was almost as large 
as that accounted for by the much more numerous corresponding group 
of issues among the commons. Their proportion of the total estimated 
value of the 797 issues was, however, about the same — around 5 per- 
cent. There was an even greater concentration among preferred than 
common stock issues in the group with average value per shareholding 
ranging from $1,001 to $5,000 as well as correspondingly higher pro- 
portions in this category of both aggregate shareholdings and total 
value— over 50 percent in each case. Again on a cumulative basis, 84 
percent of all preferred shareholdings and almost 53 percent of the 
total value were accounted for by that very substantial group of issues 
with average value per shareholding of $5,000 or less — in this case 80 
percent of the total number. Once again, therefore, a relatively 
small number of issues exerted a disproportionately large influence 
on the composite picture but the importance of this limited group 
was less among the preferred issues than among the commons. 

In both types of issue there was very considerable variation in the 
average value per shareholding among the different industries (table 1 
for common stocks, table 9 for preferreds). Among the common 
stocks this average value was highest in the communication group 
($4,048— due largely to the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.), 
moderately lower for manufacturing ($3,920) and merchandising 
($3,547) issues, considerably lower for railroads ($2,739), less than 
half a« high in the electric, gas and water utihties ($1,767) and lowest 
for financial and investment companies ($974) , Among the industrial 
subgroups variations were most pronounced in the manufacturing 
issues. Chemicals ($8,223) were highest; tobacco products ($6,413), 
nonferrous metals ($5,192), and petroleum refining ($5,113) also ex- 
ceeded the average for the group while iron and steel ($3,305), auto- 
mobiles and parts ($2,730) and, most noticeably, food products 
($1,916) fell below the average. Worth mentioning also is the con- 
spicuously marked difference in average value per shareholding be- 
tween operating ($6,357) and holding companies ($1,014) aniong the 
electric, gas and water utilities and the more moderate difference 
between chain stores ($4,242) and department stores ($2,876) among 
the merchandising issues. 

For all major groups except merchandising and financial and inv^est- 
ment companies, the average value per shareholding was moderately 
higher for preferred than for common stock issues but the variations 
among the groups were about as large,- although the relative positions 



CONCENTRATION OF EOONO:MIC POWER J 5 

of the different industries were somewhat changed. The manufac- 
turing issues ($4,241) were in the lead here but the electric, gas, and 
water utihties ($2,104) and the financial companies ($1,961) again 
were last. The wide gap in average value per shareholding between 
operating ($2,091) and holding ($1,899) electric power companies was 
closed; chain stores ($2,762) and department stores ($4,551) reversed 
positions; tobacco products ($7,487) took the lead from chemicals 
($6,200) among the manufacturing issues, automobiles and parts 
($6,288) appeared in second place and food products ($3,685) just 
about doubled in average value. 

Though there was some tendency among the common stocks for the 
average value per shareholding to rise with an increase in size of corpo- 
ration, the relationship was not clear-cut and among the preferreds it 
was even less definite. However, there was, as would be expected, a 
quite obvious tendency for the average value per shareholdmg to rise, 
on the one hand, with increase in the market price per issue and to 
decline, on the other hand, as the number of shareholdings per issue 
increased. 

Fully listed issues showed the same tendencies foi- preferred and 
<5ommon stocks alike. In each case, issues listed on the New York 
Stock Exchange had the highest average value per shareholding (com- 
mon $3,498, preferred $3,681), and those listed only on exchanges 
outside of New York had tlie lowest (common $1,350, preferred 
$1,794). In each instance also, issues admitted to unlisted trading 
privileges on the New York Curb Exchange had a higher average 
value per shareholding than the corresponding fully listed issues (for 
common stocks $5,577 versus $1,574; for preferreds, $2,384 versus 
$2,239). Tendencies were completely reversed, on the other hand, 
in the few issues wliich were not listed on any exchange. Among 
common stocks, this limited group exceeded all others in average 
value per shareholding ($22,307); among preferreds it was practically 
the lowest ($1,374) due apparently to the relative preponderance in 
this group of a substantial number of small shareholdings in low priced 
preferred issues of public utihty companies.^ 

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

Because of the importance attached to "odd-lot" traduig, the 
amount and proportion of odd-lot shareholdings of the 2,381 common 
and preferred stock issues covered in this study are of particular 
interest. Accordingly, in each of the tables 1-6 and 8-14 total share- 
holdings have been subdivided into two groups designated "holdings 
of 100 shares or less" and "holdings of over 100 shares." With mod- 
erate adjustment, this reflects the relative proportionate relationship 
between so-called odd-lot and full-lot shareholdings.^ 

For all 1,584 common stock issues combined, about 86 percent of 
the 11,500,000 shareholdings was in lots of 100 shares or-less; for the 
797 preferred issues the proportion of such holdings was considerably 
higher or almost 93 percent of the total. The total of shares hicluded 

> Since the small number of unlisted issues covered in this study does not constitute a random sample, 
tendencies shown by them are not necessarily representative of unlisted issues as a whole. 

» On the New York Stock Exchange "odd-lots" generally refer to lots of 1 to 99 shares while a lot of exactly 
100 shares is ordinarily considered a "round-lot." Combination of the two Into holdings of "100 shares or 
less" in tables 1 to 12 was made necessary by the terminology of the original questionnaire of the Re- 
search Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
272188— 41— No. 30 3 



IQ CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

in euch holdings, however, was of conspicuously more modest propor- 
tions, amounting (to only 31 percent for the preferred issues and to> 
less than 17 percent for the commons. In terms of proportionate 
■ivalue, the showing was only moderately better. Adjusting for lots of 
exactly 100 shares on the basis of certain sample data,^ odd-lpt share- 
holdings may be estimated to have represented about 82 percent of 
a;li jcommon and around 90 percent of the total number of preferred 
shareholdings but to have accounted for less than 1 5 percent Of total 
Outstanding common and only a Uttle over 28 percent of all outstand- 
ing preferred shares of the 1,710 corporations. On a combined basis, 
aJniost 85 percent of total common and preferred shareholdings fell 
into the odd-lot category but together they accounted for less than 
one-fifth of all outstanding shares and only a moderately .higher 
proportion of the .estimated aggregate value. The composite impres- 
sion is thus distinctly one of concentration of the majority of stock 
among a small minority of holdings with, however, a much less marked 
degree of concentration among preferred than common stocks.^ 

In neither preferred nor common stocks was there- much variation 
among industries in the proportion of shareholdings in lots of 100 
shares or less. The most pronoynced significant deviation from the 
norm was in the communication group where the exceptional dispeV- 
sion of 9wnership of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. common 
stock was reflected in a proportion of "odd-lot", holdings close to 95 
percent of the total number for the group, or about 8 points above the 
average. In the proportion of shares included in such holdings of 
100 shares or less, on the other hand, the variations were rnarked 
among major groups and even more so -among the component indus- 
trial subgroups. ' 

Among comnion stocks, the proportion of shares included in "odd- 
lot" holdings varied from an extreme of 39 percent in communication 
companies to 21 percent for railroad companies, a httle less than 17 
percent for electric, gas, and water utilities and only 15 percent for 
merchandising issues. For manufacturing companies,, as a whole, 
the proportion was around 18 percent but within the group there was- 
a variation from about 12 percent for petroleum refining issues to 25 
percent for food products. Proportions for iron and steel, tobaccO' 
products and industrial machinery were close to the upper limit; for 
chemicals, nonferrous nietals, and building materials they were near 
the lower level. 

Proportions of preferred shares included in holdings of 100 shares or 
less wer^ except for the communication issues, rather uniformly 
higher— in most cases, in fact, about twice as high relatively-^as the 
proportions for common stocks in corresponding .industrial groups. 
The railroads were the most conspicuous exception to this general 
two-to-one relationship. The proportion of railro.ad shares accounted 
for by holdings of 100 shares or less was about 21 percent for common- 
stocks and only moderately higher at 25 percent for preferreds. More- 
significant even was the shift in position of the railroad group, relative 
to the other major industrial , categories, from approximately highest 

* From a sample based upon a little less than 6 percent of the Issues, it was estlmited that lots of exactly 
100 shares constituted around 6 percent of the total for ooinmon shareholdings and about half that proportion 
for preferreds. The corresponding proportions for shares included In such holdings were somewhat less than> 
i percent in each case. 

t Relative ODncnotration of ownership is analyzed in some detail in eh. VI, Wra. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 17 

proportion of number of "odd-lot" holdings among the common stocks 
to lowest proportion among the preferreds. In the preferred section 
the railroads yielded leadersliip toihe electric, gas, and water utilities 
in which over 94 percent of all holdings and about 35 percent of total 
outstanding shares were in lots of 100 shares or less. 

Among common stock issues, the proportions of holdings of 100 
shares or less and of the shares included in such holdings rose slowly 
but steadily with increase in size of the issuer corporation to a peak 
in the topmost group with assets of $500,000,000 or more. Among 
preferred stocks the tendency was more moderate in intensity and 
exhausted itself at a lower level. ^ 

In both common and preferred stocks the proportion of holdings of 
100 shares or less tended t'o rise with increase in the market price 
per share but in neither case was there any clear-cut relationship 
between the proportion of "odd-lot" holdings and the market value of 
the average shareholding. A direct relationsliip was again in evidence, 
however, when the issues were classified by number of shareholdings — 
the proportion of holdings of 100 shares or less and of the shares 
included in such holdings showing a general rising tendency as the 
number of shareholdings per issue increased. 

The relative proportions of holdings of 100 shares or less and of the 
shares included in such holdings were about the same for all fully 
listed preferred stocks, regardless of where listed; among common 
stocks, on the other hand, such holdings were relatively as well as 
absolutely highest in issues listed on the New York Stock Exchange. 
Among preferred stocks the proportion of holdings of 100 shares or 
less was generally lower in listed issues than in those not listed on any 
e:!fchange or admitted only to unlisted trading privileges ;- the propor- 
tions of shares included in such holdings were, on the other hand, about 
the same for all groups. In sharp contrast, such unlisted issues 
among the conamon stocks showed not much variation from listed 
issues in the proportion of holdings of 100 shares or less but the 
percentage of shares included in such holditigs of unlisted issues 
dropped to almost insignificant proportions. In other words, the 
few unlisted common stocks included in this study were apparently 
heavily concentrated in a handful of large holdings. 

« This relationship probably reflects variations iii price of issue as well as diflerences in size of issuer since 
the shares of snaall companies generally sell at a lower price than those of large corporations. This is par. 
tlcularly true of common stocks. 



I 



y 



CHAPTER III 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SHAREI O .DINGS BY ESTI- 
MATED VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL HOLDLNG 

111 tables 1 to 6 and 8 to 14 the 14.000,000 sliarelioldmgs of common 
and pvoforred stock of the 1,710 corporations wore distributed by 
sii^nificant industry and size groups. In tables IS to 29 emphasis is 
shil'lod to the estimated value of these holdings individually and a 
detailed breakdown is presented of total shareholdings by dollar 
value groups. 

1. METHOD OF COMPUTATION 

In the original schedule submitted by these companies to the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the size distribution of sliare- 
hoklings was based on the number of shares in each holding.^ Seven 
size classes (Ito 10, 11 to 25, 26 to 100, 101 to 500, 501 to 1,000, 
1,001 to 5,000, and over 5,000 shares — or simiiar groups) were avail- 
able for the great majority of issues and even more detailed inforina- 
tipn for tlie largest companies. To convert— for purposes of com- 
parison- tliis classification of shareholdings for each issue from a bhare 
to a value basis, the limits of each size cla>> were multiplied by the 
price per share on December 31, 1637. There was then as "great 
variation in the value limits for each size class as there were diliereiices 
in price from issue to issue.- In order, therefore, to group difl'eient 
issues together it was essential to use some uniform classifi^'ation. 
Five value classes were accordingly set up, the lowest to include all 
shareholdings with a value of $500 or less, the second tlu-ough fourth 
to consist of holdings with a value of $501 to $1,000, $1,001 to $5,000, 
and $5,001 to $10,000, respectively, and the fifth class to comprise 
all holdings with a value in excess of $10,000. 

In cases avIicty^ tlie original market value range, derived by multi- 
plying the limits of a size class in a single issue by the price per share, 
overlapped two or more of these fi\ e uniform A'-alue classes, share- 
holdings were allocated among them by 'interpolation. Thio was done 
on the assumption of an even distribution of shareholdings within the 
original size classes except for the highest group (ovei- 5,000 shares) for 
wliich information, available in most cases on the actual size of the 20 
largest shareholdings, was used as the basis for allocation. This 
procedure results inevitably in some distortion of the actual distribu- 
tion hi many individual issues and for small groups of issues. How- 
ever, judging from tests which have been male, the shortcomings of 
this method of converting size c]!>-^<'s (hi terras of number of shares) 

1 Thes" :}'\<n will be discussed in ch. IV. 

' For oxamplc, tho value liinits of tlie 1 to 1(1 share group ivould h $ ) and $300 for an i>sue selling at $30 a 
■ i aco.ivhilp they would be $()0 iiiid $000 for au is?ue sell'ng at $60 ; si ire. 

19 



20 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

into value classes of shareholdings do not appear to be serious enough 
to invalidate any general conclusions. 

2. COMMON VERSUS PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

Chart III shows the number of shareholdings in each of the five 
value classes for common and preferred stocks, separately and combined. 
Of the 14,000,000 combined shareholdings, 7,500,000 or a Httle over 
half of the total number had a value of $500 or less at the prices of 
December 31, 1937. Only^2,000.000 or 15 percent of the total were 
valued from $501 o 1,000^; a little over 3,000,000 or 22 percent had 
a value of $1,001 to $5,000; and about 1,200,000 holdings, or less than 
9 percent, were valued in excess of $5,000. Of this last and smallest 
group somewhat over 610,000 shareholdings (4^ percent) fell within 
the value ran^e of $5,001 to $10,000 and 560,000 (4 percent) had a 
value in excess of $10,000. 

Common and preferred shareholdings both showed the highest 
proportion of holdings in the lowest value class ($500 or less), the small- 
est proportion in the highest value class (over $10,000) and a moderate 
secondary upswing -in the intermediate $1,001 to $5,000 group. The 
broad pattern of distribution, in other words, was essentially the 
same; the proportions of total shareholdings included in the various 
value classes were, nevertheless, notably different. Of the 11,500,000 
common shareholdings, 56 percent had a value of $500 or less and 
about 14 percent was valued from $501 to $1,000. Holdings with a 
value of $1,001 to $5,000 constituted an additional 22 percent of the 
total; 4 percent was valued from $5,001 to $10,000, arid another 4 
percent had a value in excess of $10,000. Of the 2,500,000 preferred 
shareholdings, on the other hand, only a little over 45 percent was 
valued at $500 or less but in each of the higher value classes the 
proportion for preferred was uniformly liigher than that for common 
shareholdings. The difference was most appreciable in the $5,001 to 
$10,000 value group and almost negligible in the highest value class 
(over $10,000). The significant differences in proportionate distribu- 
tion were thus apparently confined to holdings valued at $10,000 or 
less but were substantial enough to confirm impressions gained in 
chapter II of lesser concentration of ownership among preferred than' 
common stocks.^ 

3. DIFFERENCES AMONG INDUSTRIAL GROUPS 

Much greater variation occurred in distributive pattern, on the 
one hand, and in actual proportionate distribution of shareholdings 
among the various value classes, on the other hand, as the basis of 
classification was changed. 

In preferred as well as common stocks greatest variation in both 
respects is apparent when shareholdings are classified by the industry 
of the issuer (table 18 for common, table 24 for preferred stocks). 
Instead of one, there are three distributive patterns evident in the 
industrial classification. Both deviations from the norm occur in 
the position of the shareholdings with a value of $1,001 to $5,000. 

' This lesser concentration of ownership among preferred than common stocks would be further confirmed 
If the over $10,000 class were broken down in more detail. Common stocks would then show larger propor- 
tions of shareholdings at the higher value-levels. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



21 



CHART Iir - 

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION BY VALUE* OF SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON AND 

PREFERRED STOCK OF 1710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 

ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 



MUNBSR OP SHABBROLDINGS 




VALUE OF 
SBASEHOLDIIIGS 



Over $10, 000 
$5,001 - $10,000 



$1,001 - $5,000 



$501 - $1,000 



Less Than $501 





ERCEKT OF SIIA8EH0LDINGS 




ALL 
STOCK ISSUES 



'Sasei on market prices on or o6ou1 December 3t , 183?. 



22 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

For some industries, shareholdings are most numerous in tliis group 
instead of, as in the aggregate of all 1,710 companies, in the lowest 
value class of $500 or less; in other industries, the decline in propor- 
tions is progressive from the lowest value class through the highest. 
The first pattern deviating from the aggregate occurs more often 
among the preferred stocks, the second is more frequent among the 
commons. The most notable of these exceptional cases is found 
among the common stock issues of communication companies in 
which, largely because of the relatively high average value per share- 
holding of the very widely owned American Telephone & Telegraph 
Co., the proportion of holdings with a value of $500 or less was only 
about 28 percent compared to almost 40 percent with a value of $1,001 
to $5,000* 

Much more conspicuous than the limited variation in distributive 
pattern are the variations in proportionate distribution of sharehold- 
ings in that very considerable group of industries which do adhere to 
the norm in pattern. It is apparent in chart IV that, except for the 
common stocks of communication companies, holdings with a value 
of $500 or less constituted the largest single class of shareholdings in 
all major industrial groups. In preferred and common stocks alike, 
however, there was about a 30 point spread in the actual proportions 
of shareholdings valued at $500 or less for different industries. Among 
the major groups, a little less than half of all common shareholdings 
of manufacturing issues fell into this lowest value class, in merchandis- 
ing issues the proportion was moderately higher at 51 percent, in the 
railroads it was almost 60 percent, in the electric, gas, and water utilities 
it exceeded 70 percent and in financial and investment company issues 
it rose to nearly 80 percent. Corresponding proportions for preferred 
shareholdings were uniformly lower in all industrial groups except the 
railroads, for -which the ratio of holdings' valued at $500 or less was 
five points higher among preferred than among common stock issues. 

Differences in the proportion of shareholdings with a value of more 
than $10,000, at the higher end of the scale, generally corresponded, 
in an inverse fashion, to the differences in the percentage of holdings 
valued at $500 or less. Among common stocks communication com- 
panies had the highest proportion of holdings with a value in excess 
of $10,000; viz. 7.4 percent, compared to an over-all average of 4.0 
percent. Manufacturing and merchandising companies, the two 
groups which had the second and third lowest ratios of holdings valued 
at $500 or less, had also the second and third highest proportions of 
holdings with a value of more than $10,000. For railroad issues the 
proportion of holdings in this highest value class amounted to only 
3.2 percent and for electric, gas, and water utilities it was 1.7 percent; 
the ratio was lowest, 1.4 percent, among financial and investment 
companies, the group which had shown the highest percentage of 
holdings with a value of $500 or less. The relative positions of the 
different groups were very similar for preferred stock issues, with the 
exception that the ratio of holdings with a value of over $10,000 was 
highest for manufacturing issues and lowest for the electric, gas, and 
water utility group. 

• Derivation of these proportions by the method discussed in sec. 1 above may involve some slight raaf gia 
of error. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



CHART IV 



ESTIMATED DISTRIRUTION BY VALUE' OF SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON AND 

PREFERRED STOCK OF 1710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 

LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 




of lasj-fl (n40} (CO; {l?5j (4) ( 7f' ) (r-- ; (r-A' ( -f - 

t'SG. R.R. EL.PWR. COmU!.'. MDSG. Fl'LS, 'ALL ALL 

GAS i WTR. I:.7EST. CTnER C0=? 

'Basei on aor««t fries, on or oDout Dece^tier 31. U3'. 



24 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

These differences in the proportion of holdings with a value" of $500 
or less, on the one hand, and of more than $10,000, on the other, do 
not necessarily reflect only, or even predominantly, differences in the 
relative concentration of ownership in the issues of the various indus- 
tries — a subject which will be discussed in chapter VI . The propor- 
tions are strongly influenced first by differences in the price per share 
at the end of 1937 compared to the original issue price; where the 1937 
price was lower than the price at which the shares were originally sold 
to investors one might expect, otlier things being equal, the propor- 
tion of holdings with a low market value to be relatively high and 
that of holdings with a considerable value to be small, tiie opposite 
situation prevailing in issues for which the 1937 price was higher than 
the original issue price. Also, of course, the proportionate distribu- 
tion of total shareholdings among the various value classes is influenced 
by tl>e size of the company, the number of shareholdings and the 
relative price level of the different shares, as will be shown- in the 
sections following. 

The variations in the proportion of holdings in the different value 
classes are more pronounced, as might be expected, among industrial 
subgroups, each of which comprises a considerably smaller number of 
companies than the larger groups hitherto mentioned. From table 
18 for common stocks and table 24 for preferred stocks, it is evident 
that the proportion of common shareholdings with a value of over 
$10,000 each was considerably above the average of 4.0 percent in 
the issues of the following industries: Chemicals and fertilizers (10.9 
percent); agricultural machinery (9.2 percent); tobacco products (8.6 
percent); building materials and "^ supplies (8.3 percent); nonferrous 
metals (7.8 percent); miscellaneous manufacturing (7.5 percent); tele- 
phone and telegraph (7.4 percent) ; insurance companies (6.7 percent) ; 
petroleum refining (6.4 percent); and electrical machinery (6.2 per- 
cent). The proportion was substantially below the average, on the 
other hand, for the common stock issues of the following groups: Radio 
equipment (0.3 percent) ; cotton and wool (0.7 percent) ; investment 
companies (0.9 percent) ; electric, gas, and water utility holding com- 
panies (0.9 percent); street railways (1.0 percent); breweries (1.1 
percent); real estate (1.3 percent); coal mining (1.4 percent); aircraft 
manufacturing (1.5 percent) ; meat packing (1.5 percent) ; dairy prod- 
ucts (1.5 percent); motor transportation (1.7 percent); services (1.9 
percent); construction (2.0 percent); and canning and preserving (2.1 
percent).^ Some of the low ratios of holdings with a value of over 
$10,000 are probably due to the nature of the original distribution 
of the stock (e. g., emphasis on sale in small lots) while others are the 
result of a decline in the price of the issue subsequent to its offering. 

« While the industries with a relatively high percentage of holdings valued In excess of $10,000 generally 
showed a low ratio of holdings valued at $500 or less, and vice versa, the correspondence was not perfect. 
Of the industry groups mentioned above, the following had a ratio for common stock holdings with a value 
of $500 or less considerably above the average of 56 percent: Cotton and wool (88 percent); radio equipment 
(85 percent); breweries (83 percent); investment companies (82 percent); real estate (81 percent); electric, 
gas, and water utility holding companies (81 percent); aircraft manufacturing (79 percent); and motor 
transportation (76 percent). Low ratios for common stock holdings with a value of $500 or less, on the 
other hand, were shown in the following groups: Electrical machinery (25 percent); telephone and tele- 
graph (28 percent); chemicals and fertilizers (31 percent); tobacco products (33 percent); nonferrous metals 
(35 percent); office machinery (36 percent); radio communications (36 percent); agricultural machinery (38- 
percent); petroleum refining (39 percent); miscellaneous manufacturing (39 percent); insurance eompanlies 
(42 percent); mail order houses (43 percent); dairy products (44 percent); iron and steel (45 percent); and 
operating electric, gas, and water utilities (45 percent). 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 25 

In several important cases, notably electric, gas, and water utility 
holding companies and investment companies, both factors were 
apparently at work. 

The picture for preferred" stock issues differs quite considerably 
from that for conmion stocks. Thus, omitting industries with "five 
or fewer stock issues, the following groups showed a ratio of holdings 
with. a value of over $10,000 each substantially above the average of 
4.5 percent: Tobacco products (16.5 percent); chemicals and fertilizers 
(11.8 percent); nonferrous metals (11.0 percent); grain milling and 
baking (10.5 percent); building equipment (10.4 percent); sugar 
refining (9.9 percent); and miscellaneous food products (9.1 percent). 
Of these seven industries 6nly three — namely, tobacco products, 
chemicals and nonferrous metals — showed a high ratio of holdings 
valued at over $10,000 for common as well as for preferred stoclv 
issues. Ratios far below the average were showTi — again excluding 
industries with five or fewer issues — for miscellaneous merchandising 
(0.4 percent); construction (1.1 percent); street railways (1.2 percent)^' 
miscellaneous financial and investment companies (1.4 percent); 
electric, gas, and water utility operating companies (2.5 percent); 
electric, gas, and water utility holding companies (2.6 percent); com- 
mercial credit and finance companies (2.7 percent); and services (2.9 
percent). Of these eight industries, only four— namely, construction, 
street railways, electric, gas, and water utility holding companies, and 
service companies — showed also a low ratio for their common sto^k 
issues. 

4. DIFFERENCES AMONG ISSUERS OF VARIOUS SIZES 

In table 19 for common stocks and table 25 for preferred stocks 
shareholdings are distributed by value classes for companies of 
different size, as measured by their total balance sheet assets at the 
end of the fiscal year 1937. It is fairly evident from the figures and 
quite obvious in chart V, that the proportion of shareholdings with a 
value of $500 or less declined in general as the size of the company 
increased, for common and preferred stock issues alike. Thus, 
among common stock issues of companies with assets of less than 
$1,000,000, as much as 87 percent of all shareholdings had a value of 
$500 or less, while for companies with assets of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 
the ratio dropped to about 73 percent. At the higher end of the size 
scale, companies with assets of $200,000,000 to $500,000,000 showed 
only 44 percent of all common shareholdings in the value class of 
$500 or less but for the largest companies included in the study, that 
is, those with assets of $500,000,000 or more, the ratio was slightly 
over 52 percent. The rise in the proportion for this largest group 
constituted the only exception to the otherwise progressive tendency 
of the ratio to fall with increasing size of assets.^ 

« The question may be raised why, with an increase in size of corporation, the proportion of shareholdings 
in the lowest value class declines while the proportion of odd-lot holdings rises. (Cf. ch. II, sec. 4.) 
Two reasons may be adduced for this apparent inconsistency. First, most of the discrepancy disappears 
when the upper limit of the lowest value class is raised so that it ponfbrmsmore closely to the value equivalent 
of 100 shares (the upper limit of the odd-lot interval used here). Secondly, issues of large corporations sell 
on the average at a higher price than those of small enterprises so that holdings of the same number of shares 
would tend to have a higher value in the larger companies. In other words, holdings of 100 shares or less 
would be included more often in the value intervals over $500 in the large companies than in the small 
corporations, or conversely, the proportion of shareholdings with a value of $500 or less would te lower for 
the large than for the small companies. 



26 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



ChAST V 



ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION BY VALUE* OF SHAREHOLDINGS OF COMMON AND 

PREFERRED STOCK OF 1710 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 

LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY ASSET SIZE OF ISSUER 




No. o:- le^uea '.1.- :\::, (131; 'fx-i (FG) ( ?£■ ) (53) (76") 

Asset. Size UNDER 10- 20- 50- 100- 200- 50t) ALL 

(in millions of dollars) 10 20 ^ 50 100 200 500 & OVER CORPS 

'BasrJ on muiket nric-s on or ahoul Utcember SI. 1037 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 27 

Even more pronounced than the inverse relationship between the 
size of the issuer and the proportion of shareholdings valued at $500 
or less was the direct relationship between size of corporation and the 
percentage of shareholdings with a value of over $10,000. The pro- 
portion in the highest value class amounted to 0.6 percent for issues 
in companies w-ith assets of less than $1,000,000 and 1.7 percent for 
those of corporations with assets of $1,000,000 to $5,000,000; on the 
other hand, it was as high as 5.4 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, 
for companies in the two largest asset size classes. There is, thus, 
little doubt that the larger the corporation the less the importance of 
holdings with little pecuniary value and the greater the importance 
of holdings in relatively sizable blocks, that is, each exceeding $10,000 
in value. ^ 

5. ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

The number of shareholdings, which broadly measures the breadth 
of ownership of an issue, is related to the distribution of shareholdings 
by value classes in much the same way as the size of assets, at least 
for common stock issues. (See table 21 for common stocks and table 
27 for preferred stocks.) 

Again, the larger the number of shareholdings in an issue the 
smaller the proportion of total shareholdings with a value of $500 or 
less and the larger the proportion of holdings valued in excess of 
$10,000 each. Here again, moreover, the progression stopped short 
of the corporations with the highest number of shareholdings (100,000 
and over) ; these showed a larger proportion of holdings with a value 
of $500 or less and a smaller percentage of those valued over $10,000 
than the preceding group of companies, with 50,000 to 100,000 share- 
holdings each. This relationship between number of common share- 
holdings ^nd distribution of total shareholdings among value classes 
is, of course, not independent of that shown to exist between the 
same distribution and the size of the issuer since the number of share- 
holdings generally rises in step with the amount of assets.* 

The picture for preferred stocks (table 27) is not as clear-cut as 
that for the common stocks, but the relation between number of 
shareholdings and the proportion of holdings in the different value 
classes appears to tend in a direction opposite to that observable 
among common stock issues. The percentage of holdings with a 
value of $500 or less tended to increase up to issues with 10,000 share- 
holdings eaeh; the relatively few issues with a larger number ot share- 
holdings — 54 in number — showed a ratio below that prevailing among 
the 172 issues with 2,500 to 10,000 shareholdings each. The propor- 
tion of total shareholdings with a value- exceeding $10,000 showed 
even greater divergence in tendency from that prevailing among com- 
mon stocks than was evident in the lowest value class. With only 
two exceptions (one of which was unimportant), the ratio fell as the 
number of shareholdings increased up to issues with 50,000 share- 
holdings each; in the two issues with number of shareholdings in 

' The apparent difference in the results obtained here and those indicated in eh. II, sec. 4, for the pro- 
portion of full-lot shareholdings in different size groups of corporations may be explained in a manner 
analogous to that described in footnote 6. 

• Reflected also, of course, are the differences in price of common shares among corporations of different 
size, price on the average rising with increase in size of corporation. Consequently, differences In price 
rather than differences in size may well be the primary factor causing the obser^-cd relationship. 



2g CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEB 

excess of 50,000, however, the ratio exceeded that for any other group 
except the 20 issues with less than 100 shareholdings each.^ 

6. ISSUlfs WITH DIFFERENT MARKET PRICE PER SHARE 

As might be logically expected, there is a very marked inverse 
relationship between the price per share at the end of 1937 and the 
proportion of total shareholdings fallmg in the lowest value class. 
(See table 20 for common stocks and table 26 for preferred stocks.) 
Among common and preferred stocks alike, the percentage of hold- 
ings with a value of $500 or less fell sharply as the price per share 
increased, and a correspondingly sharp rise was shown in the propor- 
tion of holdings valued at over $10,000 in the progression from lower 
to higher price levels. Among the common stock issues priced at less 
than $1, for instance, almost 97 percent of all shareholdings had a 
value of $500 or less, while, at the other extreme, only 11 percent 
of all shareholdings in issues selling at $150 or more a share fell into 
this group. The proportion of holdings with a value of over $10,000, 
on the other hand, rose sharply from 0.1 percent among issues selling 
at less than$l to 18.1 percent for those priced at $150- and oyer per 
share. The relation between market price per share and distribution 
of total shareholdings among value classes again is not entirely inde- 
pendent of the size of the company, as the shares of small companies 
generally sell at a lower price than those of large enterprises. 

7. ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT AVERAGE VALUE-PER SHAREHOLDING 

It is to be expected that issues whose average market value per 
shareholding is high should show a larger proportion of all holdings 
in- the over $10,000 value class, and a smaller percentage with a value 
of $500 or less, than issues with a relatively low average value per 
shareholding. (See table 21 for common stocks and table 27 for pre- 
ferred stocks.) Thus, among 'common stock issues with an average 
value per shareholding of $100 and less, almost 99 percent of all share- 
holdings fell into the lowest value class of $500 or less, while the sanie 
value group comprised only 21 percent of the total shareholdings in 
the issues with an -average value per shareholding of over $10,000. 
At the other extreme, there were' practically' no shareholdings with 
a value of over $10,000 in issues whose average value per shareholding 
was $100 and less, but issues with an average value of over $10,000 
showed almost 16 percent of all shareholdings in this highest value 
class. The differences were at least as pronounced among preferred 
stocks. 

8. ISSUES OF DIFFERENT LISTING STATUS 

The issues are classified by their listing status in table 22 for com- 
mon stocks and in table 29 for preferred stocks." Considerable 
differences appear in the distribution of total shareholdings among the 
different value classes between issues listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange, on the one hand, and all other issues, on the other (i. e. 

• The somewhat less direct relationship existing between size of corporation and the price of its preferred 
shares probably explains, in part at least, the difference noted. The relationship shown between nomber 
of shareholdings per issue of preferred stock and the proportion of foldings in the different value classes 
approximates more closly the normal relationship Jhat may be expected to resiilt if price of issue were 
constant and size of issuer were the sole causative factor. ' 



I 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 29 

issues not listed on any exchange as well as issues either fully listed or 
admitted to unlisted trading privileges on the New York Curb Ex- 
change and on exchanges outside of New York) . Among the common 
stock issues Usted on the New York Stock Exchange, holdings with a 
value of $500 or less accounted for slightly over 50 percent of all 
shareholdings, while the corresponding proportion ranged between 75 
and 79 percent for the other groups of issues. '° At the higher end of 
the value scale, holdings valued at over $10,000 each comprised almost 
5 percent of all shareholdings in issues listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange, but less than 2 percent among the other issues." Similar 
relationships prevailed among preferred stocks. The differences 
between issues listed on the New York Stock Exchange and all other 
issues were, however, even more pronounced than among common 
stocks for the ratio of holdings valued at over $10,000 but less so for 
holdings of $500 or less. 

»» These differences reflect in considerable degree diflerences in price since stocks listed on the New York 
Stock Exchange sell generally at a higher price than those listed on other exchanges. The importance of 
price iS further corroborated by the fact that the proportionate distribution of shareholdings by size of 
individual holding was not appreciably different for stocks fully listed on the various exchanges. (See 
table 35 for common stocks; table 41 for preferred stocks.) 

» The few issues included in this study (generally of large corporations) which were admitted to unlisted 
trading privileges on the New York Curb Exchange or were not listed on any exchange showed ratios of 
3.6 and 3.1 percent, respectively. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SHAREHOLDINGS BY SIZE 
OF INDIVIDUAL HOLDING 

INTRODUCTION 

In contrast to the distribution of all record shareholdings in the 
1,710 corporations by value of holdings, analyzed in chapter III 
(tables 18 to 29), tables 30 to 41 reflect the distribution of these share- 
holdings on the basis of the number of shares in each holding. Because 
of the lack of complete unifoririity in the size intervals among which 
the original data were distributed, the tabular presentation in this 
instance Las of necessity been limited to those issues for which share- 
holdings had been grouped initially in the seven size classes defined in 
the questionnaire or for which the original distribution could be con- 
verted into standard form without distortion of size relationships; 

For all but 143 of the 1,584 common stock issues and 68 out of the 797 
preferred stock issues of the 1,710 corporations, the data were or could 
be ' grouped on a comparable basis for the seven size intervals orig- 
inally requested, that is, 1 to 10, 11 to 25, 26 to 100, 101 to 500, 501 to 
1,000, 1,001 to 5,000, and over 5,000 shares. The 1,441 common stocks 
for which the information was available in this standard form accounted 
for almost 93 percent of the total cojnmon shareholdings, about the 
same proportion of the aggregate value of all 1,584 issues and 92 
percent of all outstanding shares. Not a single one of the largest cor- 
porations, mth assets of $500,000,000 or more,, was omitted and all 
but 5 percent were covered of that pivotal group of companies with 
assets of $100,000,000 and over. For the 729 preferred stocks the 
coverage was even higher, about 93 percent of all outstanding shares 
and almost 96 percent each of total shareholdings and aggregate value 
being represented by the issues with the data in this standard form. 

The distribution b}^ value of individual holding on wliich the dis- 
cussion in chapter III was based showed the number of shareholdings 
falling within the five value classes, but not the number or the aggre- 
gate market value of the shares included in the holdings in each value 
class. . The distribution by size of individual holding on wliich tliis 
chapter is based reflects, on the other hand, not only the number of 
shareholdings but l,he number of shares included in the holdings in 
each of the seven size groups. Despite differences in tendency which 
appear in certain size groups of holdings as compared with similarly 
situated value classes of holdings, the inferences in regard to the dis- . 
tribution of ownership among different types and various groups of 
issues are fundamentallv the same from either approach. The dis- 
cussion here has, therefore, been limited to a few of the more out- 
standing, features. 

' Because of the interpolation involved in the transformation of some size distributions into the standard 
form noted, some error is introduced into the results but this is believed to be negligible. 

31 
272188 — 41 — No. .30 4 



32 CONCENTRATION OF ElOONOMIC POWER 

1. COMMON VERSUS PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

Judging by the 2,170 issues for which a uniformly detailed sub- 
division of holdings was available, the broad picture of distribution 
was essentially the same in preferred and common stocks; the propor- 
tions of total shareholdings included in the various size classes, how- 
ever, again showed considerable differences. 

In both common and preferred stocks, the highest proportion of 
total shareholdings and the lowest proportion of all outstanding 
shares were accounted for by the smallest size group comprising 
individual holdings of 1 to 10 shares. Conversely, the lowest per- 
centage of total shareholdings and the highest percentage of all out- 
standing shares, m preferred and common stocks alike, were accounted 
for by the largest size group in which holdings individually were in 
excess of 5,000 siiares. In each case there is clear-cut illustration, 
on the one hand, of the .pronounced inverse relationship evident in 
other phases of this study between number of shareholdings and size 
of holding and there is obvious confirmation, on the other hand, of 
the repeatedly apparent tendency toward- concentration of ownership 
of a preponderant proportion of total outstanding shares among a 
very limited percentage of all holdings, a tendency soniQwhat more 
pronoimced, among common' than among preferred stock issues. 

About 34 percent of all common shareholdings included 1 to 10 
shares; 23 percent, 11 to 25 shares; and about 3B percent, 26 to 100 
shares. Holdings of 101 to 500 shares comprised a little less than 
11 percent of the total, somewhat over 1 percent ranged individually 
from 501 to 1,000 shaFes, 1 percent fell into the 1,001 to 5,000 share 
category and less than one-half of 1 percent included over 5,000 shares 
each. The corresponding proportions of shares held were about 
1J4 percent for all holdings of 1 to 10 shares each, almost 3 percent 
for those of 11 to 25 shares, and a little over 12 percent for the holdings 
comprising 26 to 100 shares each. Almost 16 percent of, the total 
outstanding shares was included in the holdings of 10 i to 500 shares, 
about 7 percent in those of 501 to 1,000 shares each, and 14 percent 
was accounted for by the holdings ranging individually froni 1,001 
to 5,000 shstres. Finally, almost 47 percent was included in that 
very sniall percentage of holdings — less than one-half of 1 percent — 
of over 5,000 shares each. , 

In the preferred stocks almost 50 percent of the total shareholdings 
comprised 1 to 10 shares each; 21 percent, 11 to 25 shares; and a little 
over 22 percent, 26 to 100 shares. Individual holdings of 101 to 500 
shares constituted 6 percent of the total, around one-half of 1 percent 
ranged from 501 to 1,000 shares each, about the same proportion 
consisted individually of 1,001 to 5,000 shares and One-tenth of 1 
percent included over 5,000 shares each. The corresponding propor- 
tions of shares held were in this instance somewhat over 4 percent- 
for all holdings of 1 to 10 shares each, about 6 percent for those of 
11 to 25 shares, and 21 percent for the holdings comprising 26 to 100 
shares each. Another 21 percent. of the total outstanding shares was 
accounted for by individual holdings of 101 to 500 shares, 8 percenjb 
was included in the holdings of 501 .to 1,000 shares, and 15 percent 
in those of 1,001 to 5,000 shares each. The one-tenth of 1 percent 
of total shareholdings which included over 5,000 shares each, com- 
prised almost 24 percent of all shares outstanding. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 33 

As the basis of classification is changed,, there appears considerable 
difference in the proportionate distribution of shareholdings by size 
of holding. The r.mge of variation is widest for conunon stocks when 
classified by the number of shareholdings per issue and for preferred 
stocks when classified by the market price per share. It is notable 
that among the many distributions, there is only one outstanding 
instance (communication issues ni the distribution of common share- 
holdings by industrial classificatien) in which the highest proportion 
of common shares held is accounted for by any size group other than 
the largest one of over 5,000 shares per holding. There are also only 
isolated instances wli^ere the highest percentage of the number of 
preferred shareholdings falls in any size interval other than the lowest, 
comprising .1 to 10 shares. In general, there is greater uniformity 
among preferred than common stocks in the distribution of the total 
number of shareholdings by size of holding, but there is lesser uniform- 
ity in the proportionate distribution of shares included in these 
holdings. 

2. DIFFERENCES .'^MONG INDUSTRIAL GROUPS 

In table 30 for common stocks id table 36 for preferred stocks, 
the size distribution is shown by industry. 

Of the major groups, the communication issues had the highest 
percentage of smallest sized holdings of preferred as well as common 
stocks.- More than half of the total common shareholdings for the 
group comprised individually from 1 to at most 10 shares. These 
holdiiigs in aggregate, however, included only a little over 6 percent 
of the total outstanding shares. Over 23 percent of the total shares, 
on the other hand, was included in the almost negligible percentage 
01 holdings comprising over 5,000 shares each. 

About 31 percent of the total common shareholdings' of manufac- 
turing issues included only 1 to 10 shares; in merchandising issues 
the proportion was less than 30 percent; in the electric, gas, and water 
utilities it was around 33 percent; in railroad stocks almost 36 percent; 
and in financr&'l and investment company issues about 40 percent.^ 
The corresponding proportions of shares included in these holdings 
varied for these groups from about 1 percent in the merchandising 
stocks to a maximum of 2 percent in the railroads. In all groups 
individual holdings of over 5,000 shares comprised less than one-half 
of 1 percent of the total shareholdings but included nevertheless from 
40 percent to 50 percent of all outstanding shares. 

In preferred stocks the highest proportion of shareholdings fell 
coi;isistently in the smallest size interval (1 to 10 shares). The per- 
centages ranged from 82 percent for the communication issues to 
about 42 percent for financial and investment company issues. In 
the electric, gas, and water utilities the proportion was as high as 55 
percent — compared to 33 percent for common stocks; in manufac- 
turing, railroad, and merchandising stocks it was about 10 points 
lower (43.3 percent, 44.2 percent, and 44.8 percent, respectively). 

2 This i,s exactly the reverse of the relative position of the communication group in terms o^ proportion of 
shareholding;: in the lowest value class, i. e., up to $500 (cf. ch. IH, sec. 3). Explanation is t^ be found in 
the fact that the average price of issue in the communication group was so high that the value class of ■■>500 
or less encompassed individual holdings of at most 5 shares. 

2 Differences here are much smaller than those in the proportion of shareholdings in the lowest value 
class, i. e., up to $500 (cf. ch. Ill, sec. 3). The differences on the basis of size of holding probably rcQect 
more closely the differences in original investment. 



34 , CONCENTRATION OF BOONOMIC POWER 

The proportion of shares included in these smallest sized holdings 
was lowest (2.7 percent) in the railroads and highest (9.6 percent) 
in the communication stocks. ,In all groups, holdings of over 5,000 
shares each- constituted not more than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
total number of shareholdings but included in the aggregate from 20 
percent to over 50 percent of the total outstanding shares. 

3. DIFFERENCES AMONG ISSUERS OF VARIOUS SIZES 

Variations in the distribution by size of holdings are more restricted 
when shareholdings are classified by the asset size of the issuer cor- 
poration (table 31 for common, table 37 for preferred stocks). In 
both common 'and preferred stocks, the proportion of smallest sized 
holdings (1 to 10 -shares each) showed a quite clear-cut tendency to 
rise wit^ increase in the size of corporation and holdings in all of the 
size'groups over 100 shares showed an equally pronounced inclination 
toward decline in percentage of total number of shareholdings as 
-assets rose.* The proportion of common shareholdings comprising 

1 to 10 shares each increased from about 13 percent of the total for 
corporations with assets under $1,000,000 to around 37 percent for 
companies with assets of $500,000,000 or more. The proportion of 
holdings, of over 5,000 shares each declined simultaneously from about 

2 percent to two-tenths of 1 percent. The proportion of shares 
included in these largest sized holdings, however, was as high as 70 

f)ercent of the total outstanding in the smaller companies and no 
ower thau 40 percent in the larger companies, while the percentages 
of shares included in the much larger number of holdings of 1 to 10 
shares ranged from, one-tenth of 1 percent in the smallest to a maxi- 
mum of 2 percent in the largest corporations. 

The range of variation in prief erred stocks for holdings comprising 
i to 10 shares was from about 30 percent for corporations with assets of 
$1,000,000 to $5,000,000 to 53 percent for companies with assets of 
$200,000,000 to $500,000,000; the proportion for companies with assets 
of $500,000,000 and over was moderately lower at 46 percent. On 
the other hand, individual holdings of over 5,000 shares constituted 
at best two-tenths of 1 percent of the total and most usually only one- 
tenth of 1 percent. The proportion of shares included in these largest 
holdings, however, amounted to no less than 16 percent and as much 
as 29 percent of the total outstanding. Once again, there were in- 
stances in which the highest proportion of shares was included in the 
holdings of some size group other than the largest. Companies with 
assets of $100,000,000 or more, however, showed a fairly uniform dis- 
tribution of shares by size groups with lowest proportion of total shares 
outstanding in the 1 to 10 share group and highest percentage in the 
over 5,000 share group. 

4. OTHER DIFFERENCES 

Greater differences in the distribution of shareholdings by size are 
evident, for preferred and common stocks alike, in the classification 
by number of shareholdings per issuQ (table 33 for common, table 39 

* The apparent difference in tendency showh here and that indicated in ch. in, sec. 4, for the propor- 
tion of shareholdings falling within the lowest and the highest value classes as size of corporation varied, 
may be explained in a manner analogous to that described in footnote 6. Similar differences which 
appear subsequently, as the basis of classifi.cation is changed, may be explained in the same way. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEJR 35 

for preferred stocks). Variations were somewhat more pronounced 
for the common stocks but tendencies were clear-cut in both instances. 
The proportion of smallest sized holdings (1 to 10 shares) showed an 
obvious inclination to rise with increase in the number of shareh >ldings 
per issue, and the percentage of holdings in the largest size group i'over 
5,000 shares each) showed an equally pronounced tendency to dvcline 
with increased diffusion of ownership. The only marked difference in 
tendencies between preferred and common stocks occurred in the 1 1 
to 25 and 26 to 100 share categories. The proportions of common 
shareholdings in these size groups tended to rise as the number of 
shareholdings per issue increased; the trend in preferred stocks was 
at best irregular, and in fact, inclined somewhat downward. 

When classified by the, market price per share, there was greater 
variation in the size distribution of preferred shareholdings than com- 
mon (table 32 for common, table 38 for preferred stocks). Except in 
proportions of holdings in the 11 to 25 share category, however, ten 
dencies were much the same in both types of issue. As the market 
price per share increased, the proportion of smallest sized holdings 
(1 to 10 shares) rose with some irregularity but a definite upward 
trend. In common stocks, the percentages ranged from 23 percent 
for issues priced at less than $1 per share to almost 54 percent for 
issues selling at $100 to $150 per share. In preferred stocks, the pro- 
portions ranged from 19 percent for issues priced at less than $1 pei 
share to over 57 percent for issues selling at $80 to $100 a share 

The percentage of total outstanding shares included in all commoiy 
shareholdings of 1 to 10 shares varied from two-tenths of 1 percent I'of 
stocks priced at less than $1 to a maximum of 5 percent for issue? 
selling at $100 to $150 per share; the relatively few highest pric(^d 
issues ($150 and over per share), however, showed about half tluit 
proportion of sliares in all holdings of 1 to 10 shares. Among the 
preferred stocks, as much as 8 percent of the total outstanding shares 
was included in these smallest sized holdings and the proportion was 
above average (4.4 percent) in all of the price groups exceeding $'^0 
per share except the highest ($150 and over). 

There seemed to be no clear-cut relationship between increase in 
the market value of the average shareholding and the proportionate 
distribution of holdings by size. (See table 34 for common stocks, 
table 40 for preferreds.) 

The distribution of shareholdings by size when classified by the 
listing status of the shares (table 35 for common, table 41 for pre- 
ferred stocks) is in some respects different for preferred than common 
stocks. In the fully listed issues, for common and preferred stocks 
alike, the highest percentages of the number of holdings were in- 
variably accounted for by the 1 to 10 share category. For common 
stocks listed'' on the New York Stock Exchange, the proportion was 
about 34 percent of the total shareholdings and for similarly listed 
preferred stocks it was about 10 points higher. For issues listed only 
on exchanges outside of New York, the percentage in this smallest 
size group was about twice as high for preferred as for common stocks. 
The proportion^of shares included in these holdings was highest (1.6 
percent) for common stock issues listed on the New York StocTs Ex- 
change and for preferred stock issues listed only on exchanges outside 
of New York: The \very limited group of commo.i shareholdings of 
5,000 shares or more accounted invariably for the highest percentage of 



36 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

the Oil tstai) ding shares. It amounted to about 43 percent of the total 
for issues listed on the New York Stock Exchange and about 10 percent 
more for the other fully 'isted issues. In the preferred stocks, the pro- 
portion of shares included in these largest sized holdings ranged from 
about 19 percent to 25 percent of the total but only in issues listed on 
the New York Stock Exchange did it constitute the highest percentage 
of fotal outstanding shares. 



CHAPTER V 

THE COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS 
IN CLOSELY- HELD AND WIDELY- HELD COMMON AND 
PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

INTRODUCTION 

Up to this point in the discussion no distinctions have been drawn 
in the statistical presentation between issues of corporations that were 
closely-held as opposed to those widely-held. The closely-held cate- 
gory, however, constituted a sufficiently large subgroup, particularly 
among the common stocks, to warrant reclassification^ of the 2,381 
common and preferred stock issues of the 1,710 corporations on a seg- 
regated basis reflecting differences in breadth of ownership. Issues 
were assigned to the closely-held category if 50 percent or more of the 
outstanding shares was included in the holdings of a single family or 
a small affiliated group, either corporate or individual. In the rela- 
tively few instances where the affiliation was not specifically indicated 
or obvious, an issue was considered closely-held only if a maximum of 
three separate holdings accounted for no less than 60 percent of the 
total outstanding shares.^ 

Of the 1,584 common stock issues covered in tables 1 to 41, 334 were 
closely-held ; of the 797 preferred stock issues only 86 were closely-held 
The 334 common stock issues included a little over 606,000 sharehold- 
ings with an estimated aggregate value, as of December 31, 1937, of 
about $3,000,000,000. In other words, this sector accounted for a? 
much as 20 percent of the total number of issues but for only about 
5 percent of the aggregate 11,500,000 common shareholdings nnd 9 
percent of their total estimated value. The 86 closely -held preferred 
Stock issues — less than 10 percent of the total numbei in this instance — 
included about 4 percent of all preferred shareholdings and 7 percent 
of their estimated aggregate yalue. 

Numerous points of similarity and contrast are revealed when share- 
holdings in the closely-held and widely-held categories are distributed 
by various basic characteristics. While the relative importance of the 
closely-held issues is clearly discernible, particularly among the coinmon 
stocks, their influence on the composite picture is in no case sufficiently 
determining to necessitate modification in any important respect of 
the conclusiohs drawii in the preceding chapters. This is, of course, 
due to the predominant proportions of both total shareholdings and 
aggregate value accounted for by the much mor<^ numerous widoly- 
held issues. The differences in the composition and tendencies of the 
two groups, however, are of sufficient i, it crest to- warrant brief con- 
sideration of the more salient features c ';omparison. 

' Issues that were wholly owned by a single corporation or individual are not included in this studv. 
(See ch. I, sec. 1.) 



38 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

1. COMPARISON OF CLOSELY-HELD AND WIDELY-HELD COMMON STOCK 
ISSUES IN TERMS OF AGGREGATE NUMBER AND VALUE OF SHARE- 
HOLDINGS 

(a) DIFFERENCES IN LISTING STATUS 

Of the 334 closely-held issues 11 were not listed on any exchange 
and 7 were admitted to unlisted trading privileges only. These 18 
issues — 5 percent of the total number— accounted for about 4 percent 
of the total shareholdings but for more than 15 percent of the aggre- 
gate valrue of all closely-held issues combined. Of the 1,250 widely- 
held issues only 12, oi 1- s than 1 porcent of the total number, fell 
into these unlisted categories and together they accounted for even 
less than one-half of 1 percent each of all shareholdings and the total 
value of the group. Of the fully listed issues, the closely-held group 
was most numerous on exchanges outside of New York, while the 
widely-held issues were preponderantly listed on the New York Stock 
Exchange. In both groups, however, highest proportions of total 
shareholdings and aggregate value were shown for issues listed on the 
New York Stock Exchange but the percentages were notably lower 
for the closely-held. than for the widely-held issues. The few unlisted 
stocks among all 1,584 issues apparently reflected almost wholly the 
situation prevailing in the closely-held grOup; the listed section was 
clearly dominated by the widely-held issues. 

. (6) DIFFERENCES AMONG INDUSTRIAL -GROUPS 

While the 334 closely-held issues accounted as a group for only a 
little ov.er 5 percent of the total slfareholdings and 9 percent of the 
aggregate estimated value of all 1,584 common stock issues, there was 
considerable variation among industries. The closely-held financial 
and investmeht company issues accounted for as much as 13 percent 
of the total common shareholdings for the industry and for almost 
17 percent of their value. In the electric, gas, and water utilities only 
8 percent of the total shareholdings but 29 percent of their value fell 
into the closely-held category. The closely-held merchandising issues 
accounted again for 8 percent of the total shareholdings for the indus- 
try but only 12 percent of their value. For railroad issues the pro- 
portion of total shareholdings accounted for by the ^ losely-held group 
amounted to about 6 percent; for the communication issues it was a 
little less than 3 percent and for the manufacturing group only moder- 
ately over 2 percent. Corresponding proportions of the total value 
accounted for by the closely-held issues in these groups were 26 per- 
cent, 11 percent, and 4 percent, respectively. 

The differences in industrial composition of the two groups are 
dearly reflected in chart VI in which total shareholdings of the 334 
closely-held issues are distributed by major industry groups and 
coiripared with the similar distribution of shareholdings in the 1,250 
widely-held issues and the composite of all 1,584 common stock issues 
combined. " (For statistical details see table 42 for closely-held issues, 
table 48 for widely-held issues.)^ 

« 332 corporations are covered in table 42 and 1,246 companies in table 48, making a total of 1,578 corpo- 
rations. The difference from the 1,572 corporations previously shown is due to the fact that, in 6 of the cor- 
porations which had two common stocks outstanding, one was closely-held and the other widely-held. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



39 



CHART VI 

DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER AND VALUE* OF COMMON SHAREHOLDINGS IN 1572 

CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 



I'ERCEKT OF NUMBER 



L D I N G S 




' 125C "WIDELY-HELD" 334 "CLOSELY -HELD" ALL CCMMO.'l 
COKKON STOCK ISSUES COKMON STOCK ISSUES STOCK ISSUES 



40 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

In the closely-held issues, the financial and investment group led 
in proportion of total shareholdings (23.8 percent), the manufacturing 
group (22.8 percent) was second, and the electric, gas, and water utilities 
(22.5 percent) ranked third. Substantially smaller proportions of 
total shareholdings of all 334 closely-held issues were accounted for by 
the railroad (8.1 percent), merchandising (6.S percent), and communi- 
cation groups (3.5 percent). . 

Among the widely-held issues, the proportion of total shareholdings 
was about twice as large in the manufacturing (51.6 percent) and com- 
munication groups (7.1 percent). The proportion was moderately 
lower for the railroad (7.3 percent) and merchandising (4.2 percent) 
issues, substantially smaller for the electric, gas, and water utilities 
(13.9 percent) and most appreciably lower in the fuiancial and invest- 
ment group (8.9 percent). 

In terms of estimated value there was even greater contrast, in most 
cases, between the relative proportions of the total accounted- for by 
issues' within any one industry in the closely-held and widely-held 
groups. 

(c) DIFFERENCES AMONG ISSUERS OF VARIOUS SI^ES 

In table 43 for the closely-held, and table 49 for the widely-held 
issues, shareholdings are distributed by the asset size of the issuer. 
In general closely-held issues were more common among smaller than 
larger corporations. In the closely-held category, issues of corpora- 
tions with assets of less than $10,000,000 accounted for almost 22 
percent of the total shareholdings and about 9 percent of the aggregate 
value of the group, while the proportions in each case were only about 
half as large for the widely-held issues. At the opposite extreme, the 
issues of corporations with assets of $500,000,000 and more accounted 
for about 15 percent of total shareholdings in all closely-held issues 
compared to almQst 36 percent of those in the widely-held issues; 
the spread between the corresponding proportions of aggregate value 
was even wider — 11 percent for the closely-held and 38 percent for the 
widely-held issues. As a result, the closely-held issues exerted a much 
more restricted influence on the composite picture of all 1,584 common 
stock issues in the larger than the smaller asset size classes. 

(d) ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

About two-thirds of the closely-held issues, but only around 30 
percent of the widely -held issues, had less than 1,000 shareholdings 
each. (See table 45 for closely-held issues, table 51 for widely-held 
issues.) In another 30 percent of the closfly-held issues the number of 
shareholdings per issue ranged from 1,000 to 10,000; for the widely- 
held issues the proportion was almost twice as large (56 percent). 
In only 3 percent of the closely-held issues did the number of share- 
holdings per issue exceed 10,000 and in none of them was it in excess 
of 100,000. In the widely-held group, on the other hand, almost 14 
percent of the issues had 10,000 to 100,000 shareholdings each, and a 
little over 1 percent had more than 100,000 shareholdings each. Al- 
most 43 percent of total shareholdings in all the closely-held issues was 
accounted for by the 11 issues with number of shareholdings in excess 
nf 10 000 each; in the widely-held group, about 77 percent of the total 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 41 

shareholdings was accounted for by the 187 issues with number of 
shareholdings exceeding 10,000 each. The closely-held issues w-ere 
thus more appreciably reflected in the lower than the higher portion of 
the composite shareholdings picture. 

(e) ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT MARKET PRICE PER SHARE 

The closely-held issues tended to have a lower price per share than 
the widely-held issues and, consequently, again exerted greater in- 
fluence on the composite shareholdings picture at the lower than the 
higher end of the scale. (Sec table 44 for closely-held issues, table 50 
for widely-held issues.) About 65 percent of all shareholdings in the 
334 closely-held issues was in stocks selling at under $10 a share; for the 
widely-held group the proportion was only slightly over 35 percent. 
Issues ranging between $10 and $30 in price accounted for almost 20 
percent of all shareholdings in the closely-held issues but for 31 percent 
of total shareholdings in the widely-held issues. About 10 percent of 
total shareholdings in the closely-held group, but about twice that 
proportion in the widely-held issues, was in stocks priced between $30 
and $60 per share. Only 5 percent of all shareholdings in the closely- 
held issues, as compared to 12 percent of total shareholdings in the 
widely-held group, was accounted for by issues selling at $60 or more 
per share, which in each case constituted 5 percent of the total number 
of issues in the respective groups. 

(/) ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT AVERAGE VALUE PER SHAREHOLDING 

For the 334 closely-held issues, as a group, the average value per 
shareholding, at the prices of December 31, 1937, was around $5,200 
(table 46); for the 1,250 widely-held issues (table 52) it was slightly 
under $3,000. About the same proportion of issues in each category 
had an average value ranging from $1,001-$10,000 — around 55 per- 
cent. There were about 10 percent fewer issues in the closely -held 
than widely-held category with an average value of $1,000 or less and 
10 percent more issues with an average value in excess of $10,000. 
Only 3 percent of all shareholdings but 19 percent of the total value 
of the widely-held group was accounted for by the 56 issues— 4}^ 
percent of the total number — which had an average value per share- 
holding in excess of $10,000, while 10 percent of the total shareholdings 
and as much as 60 percent of the aggregate value of all 334 closely- 
held issues were accounted for by the 46 issues — 14 percent of the total 
number — with a comparable average value per shareholding. This is 
the only one of the major classifications discussed thus far in which 
the closely-held issues exerted a relatively greater influence on the 
composite picture at the higher rather, than the lower end of the scale. 

There was considerable variation in the average value per share- 
holding among industries. For each of the major groups the average 
value per shareholding was higher for the closely-held than f6r the 
widely -held issues. The differences were most marked in the electric, 
gas, and water utilities, the railroads and tlie communication. issues. 
There was more moderate variation in the manufacturing and mer- 
chandising groups and least appreciable difference in the financial 
and investment group. 



42 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

(g) DIFFERENCES IN THE PROPORTION OF ODD-LOT HOLDINGS ^ 

Viev ^d as units, the closely-held and widely-held issues showed only 
negligible difference in proportion of holdings in lots of 100 shares or 
less (85.7 percent for closely-held; 86.5 percent for widely-held issues). 
The shares included in these holdings, however, amounted to only 5 
percent of the total for the closely-held issues as compared to almost 
19 percent for the widely-held group. Proportions of total value 
showed about the same relationship. 

As the asset size of the issuer corporation increased, the proportion 
of full-lot holdings showed a tendency to decline both in closely-held 
and widely-held issues. The proportions of outstanding shares in- 
cluded in these holdings declined at the same time but with much less 
regularity and at a much slower rate in the closely-held issues. Among 
the largest corporations— those with assets of $500,000,000 or more — 
there was only about a one point difference m the proportion of the 
number of full-lot holdings between the closely-held (10.1 percent) 
and widely -held (11.4 percent) categories, but the percentage of shares 
included in these holdings was 8 points higher for the closely-held 
(87.3 percent) than for the widely -held issues (79.8 percent). 

2. COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN CLOSELY- 
HELD AND WIDELY-HELD COMMON STOCK ISSUES BY ESTIMATED 
VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL HOLDING 

(a) THE OVER-ALL PICTURE 

In chart VII total shareholdings in the 334 closely-held issues are 
distributed by the estimated value of individual holding and compared 
with the similar distribution of shareholdings in the 1,250 widely- 
held issues and the composite of all 1,584 issues combined. The dis- 
tribution for the closely-held issues was apparently much more heav- 
ily tipped toward the lower end of the value scale. About 72 percent 
of the total shareholdings had a value of $500 or less and only 2% 
percent was valued in excess of $10,000, compared to ratios of 55 
percent and 4 percent, respectively, ainong the widely-held issues. 
The notably different proportionate distribution of shareholdings in the 
two types of issue was, to a large extent, a reflection of differences in 
market price.^ 

(b) DIFFERENCES AMONG INDUSTRIAL GROUPS 

Some significant comparisons are revealed in the distribution of 
shareholdings by value among the various industrial groups. (See 
table 56 for closely-held issues, table 62 for widely-held issues.) -In 
the closely-held communication issues only 18.4 percent of the total 
number of holdings had a value of $500 or less, in contrast to a ratio 
of 28.4 percent for the widely-held issues in this group. At the higher 
end of the scale, however, there was less than a 1 point difference in 
the proportion of total shareholdings with a value of $10,000 or more — 
8.0 percent for the closely-held compared to 7.4 percent for the widely- 

' As noted in ch. II, sec. 4, "odd-lots" generally refer to lots of 1 to 99 shares, while a lot of exactly 100 shares 
Is ordinarily considered a "round lot" Coml>ination of the two into lioldings of "100 shares or less" in 
tables 42 to .53, as in tables 1 to 12, was made necessary by the terminology of the original questionnaire of 
the Research Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

* It was already shown in table 44 that shareholdings in the closely-held issues were much more heavHr 
concentrated in the lower price brackets than those in the widely-held issues. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



43 



CHART VII 

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION BY VALUE* OF SHAREHOLDINGS 

OF COMMON STOCK OF 1572 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES 

LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 



KUMBtR OF SHAREHOLDIKGS 



VALVE OF 
SHABEUOLDimS 
Over $10, 000 
. $5, 001 - $10, 000. 



$1,001 - $5,000 



$501 - $1,000 




Less Tfia^i $501 




R'CENT OF SHAREHOLDINGS 




1250 "WIDELY -HELD" 334 "CLOSELY -HELD" ALL COMMON 
COMMON STOCK ISSUES COMMON STOCK ISSUES STOCK ISSUES 



'Based on market pric 



Dtceaber 31 , 



44 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

held issues. In the railroad group the proportion of total sharehold- 
ings in the lowest value class was only 1 point higher for the closely- 
held (60.9 percent) than for the widely-held issues (59.8 percent); in 
the liighest value class the spread in proportions was wider — 5.0 percent 
for the closely-held compared to 3.1 percent for the widely-held issues. 
The closely-iield electric, gas, and water utilities showed a smaller 
proportion of holdings with a value of $500 or less (69.0 percent 
versus 73.9 percent) and a higher proportion of holdings with a value 
of over $10,000 (2.5 percent versus 1.7 percent) than the widely-held 
issues. In the financial and investment group 93.1 percent of total 
shareholdings in the closely-held issues had a value of $500 or less 
and less than 1 percent exceeded $10,000 in value. In the widely- 
held issues of this group, 75.2 percent of all shareholdings fell hito 
the lowest value class and 1.5 percent into the highest value class. 

(c) OTHER DIFFERENCES 

In the classification by asset size of the issuer (table 57 for closely- 
held issues, table 63 for widely-held issues) tendencies were somewhat 
more irregular in the closely-held than the widely-held issues. In the 
closely-held group the lowest proportion of holdings with a value of 
$500 or less and the highest proportion of holdings exceeding $10,000 
in value were found in issues of corporations with assets of $50,000,000 
to $100,000,000; in the widelv-held group, this combination of pro- 
portions occurred in the $200i000,000-$500,000,000 size class.^ 

As "the number of shareholdings per issue varied, there was loss 
uniformity in tendency among closely-held and widely-held issues 
than in any other classification (table 59 for closely-held issues, table 
65 for widely-held issues). ^ In the widely-held group the proportion 
of. holdings with a value of $500 or less showed a clear-cut tendency 
to decline as the number of shareholdings per issue increased.^ In 
the closely-held category, there was at best only a faint suggestion of 
this tendency. Peculiarities of individual issues evidentl}^ had a 
greater determining influence on the picture of the closelj^-held group 
than on that of the wideh^-held group. 

3. COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN CLOSELY-HELD 
AND WIDELY-HELD COMMON STO^CK ISSUES 6y SIZE OF INDIVIDUAL 
HOLDING 

(a) THE OVER-ALL PICTURE 

Differences in breadth of ownership are clearly reflected in the dis- 
tribution of shareholdings by size of individual holding. A uniformly 
detailed subdivision of holdings into the seven size classes (1 to 10, 
11 to 25, 26 to 100, 101 to 500, 501 to 1,000, 1,001 to 5,000, and over 
5,000 shares) was available for 1,126 of the 1,250 widely-held issues 
and 315 out of the 334 closely-held issues. For the widely-held issues 
coverage amounted to about 93 percent each of all shareholdings, 
total shares outstanding and aggregate estimated value of all 1,250 
issues. For the cloSely-held issues coverage was somewhat liigher, 
amounting to almost 94 percent of all shareholdings, 91 percent of 
the total outstanding shares and as much as 98 percent of the aggre- 
gate value of the group. 

« See ch. Ill, sec. 4, footnote 6. 
• See ch. Ill, sec. 5, footnote 8. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 45 

In the closely-held issues (tables 68 to 73) 80 percent of the out- 
standing shares v.'os accounted for by less than one-half of 1 percent 
of all shareholdmgs comprismg more than 5,000 shares each; in the 
widely-held issues (table 74 to 79), only 40 percent of the outstanding 
shares was included in the holdings in this size group, which again 
constituted less than one-half of 1 percent of the total number of 
shareholdings. At the opposite extreme, less than one-half of 1 per- 
cent of the total shares was included in the 40 percent of total share- 
holdings in the closely-held issues which ranged individually from 1 to 
at most 10 shares; in the widely-held issues, about Iji percent of the 
total shareholdings included 1 to 10 shares each and together they 
accounted for only about 33 percent of all outstanding shares. 

(6) DIFFERENCES IN DISTRIBUTION BY VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS 

The size distribution of total shareholdings by industry is shown for 
closely-held issues in table 68 and for widely -held issues in table 74. 
Among the major groups, there were^pparently only slight differences 
between the closely-held and widely-held issues in the proportion of 
total shareholdings in the largest size class (over 5,000 shares each). 
In every case, however, the percentage of shares included in these 
holdings was, at the least, almost twice as high for the closely -b-^ld as 
for the widely -held issues. In the communication group the ratio 
was about 5 to 1. 

As the basis of classification was changed (tables 69 to 73 and 75 
to 79), tendencies in broad distributive pattern were much the same 
for shareholdings in the widely-held as for those in the closely -held 
issues except for somewhat greater irregularity in the latter category. 
The most outstanding differences were the consistently higher pro- 
portion of total outstanding shares included in the largest sized hold- 
ings in the closely-hekl issues and the much wider range of variation 
in the same group in the proportion of number of shareholdings in the 
smallest size class. 

4. COMPARATOVE DISTRIBUTION OF SHAREHOLDINGS IN CLOSELY-HELD- 
AND WIDELY-HELD PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

Because of the more limited proportion and lesser importance of the 
86 closely Jield preferred stock issues, the tabular presentation has been 
somewhat more restricted than that for the common stocks. (For 
statistical details, see tables 80 to 95.) 

Electric,, gas, and water utility holding companies accounted for the 
largest proportion of holdings in the closely-held category (table 80). 
Holdings in issues of this industrial subgroup constituted about 35- 
percent of the total for all 86 issues but only 12 percent of their aggre- 
gate estimated value. Railroads ranked second with 17 percent of all 
shareholdings but 25 percent of their total value. Petroleum refining 
was third with 1 1 percent of the total holdings and only 4 percent of 
their aggregate value. Together these three groups of issues accounted 
for 31 of the 86 closely -held issues. The remaining 55 issues were 
scattered among the various other industries without much concen- 
tration in any of "them. 

Total shareholdings in the 86 closely-held issues are distributed by 
the asset size of the issuer in table 81. Of the asset size classes under 
$100,000,000, the $20,-000,000 to $50,000,000 group was the only one 



46 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

to account for any considerable proportion of the total holdings. The 
corporations with assets of $100,000,000 and over, on the other hand, 
accounted for 70 percent of the total shareholdings and about 67 per- 
cent of their aggregate value. The 17 issues of corporations with 
assets of $200,000,000 and over accounted alone for almost 60 percent 
of all shareholdings in the closely-held category and about 51 percent 
of the total estimated value. 

As among the common stocks, there was greater concentration of 
shareholdings in the lower price brackets for closely-held than widely- 
held preferred stocks. Almost half of all shareholdings in the closely- 
held group was accounted for by issues selling at under $10 a share 
(table 82). Another 16 percent was in issues ranging between $10 
and $30 in price, about 18 percent was in issues priced between $30 
and $60 and almost 17 percent was in issues selling at $60 or more per 
share. The latter group of shareholdings accounted, however, for 
over 60 percent of the total value for the group. 

Of the 86 closely-held issues, 63 had less than 1,000 shareholdings 
each. In 22 issues the number of shareholdings ranged from 1,000 
to 10,000 each, and there was only one issue in which the number of 
shareholdings exceeded 10,000 (ta;ble 83). The largest of the closely- 
held issues had a little over 23,000 shareholdings — about 24 percent 
of the total number of holdings in all 86 issues — but accounted for 
only around 1 percent of the total estimated value for the group. 

Thirty -five of the eighty-six closely-held issues were listed on the New 
York-Stock Exchange, 28 were fully listed on some other exchange, and 
23 were either not listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges only 
(table 85). The fully listed issues accounted for almost 90 percent 
of the total shareholdings of which about 61 percent was in issues listed 
on the New York Stock Exchange alone; corresponding proportions 
for the widely-held issues were 85 percent and 58 percent, respectively 

In the closely-held preferred stocks, as m the closely-held common 
stocks, the distribution by estimated value of individual holding was 
more heavily tipped toward the lower end of the scale than in the 
widely-held preferred stock issues. Of the 96,000 total shareholdings 
in the 86 closely -held issues, about 67 percent had a value of $500 or 
less and only about 3 percent was valued in excess of $10,000 (table 
88) ; in the much more numerous widely-held group (table 94), 44 per- 
cent of the total shareholdings was valued at $500- or less and almost 
5 percent had a value in excess of $10,000 each. Of the remaining 
30 percent of all shareholdings in the closely -held preferred stock issues, 
a little over 11 percent had a value of $501 to $1,000, almost 16 percent 
ranged fn value from $1,001 to $5,000, and about 3 percent was valued 
from $5,001 to $10,000; corresponding proportions for the widely-held 
issues were 19 percent, 26 percent, and 6 percent, respectively, or a 
combined total of 51 percent distributed among these 3 intermediate 
value classes. 



CHAPTER VI 

CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OWNERSHIP IN THE 
1,710 CORPORATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

The preceding chapters have dealt with certain totals of sharehold- 
ings in the 1,710 corporations. They have given a concrete idea of 
the number of shareholdings of different size and their relative impor- 
tance among the 1,710 corporations, and have indicated differences in 
size distribution of shareholdings by type of stock, industry, and asset 
size of the issuer, price of issue, number of shareholdings, and average 
value of shareholding per issue. These chapters have also touched 
briefly upon the concentration of ownership 'prevailing among the 
1,710 corporations by indicating the relatively small number of large 
shareholdings, and the relatively large number of shares included in 
these not too numerous holdings. This chapter, however, is specifi- 
cally devoted to a discussion of the degree of concentration of owner- 
ship in the 1,710 corporations and of differences in .concentration 
between different types of stocks and issuers. 

1. THE MEASUREMENT OF CONCENTRATION^ 

As in the preceding chapters, the basic material consists of the data 
on the size distribution of shareholdings in each of the 2;381 common 
and preferred stock issues of the 1,710 corporations. Two distribu- 
tions are available. In the first distribution the number of share- 
holdings and shares outstanding are arranged in seven groups on the 
basis of the number of shares in each individual holding. The second 
distribution, derived from the first as described in chapter III, is 
based, on the other hand, on the estimated market value at the end 
of 1937 of each individual shareholding; it shows the number of 
shareholdings falling within five value classes but not the number or 
the aggregute market value of the shares included in the holdings in 
each value class. 

It is important to remember that both distributions are based 6n 
record shareholdings as they appear on the books of the 1,710 corpo- 
rations with the result that shares owned by numerous- individual 
stockholders, generally in relatively small blocks, frequently appear 
as a smaller number of larger shareholdings registered in the names 
of nominees, mainly brokers and banks. ^ The available figures thus 
tend to exaggerate somewhat tlie degree of concentration existing 
amojig the beneficial owners of the stock of the 1,710 corporations. 
This tendency has already been discussed in chapter I (sec. 4) and the 

> This section is similar in approach to the treatment of this subject in the report on the "Distribution of 
Ownership i^ the 200 Largest Non-financial Corporations," ch. Ill, sec. 6. 

' 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. 

47 
272188 — 41— No. 30 5 



48 CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

conclusion was drawn therein that the distribution of ownership is 
probabl;^ only slightly less concentrated on the basis of beneficial 
ownership than on the basis of record ownership, although the dif- 
ference may be quite considetable in individual corporations and 
undoubtedly is in a number of instances. Fairly sizable differences 
in this respect may even characterize whole groups of corporations 
but. it has been attempted to maKe anowance iur ims lactor in inter- 
preting the data. 

Ownership of an issue of stock may be regarded as equally distri- 
buted if every shareholding is equally large or, in other words, if 
ev€ry stockholder owns the same proportion of stock outstanding. 
The more the actual distribution deviates from this perfectly equal 
distribution, the more concentrated the ownership.^ This concept of 
concentration of ownership has been utilized to construct graphs, 
generally known as Lorenz curves, which indicate visually the degree 
of concentration of record ownership existing in any stock issue. 
These Lorenz curves are constructed by connecting a number of points 
derived from the distribution data, each of which indicates the per- 
centage of the total issue outstanding included in a certain percentage 
of the shareholdings, cumulated from the largest shareholding down- 
ward. By such linking of points a broken line is obtained which will 
ordinarily Q,pproximate a smooth curve. more and more closely as the 
number 'of points increases.* Since the limited number of points 
available for this study does not permit drawing a smooth curve, all 
the charts show the broken line obtained by Linking the actual points, 
as derived from the data for each issue (see appendix, tables 18 to 
41). 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 greater the concentration. ** 

« In this section, the term "concentration of ownership" in an individual corporation refers to the extent 
of the Inequality of the distribution of ownership among the stockholders of that corporation. More specifl 
cally, the concentration of ownership, in. one corporation Is said to be greater than the concentration of 
ownership in another corporation when it takes, on the average, a smaller proportion of the shareholdings 
in the first corporation to account for a designated proportion of the shares. The particular measure of 
concentration used in this section Is the area betweefa the Ix)renz curve and the line of equal distribution. 

There are, however, other aspects of concentration of ownership of a corporation which are not covered 
In this concept. Possibly the most important 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— if each of the few stockholders, owned the same amoimt of stock— even though 
its ownership Is imquestionably concentrated from the point of view of all stockholders. For some 
purposes, therefore, concentration might be measured by a second and entirely independent,flgure, the 
. reciprocal of the number of shareholdings, which may be used in conjunction with the measure derived 
from the Lorens curve. This second measure Is not used In this chapter, but comparison of the degree of 
concentration alhong individual issues or groups is limited to issues or groups with a considerable number 
of shareholdings. 

* There are only 8 points available on the basis of size of shareholdings (namely, the point representing the 
I)ercentage 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 £he distrlbu-. 
tlon by value groups of holdings Is utilized. In the latter case the proportion of the total value of the Issue 
represented by shareholdings In a certata value group must be estimated, generally by multiplication of the 
number of shareholdings by em estimated average value. 

• 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 avail- 
able. Consequently, the estimated degree of concentration will always bo smaller than the actual degree 
of concentration. The size of this error 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 diflerences in^ 
the distribution of their ownership. 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 49 

The concept and measure of concentration of ownership, as de- 
scribed above, are readily apphcable to an individual corporation or, 
rather, to an individual issue of stofck. Certain difficulties arise, 
liowever, when it is attempted to characterize a group of corporations 
or stock issues in a similar manner, i. e., 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 sharehold- 
ings of the sanie 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 ob- 
tained as a basis for the discussion of the value and share distributions 
of individual shareholdings (chs. Ill and IV), and since it was not 
feasible to follow the median approach in view of the large number of 
issues involved, the aggregate Lorenz curves are used instead of the 
median Lorenz curves in the graphic presentation of concentration 
of ownership of the various groups of corporations. However, the 
conclusions arrived at on the basis of the aggregate measures of con- 
centration were checked against median measures of concentration, 
obtained from a 10 percent sample of issues, and any important differ- 
ences between the two measures of concentration will be pointed out 
in the textual discussion.® [ 

Two measures of aggregate concentration of ownership in a group 
of corporations have actually been used, one based on the value dis- 
tribution of shareholdings in all corporations iti the group, the other 
based on the share distribution of holdings. For an individual cor- 
poration, 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 num- 
ber of shares in each holding. Conversely, in the share distribution 
the same weight is given to shareholdings comprising the same num- 
ber 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 
comparable basis; furthermore, the information it provides — viz, the. 
number and relative importance of shareholdings of a certain value — 
'is niore interesting than that given by the share distribution. The 

• For almost all subgroups of companies considered there Is a rather marked clustering of meastires of 
concentraticj'n of ownership in individual corporations (i. e., the areas under the Lorenz carves for individual 
corporations) about the median for the group (1. 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. 



50 CX)NCENTRATION OF MX>NOMIC POWER 

relatively small diflferences 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 al^o reflect to some extent errors in the 
interpolation used to derive the value distribution of the shareholdings 
m individual corporations from "the share distributions. 

Tlie procedure described above makes it possible to depict by a 
Ifemgle curve the distribution of ownership of all the 1,710 corporations 

CHART V-III 

CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK OP 1710 CORPORATIONS 
WITH. SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 



g 40 
I 30 







































/ 


















/ 


















/ 


























1 










V 










/I 
// 
// 








/ 










/ 


// 






'/ 






Pre 
- (7 


"erred ^ 
97 Issui 


Uock-^ 


■'/ 






/ 














/ 




z 











_^^ 


^ 


,,,^^^^ Common Stock ' 
(1584 Issues; , 
1 1 ■ 



.0 10 20 .30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 . 

PERCENT OP TOTAL VALUE* OP SHARES OUTSTANDING 

"9osed on market prices on or aoout December 31, 1937. 
■ rDS-ieCZ 

or large segments thereof. The composite nature of such averages or 
aggregates of concentration must, however, be borne in mind in their 
interpretation. 



2. CONCENTRATION IN COMMON VERSUS PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 

Chart VIII shows the Lorenz curves for all stock issues of the 
•1,710 corporations, based on the estimated distribution by the end- 
of-1937 value ,of all 14,000,000 individual shareholdings. One curve 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 51 

is based on the aggregate for all 1,584 common stock issues ancPtb.^ 
other on that for all 797 preferred stock issues of the 1,710 corpora- 
tions. The Lorenz curve for preferred stocks is obviously nearer to 
the line of equal distribution than that for common stocks, thus con- 
firming the impression repeatedly apparent in the earlier phases of 
this study that there was lesser concentration of ownership anion^ 
the preferred stock issues of these 1,710 corporations than among 
their common stock issues^ It took a little less than the larr,est 3 
percent of common shareholdings — that is, less than about 350,000 
out of 11,500,000 — to account for one-half of the total value of shares 
outstanding, and only around 15 percent of aU shareholdings was 
necessary to account for four-fifths of their aggregate value. (For 
statistical details, see table 96.) For preferred stocks, on the other 
hand, somewhat more than the largest 4 percent of shareholdings — 
that is, a little over 100,000 out of 2,500,000 — was required to ac- 
count for one-half of the total value of the issues and it took about 
22 percent of all shareholdings to account for four-fifths of the value. 
Viewing these curves from a slightly different standpoint, it is ap- 
parent that the largest 10 percent of the shareholdings accounted for 
somewhat over 75 percent of the total value of all common stock 
issues, but for only about 70 percient of that of all preferred stock 
issues of the 1,710 corporations. While it is obvious from these com- 
parisons that the degree of concentration was somewhat smaller 
among preferred than common stock issues, it is equally apparent 
that it was very large in both cases. This is indicated in chart VIII 
by the smallness of the area under the Lorenz curves, on the one 
hand, and by the great distance of the curves from the line of equal 
distribution, on the other.^ 

Chart IX indicates differences in the degree of concentration of 
ownership for the preferred and common stock issues of six major 
industrial groups.^ Ownership of the common stock was obviously 
more concentrated than that of the preferred stock in foiu- of the six 
groups; namely, manufacturing; el-ectric power, gas, and water; mer- 
chandising; and financial and investment companies. Among the 
railroad corporations ownership appears to have been equally con- 
centrated in the common and preferred stocks. Among the com- 
niunication companies, on the other hand, there was noticeably 
greater concentration of ownership in the preferred than, in the com- 
mon stocks, but the difference is hardly significant in view of the 
very small number of issues, particularly of preferred stock, and the 
-extremely large weight given to one common stock issue. 

In all size groups of corporations concentration was less pronounced, 
as chart X shows, for preferred than for common stock issues, the 

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

• The median area.s 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. 

• Chart IX as well as all of the following charts has been based on the size distribution by number of 
shares held and not, like chart Vni, on the distribution of shareholdings by value, because there arc eight 
points available for this size distribution, compared to only six points for the value distribution, and be- 
cause 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 2-,170 of the 2,381 



52 



CMDNCENTRATION OF EiCX>NOMIC POWER 



CHART IX 



CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF 1793 COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK 

ISSUES OF 1247 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 

ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CUSSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 

MAHDfACTOEIlIO IIBCTBIC fOWIt, OAS t WATI« 









/ 






/ 


\ 




/ 


Preferr 
(304 Issu 


es) ij ; 


/ 




'^ . 









/ 






/_ 


1 
/ 




/ 


fref erred — ^^y ' 
'168 issues; ,/ ■ 




{55 /ssuesJ^ 


^ : 



z 




lAILlOAO 




o 
5 








/ 

/ 








/ 




o 






/ 




a: 

m 






/ 




g^U 






Preferred^ / T 


-J 






(60 Issu 


'"y,: 


fe 


y 


Como 




/ 


^ 


y^ 


{82 Issues) ^ 




o 


/ 


, , , -Lr^ 


, . . . ■ 



FINANCIAL 



NIICBAIISISIMO 









/ 






^ 


\ 




/ 


Preferred ~-~^^^f/ ' 
(66 /asues) ^ 




/ 




'7 


/ 


Cowon -^^^^ 


/ 


/ 


(117 /.S8ues>~> 


(y 


^ , 


1,-'-;^ 


Y 










/ , 






/ 








preferri 
(3 Issue 


d 


■/ 


Com 
(10 IS 


sues; / 





60 TB 100 26 BO 

PERCENT OF TOTAL NUHBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



C?ONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 



53 



CHART X 



CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF 2170 STOCK ISSUES OF 1565 CORPORATIONS 

WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CUSSIFIED BY ASSET SIZE OF ISSUER 



ML CORPORATIONS 









/ 


■ 










y 


Preferr 
(729 ISS 


'"rJ 


;/ 


Coir 
(UAl J 


nan 


^' 






CORPOSATIONS WITH ASSJTS 
UNOXS 10 MILLION DOLLARS 








/ 








1 
( 

1; 




/ 


1220 IssLea) / 

1/7 


/ 
/ . . 


Coirjuon 

(U9 issues) ^ 


/ J 


CORPORATrOKS WITH ASSETS 
OP 50 - loo MILLION DOLLMS 










/ 1 






/ 




• 




P>e:err 
(90 Issi 


ed — »j'/- 
es) // 
// ■ 


'-/ 


/ 


Con 

(74 I 


mon — — ^ 
sues) f* 


....'■ 


^CORPORATIONS WITH ASSETS 
OF 300 MimON DOLLARS t OVKR 


■ 






/ 






/ 


1 




/ 


h-eferr 
(52 issu 




/ 


Com 
(48 Is 

1 


ion 

sues; / 


^ : 



26 60 76 100 > 86 60 

^ fEBCENT OP TOTAL »UM."E" OF SHARES. OUTSUUDDlfi 



54 CONCENTRATION OF BCONOMIC POWER 

differences being more appreciable among the companies with assets 
of less than $100,000,000 than amohg the larger issuers. '° 

3. CONCENTRATION IN ISSUES OF DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES 

From chart XI it is apparent that among the six major industry 
groups, common stock ownership was least concentrated in the com- 
munication group which was strongly influenced by the distribution 
pattern of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Concentration 
of ownership was slightly gr?at.n' in the common stock issues of the 
electric, gas, and water utili y jompanie^ " and the merchandising 
companies than in those of the railroad or manufacturing corpora- 
tions included in this study but the differences were so small as to be 
none too significant. In- preferred stocks (chart XII) ownership was 
obviously most concentrated in communication companies, but the 
very limited number of issues covered casts some doubt on the sig- 
nificance of the comparison.'^ ' Among the other major groups, own- 
ership was slightly less concentrated in the issues of manufacturing 
corporations than in those of the other four groups." Of these, the 
electric, gas, and water utilities and the financial and investment 
companies showed less concentration of preferred stock ownership 
than the merchandising and the railroad corporations but differences 
again were small. 

The differences in the degree of concentration of ownership among 
the more important industrial subgroups are indicated in charts XIII 
and XIV. Even more noteworthy than these differences in degree 
of concentration of ownership is the fact that the Lorenz curve in 
practically all cases is far away from the line of equal distribution, 
indicating that ownership is quite highly concentrated in all of these 
industries. In preferred stocks (chart XIV) the curves are consist- 
ently closer to the line of equal distribution than in common stocks 
(chart XIII) but still indicate a high degree Of concentration of 
ownership. 

4. CONCENTRATION IN ISSUES OF COMPANIES OF DIFFERENT SIZE 

The differences in the degree of concentration of ownership among 
issues of companies of different size (assets under $10,000,000, 
$10,000,000 to $100,000,000, and over $100,000,000) are shown in 
chart XV ._ These differences, both for common and preferred stock, 
were so slight and irregular as to make it doubtful whether any sig- 
nificant relationship exists between size and degree of concentration; 
that is, whether small corporations with securities listed on a na- 
tional securities exchange actually tend to show a significantly higher 
degree of concentration than large corporations.'^ 

>» The differences between the concentration of ownership of common and preferred stocks do not appear 
to be attributable to differences in the average price of these two types of issue. 

" This result isapparently attributable to the large holdings of utility holding companies in other utility 
issues, apart from wholly oWncd issues which were excluded. 

" The high degree of concentration of ownership observed appears to be due mainly to the large holdings 
of the American Telephone tt Telegraph Co. in these issues. 

" This result was corroborated by an analysis based on median measures of concentration (together with 
measures of rej)resentativeness) for companies of different size in the various industry groups. 



CX)NCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



55 



CHART XI 

CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF 1138 COMMON STOCK ISSUES OP 1127 

CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 










/ 




.— .:; 


anufacturi 
srchandisi 
inane ial - 


/ 
ig - 185 I 
It - 117 I 
89 Issues 


ssues 
3sues 




/ 




J 


'\/ 




„_^ 


. . . .' 




50 7B 100 . as 60 

PERCEK'T OP TOTAL NUMBER. OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 



56 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



CHART XII 

CONCENTRATION OP OWNERSHIP OP 655 PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES OP 530 

CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIiflED BY MAJOR INDUSTRIES 




Sioo 

J 








/ 


o 
t- 

o 

w 60 

26 






nufacturir 
rchandialr 
nanclal - 


li - 304. Is 
ig - 66 Iss 
54 Issues 


sues r 
ues I 








/ 


'■/. 




^ 


^/ : 



60 75 100 25 60 76 

PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OP SHARES OUTSTANDING 



CONCENTRATION OF EXX)NOMIC POWER 



57 



CHART XIU 

CONCENTRATION OP OVNERSHIP OP 794 COMMON STOCK ISSUES OP 785 CORPORATIONS 

WITH SECURITIES LISTED ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY UINOR INDUSTRIES 



ill 


Food (77) 
Tobacco (21) 
Beveraie (43) 


/ 








I 


; 


/ 




if: 


/ 




^ 


/P 



-- — Iron 4 Steel (43) 

Bldi. Material (40) 

llec. Macn. i Radio (49) 

■ Ottier Mach. i Toole (112) 
I 




too 


1 1 

■ -- — Chain Store (54) 

■ Depi. Store, (32) 


/ 


n 

80 
26 



Mail Order 


(e) 


/ 






/ 






/ 




J 


'■/ 




^x^ 


# 




■ Elec^Gas, etc. nidi. Cos. (33) ^ 

.. " - Operandi,. Cos. (4) 

, " " " Operat 114 Cos. (18) 






/ 


1 








# 


/ 




.^ 





06 60 76 100 ?,6 60 

^ PERCENT OP TOTAL NUMBER OP SHARES OUTSTANDING 
ftj. »n jrachtti « A'o. oj Jssii0t 



58 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



CHART XIV 

CONCENTKATION OF OWNERSHIP OF 472 PREFERRED STOCK ISSUES 
OF 369 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 
ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 
CLASSIFIED BY MINOR INDUSTRIES 





1 

Food (46) 
Tobacco (11) 
Beverage (11) 








/ 










J 


/ 


— — <^ 


^ 


y/ 





Textile ( 
Tire d Ru 
Leatner (5 

Auto i I'b 


2S) 

Uer (8) 
) 






rts (15) 7 




'■ 


■ 


/ 




// ■ 


:/ 


—W^ 


^ 


f 




26 50 76 100 26 60 76 100 

PERCENT OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING 
Fig. in brackets = Ao. oj Issues ts-ieou 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

CHART XV 



59 



CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF 2170 STOCK ISSUES 

OF 1565 CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES LISTED 

ON A NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE 

CLASSIFIED BY ASSET SIZE OE ISSUER 



100 







COMMON 


STOCK 




100 


' ' / 




ASSETS (Dollars .unions) / 


75 


Under 10 - 849 Issues 

10 to 100 - 421 Issues 


50 


■ 




/ 


""" 


■ 






1. 


25 


- 






// 


: / 






h 









r,^r^- 


/ '. 



50 



50 75 

PREFERRED STOCK 



100 



100 



75 



50 



25 



ASSETS (Dollars Millions) 

• Under 10 - 220 Issues 

10 to 100 - 308 Issues 

100 ^ Over - 201 Issues 




25 50 75 100 

PERCENT OP TOTAL NUMBER OF SHAPES OUTSTANDING 

DS'1601 



60 



rj ■< 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



°i J Jz; 



-B" ^ 



sH 









(ijS' 



^i°| 



nob OS 90 I 00 



ill ilii 



511 SgS9 



-i f5-S?JJ 



ill 1511 



00 II MCSMO 






S8°2 






lis-.. 



11^ 



'ffSc 



io»t-o» I 



sll li§i 
§1 s§s§s 



§g^i 






§«2 



S°2 

III 



II 8 Is 






SSS" 



SI SSS" 



3O00O«t- I lO «0 



i^iiss 



OOOSUSNOOM 

r^ o ci 5p w -H 
t-t-t-oowr- 















M -HU500NOO 

gJS?;2!5S 



gss? 



O'W 0> CO CO »o 
GO OO 00 CO oo o> 









fQO-oTto'io'od 



mmm 



ONOtcosS 



§52iSi 




P £ 
2" a. 

Illli 



|oSoo 






? 2 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEJR 






SS S S 



61 



■oo o II oi'H" 






§11= 



s§ 



s § § 
« I' 



ii 



ooooc 



sSoooo 



;o «• 



sss 



III 






t~t~ o 



I g i 









row ^- 



g s 



CO t^o«o 1 »o 



>OCO I 



*gss 






"8 = 



8 S I 



-«• o •* 






si i 
II I 



t§ s 



OWN 

i S R 
i § s 



II 



gss 



o o 

3 §8 



a a> ta 



S3- 



IBg 






I g a 






liis 

IN--.-N 



M O 00 

;: s s 

« -H- V 



e^'-roo- 



I8SS 



3g g 



S 8 I 



l^i 



Hill 



1^ $ 

ii i 



S 2 



I S i 

I § g 

cf (» t-r 



^^■s 



fSS! 



& s y 

a" s ^ 



8^ S 



t^ •«• o 



»?3 E5 



I 

g. 

So-' 



I 



.Ife 



I -^ ^ 1 
1 



si 



^ 35 S 



.g 



IP 



Is « . 



. a Ho" O So 




o 






■f §12^ 



•1 1 



11^ 



..§§ll 



.g 

1? 



'3 MS f^ 



i! 



62 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



S g i° 



ll°| 



t~ 00 ao3 



i i Si 



tea-.* 



E^n 



PhS°o 



i i§ 



§ S?5 



gS 






i§ 






I a" 






9 S 



„ a.2 

wu-„ .ga-g^g 

J a 5?-=aa-" rt 8 § 
lus.g.SoS'ORno 

S^gaw -< O S 



a I 



3 s a 9 « § 

la ft ^ti 



.a-s 






II 



lip 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



63 



s s 



N « Or- t- j 



>r-. ooo -* 

500 St^ So « S 



eoooooSoo r- 






>-rO ooo 



I J:{2S^"S 



[2 g2 



CJCo5toS 



tCOCO «3« 






■*ot-r oc<f 



gj -dJoi CJ 



a 2c 



s a ;::s 






MOu 






M C^ 2' g 2 



OOt^CO 



s s 



0<N(M -< 



S g 



S S SSS s 

00 eo -H Tfi CO 






t^ t^ ooa> 






S ■ c3g2Sf 

t~ totooeoift 



S §35 






ooocc So 



i I if s 



s ^; 






— OOO 



?as 8s 



'2 g 



S3 s 









1 1 

5 9 "3 



I a^ 



^ i 



ss 



§1^ 



O S S 2 

a "a S I 

O.55 05 3-e 



s-sassSsa Ǥ 



|>8iS|si5a 









•3 



Srto 
2 



272188 — 41— No. 30 6" 



64 



OONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



8 a 



e CO 

•5 H^ 



2 I fe^^rt I '^^ 
•2 ^S°o I S§ 



(2;§' 



S8°l 



a "O 

"A o 



^8' 



li 



ss 



??s g 









■iim 



il 












Z2^ 



t^l^O 



S?§g 



3CX3 S 



"g 



i§^ 



iii 



^ 11 " 



a 03 
.2 g 



iSft 
a « c3 



m 



•o II o II « 



as 

MO 
S 03 






8 2 



>-r ^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Sfli ! 



§ I 



INO) -S-OC! 



&E°2 



a°s 



(2i = o 



iss'ssfs: 



iiog-SoSSS 









;ss§2n 



lO o> O O ■* lO -■ 



^ t- <a " ; 



s s 
£0 









|^_i§52§l: 






S Q Tf C^ Tt« 06 Tp O 
> u5 rt< -^ o t-- ;d i-t 



iSSI 



i28 



MoOOiMOOCCOO^Orr 



ot^r^ooc 



s^ss; 



00 ;?< O 00 C30 Q 



85^ 






i§ii 



go 

Og 
o 0, 

II 



If 

0.5 

P3g 



65 



isl 



I • - 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



£S°2 



(i;8°5 






J-*— I 00 00© 



s-0'X>0>C001b-OC4COi-' 



(N O « t-" tT C5" »£f t-f ^"cd cf 



OO^— 'OO'^UOCOr- 



IH 



ri 



H°l 



ll°l 



5 r^o 05 -* 00 



U^IMCOIMCCOOIOOO': 



CC OC C<>0 CO t^ CO Oi O «5 



o o" oo" t-" — " r< "I r~' 'S-" ; 



; gj § 5; § 5! ^ S; ?? 









i§ 









ssf? 






) u^ 1~. -* TO — 0> - 

liiiiiii 



as 

80 



8S 
So-' 

sis 






ss 









CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



67 



tlH 









<! i 









a) o S • M 



HM'A 

^ " O-S o 



11 



•S3.S 



III 












05C0C>t-t-00Om>C-<J<! 
OSCS^OOOOOOOOOt^OOt 






'°g3gg5^:832:s;S 






jsSisiii 









Tf*eC>ScocDSuTiO^ 



CO O" V M' C^" C5 M « N* CO Cf 



tjT t-J Tt<" o oi" CO o CD '^'' irf" lO 
6»97-iCTir^5jooO'-^Oi— 'O 



S CO -^ to S CO Oi 



ICOcO--HOOt^GOCi<-'*C 



i"KS2 






go. 
8*3 



as 

fl o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



•^ ai 



0^ <J 

o 
ft. 



(£S°2 



J iO ''f* CD M iC O O CO Ol CT 



;s?§^2sg8=:s 



OJt^00 00C30 00 00CO0000OJ 



^^iilss^ls^ 









ilisiiiilii 



s^ss^gggsg; 



i o CD q6 t^ 00 oi i^ c 



«d" cj' CO" »o' cs d" CO cT g oT o 



iSS' 






II gill 

mm 



t^-.t<r^05c5o»o»o— '00' 

INt^rH'WCOOOOCJtOOS! 



t5i4-5<-Ha5 00)05 r-tot^ 

W^fH ^ •H »0 iC -^f O C5 OS 



oo8>Oaot^»>OM*>ra'0 



5"o 



2 ° 
"32 



CM© 

|Sf.S 






SSS^SS^I^imSRo 



•oSsSSww**^- o o o ca ^ 

C o o o o c o*^*^*:rH "^ 

§2§I§SK5SS2 






CONCENTRATION OF EOONOMIC POWEIR 



69 



(58' 






(Sg 



£8°o 



(S§°o 



^ 8 



i i 



^ S 



^8^1 



^ IB OS £ g 



•S-s Mf 



si 



III 

1^1 









S 2 






S § 



t~ to 



2 g 



8 J: 



CM OS 



s i 



>^«j!^ 






hj hJ I-; P ^; 






P8 
^5 



■,«5 



70 



CX)NCENTRATION OF EOQNOMIC POWER 



i. M 



So 

s 



s-s 



s* 



il 



II 



NPKONOOOi' 



!3!^"S' 



>^=!2rfS!t2' 



§S§SS: 



feS^S^^ 



CO«tO>Oi-INC 



ssi?? 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






IS 



J355f:S_2_Sfegsg; 



JIN O O ■* 00 -V f-c CJ 



SScMM 



Issigi^ 



is-" 



3 9 






30eooooM(N 



Hii 



P 



«M 


ON 1 


S§ 


ili 




<n" 1 


NCO 


f.-H j 



ooit^OToooTjieo'-i 



OS CO OS CO t^ -^ w c 



s OS 00 OS t~ CO M 



toioost<5toe<i.-it«5oc<<t 



^50sooo^-as>o^~u5■*Me^ 



>SS5^ 



'ooooooooo!? 



71 



72 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






;gS 



S S 



PhS°o 



O(N00 






§21 






5 oTccTc^co I 









5 lOiOfN CO -^ 



P 



«^2 



(O OT C^ l^ -^ ^ 



ll°l 






|i 



t-f'^'OOtO 












llPli 



If.! 






ill 









Sf'^'S' 



||..4i 



ijogfeo 






O.0S M 






-3 T3 



fepqPO 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWBH 



73 



11 CO n o oi-* -^t- 

I ^ S g IS K s?s 






-HOO OS 






-2 II 

5O00 



i ^ 






2 II is I 



I III 






to «>« I 



I B ■§ 



«-• O -^ 00 r" 



cds ;§|| g 15 



B III § I 



8 g; 



S'g 






" i i 



So 11 2 « s 



S 82 



§ hsi 



I i I 



i II ii 
15 1 '^'d 



-§ : i 
^■s i 
III 

lilil 
I 



g 

■32 

oft 



2 ;.2 
a '^ 



•2 '-sJ 

ill! 






|ia||| 



iS -a 



« bi)..Sft2 



o S5 ■•ogpq 

^.§3 2 3 



gi 

^1 



« a w 3 
o «s .Q o 
H at? 



74 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









|i 



o >o 



° ". 



(SS°o 



.-< O O w 



g 



s?^ 



■^ g 



g § 



1^ to 






P 












li'sl 









88 



is 



sl|i'§ss 






So 



§ § 



I i 



N Cj MC 



i I 



2 :3a a 



.111' 



"3 " i2 '■«' 

t i p-'i 



55 o o i 

•g O O c 

3 
< 



yi 

s 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



75 



OO 00 -H a •* c^ 



OOOSCT) toe 



SSSSS!? 



II nI 



i^^ s 



S 5 



f~ « ■♦to ■* 

to to t^ lO t* 



■♦ woocc to 

lO IN CO -<■ t^ -ai 

t^ t~t^oot^>o 



O S« M 



sill 












55? S 






i- s 






51000 OOJ 



SIS§ §s 



S SS^MC 



^ S55::2S^ 






to lO os'c 

to ■Otoe 



^ S' 



"SoroS 



I i§i"" 



IS 



00 Oi ^ u? «Ob- I CO 



O lO -■ o 



g g ; 



9« 



J S' 



•9 -s-a a-C 



ir 



B 
"si ^ 

.2 



£a 



I 

"~ -3 g 



||||g|g||i 
.9 



M M H y =5 fc! o 






Q, 



0-S23 



, a -2 ^ a ^".2 o Sis 8 
J .2 S^i3£5ot5r.2 

II Si 

I I I 



76 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






ri 21 



ill Jig 



S SRS £ 



Ss°° 






SS-o-s 



1^ 



Pl°it||.a 



'«-a 



« o bo 



So.2 3 



INiN 



^8^ 



?[-*"' 



!5:SS 






ggj? 



58§ 



Sis 






pf«o 






sj|| I 



F 



O I « 



S||g 



=illl 111 S 2 
s-otnoo s 



OftsS 

8-3 a a 

■C" a o 
gg|H 

© ® 3 3 

ng5a 



CONCENTRATION OF BCONOMIG POWER 



I z 



'.-^S 



I OOO »00 t* « « OS'- 
I lO ^ CD ;0 CO lO CO CO CO 



;«cft-. I 



jcoosososoooco r^ 
)cooooa>'-'00cooc cm 

rH fo ic r^ o: M* I CO 



^8' 



. CT lO Cl O O 



C^ CC CO Ci O C^ Oi 

r* Ci t>- Oi o CO TT 



■o lOto o>a>^ 



to o> a> -Ji -jj r~ 



IO>OOCO(N c 

io coo 00 o r 



Si^gSSSS^S? 



^t>-oor^o«cocD 
-H C<f CO -^jl" co" tc o" c^f 



I-OC^'-hOCOOSOOC 
OOoOOOOiOiOiOiOSC 



S CO ■-« CT> ■-' OS QQ O 

i" S e5" q" J^' o ci S" 



I) " fit „', t* 

if S £ " 5 
cbS !p Sis 



535 =«-S^S 
<5 > "^ 3 a " 



o.g 

is 



ill 
Z'ojs 






I « O S CO CO lO -^ 



<OlTt*COCOCOCC»OcO 



S^ 



£JS§Si 



t^" 1< OT M «3 ;-f 10 oT 



M<MO<3050t^OOr~ 



^SSSSfSloSc 



odS 



77 



78 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^1 « 



t- aw OS 



Tf o c^ i-< ^ lo t>. w CO <o lo [ a> 



-^ 5 












. lOto lOiOOt 






ssss 









SSS? 



;^"ss^";fgf= 



;g8§5BSS§S 









)CC01— <000000100«l 
)COCT>00C)O5diO>OiC 



S3i 



lliii'i 



>CCOl'^COCCOiiOOt^-^ 



iiiSssiili 



.-T tC oT cs" .-T c^* oT sp" o »n m" 



ft-O ■ 



•o 00 CO oc' cT gi" cf cT rV c^J c 



°°f23SS<OOOOOoSr 






^SSlSiiSis 



11 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Ir 



Ss' 









SI§S5§SiS?5; 



^■"2 



W OOOStt t^ — c 



^ ic o" ;d" 00 r--*" cJ «* r^ ® 



:§2gs 



) Oj ^' -^ ?C « oi O CO o 



iliil 



l§°l 






"S8S¥5S?:3S?5 






^'' cf o" t-T oi cS <* ci" 



00 00 oo cn cS 9) 3) : 



sr:2 



[iiiiii 



§Ri§iisiH_ 



I m 



:ss? 



sgg 



l^^ii^ 



1 lOON •»> I 

> -it^ — 00' 



g g M 
2w o 









272188 — 41— No. 30- 






7 



8 ^ 



go, 

si 






79 



80 



CX)NCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



(iS' 



Ss' 



tM 






khi 









tnOOS -^eDi-^eD CC ^OS CO I 0> 
lO <S 5D ^ •* CC -^ »0 St CO 00 \ fO 



g^-^^-odoT A g g 2 s s 


















« e<r<o 00 00 CO « 00 .-I ■«■ 









:SSS??SggS|f 



ffl o M ax'' 



??iisglS§ig 



r-r(NC 



d?'-'ior-c»Qcoo5cor^os 

cTcTio o ■TjriCorV'»-r-^''co 









2§8S2S?S|g; 



I'-- I illlllilli 



OS 
o a 

II 

|l 

|i 

as 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



81 



^§'1 



s s 






m » Oi ^ 
9 <B <B cc 



s § 



ri 



P^S^S 



(S;8°o 



3 3 !s oSti 






S § 



!5 Sf 



i i S 



to t^ OS 



s » § 



- § 



00- 






^.l'- 



i i I 



i i 



5 ■■•o .i'O^a- 



'■5^ 



S " ' >> 

, Ox) . c 

.5 - ' 
1 °-" ° 






OS 



82 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



e^ 5, 



isssSKSs; 



!2S£3 



itsejio to NO»N 



«8 

1-3 



'S-s§;;2«=' 



JJ^OSt^ |-H 



8S§'|^ 



3 3 o o 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



83 



1 


1 


05 


OTXcc^^^^oo^^ . i 


N 1 1 i 

i i i ; '^ 




P 


|gSS32'«- i 1 


N N ^ 


1 

=5 
< 


> 


8^5§§ i i i i i i 


i i i i s 


P 


gg|''"« ; ; ; i j 1 


i i i 1 S 


•a 
|l 


s 
1 


2g58SS i i i i i 


1 1 1 I o 
1111 n 


P 


SS-"^--- i ; i ; i 


lis 


I' 

1 


s 

1 


MOO CD (MO 1 1 .' 1 1 1 

jrissss i i i i i i 


' i i i i " 


p 


^s="^" M ; 1 i 1 


Mill ^ 




!' 


1 

> 




n \ 


p ii 


11111 to 

i i i i i 1 


p 




- i 


;";":;! 


i ! i i 1 '^ 


li 
11 


1 




IN i 
I 1 I 1 1 "^ 


1-^ 


i i i 


Mill 8 


1 


> 






i ^ 


p 


ag^ 




i i i i i 2 


§ 
s 


§ 

1 


Siiiiiii 


N i N i 
iiilir^ 


p 


i i 


INN ^ 




s 

o 

> 


1 


Sri 


2§gliili 


iiiil [ 

25S2| 
lliil 


1 



84 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






S52 



lillll 



8S 



gss 






CO mS 



M 



lis 



o o _ 

O O o 



i§§ 

tat _ 






pi 

"5 8 1 

a-g-ag 



I I 
I § 



32 



^g 



iiil 



>SSS8 









ISI 



8SS 



§5 



1^ 



32 l; 



3 goSoo 






03 a a a 

■" 03 O OS ! 



i^s 



PtJa 



L. a bZ 
ill 

I-3PM04 






CX>NCENTRATION OF BOONOMTC ?0W!5^ 



I i; 



85 



gn25.2 
II 111 3 

lliili 



I "a 



•32 



gS. 



g 9 



w k. a 






■gods, f^ 

■Ssoo 



S8S 



ill 



i§ 



S-^Sc 



s§°° 



£iS3 
•a-S-3 
ag-3 



111! 



■2 pog 

^ lis 



|Si 



3 a a 

.S-3b 
2«S 



1 = 29 



Sz S 



a r: 

6CT3 



a o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



;-5 

,12 



oi 









11 



;s:jggs 






'^s; 



51 



t^ OOMO-- 



S22S 






t^- Cicco^ 






;?!S'-"''S 



i^l 



S •* O »0 40 t 






5?S 



s?s? 






« M UC U5 — » 
0-. 5^ 2 00 S OT 



■IS: 



5 t- 3 



SSS" 






iSS' 



ll 

11. 



IS 



o~aa I 



I i 






t: S OS ■= S H S.a 



^1, 



OCSCcgS 



feP3QO 



^ - 



^ S 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









SiSS 






iSS 



is 



Sjgg 



S2 



5S 



8^ 



g. gS 



o ooo? 



2 2S2 



00 •--"wio' 









§ «»§ 



g ««g 



Si5 






ill 
lit 

sac 






•a- a 



cos,: 



Si. 

O 3 O-'^ 



ji ill I 
III Ell ll ^" 

ScS .5-53 t- 






•o 2 



Hllil 



c « 



ll 

■-5 -3 



.11 § -I 

111 11 



4) a n 



c h s 



P5g5 

_ On 



87 



88 



2 5 



-4 ^ 



el !- 






8 e 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









3g 









ii-5 






4 -•"• 



o o>c — 



«5o 



m ^m 



isl 



OJ woo — 






i Sis 

5J I Si2<»" 



^ i 






iiiil 



?J" 1§ 






• ro — u; (O 



;S2?i 



:| 






■«■ CI >o o c 






c5' r* «5 « S 






c3 SS3S2 






5 8 =3 3 



B P 



"i: .3 a 



E S 



! o o 



s 



r^ "S>5'HffiC ^ 






•g!:,cS^S 



CX>NCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



89 



««Sr-.m 



i i^^si 



???3? 



85c5 



■00O>M«> 

) t-: « CO ci 



Sq^S 



3iS 



i'^i 









o Mt~So6m 



i§M§i 



a> CO <£> 



IN «■* 



13 S5iSS8 



iSs 



Sfel 

iii 



Sl- 



ag 



o o 

m M t 5 

9 -S 



^S 2 









g g <9 

ass 



.2 § 

*5S §• ■« 



!«0 



■S-S..2 
|8-« 



^ 8BB| 






^1 

o OJ 



90 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



s-'o 



So 






s5 

£2 



i^ 



(£o 



O-'MMMM-a-m-* 






; N fi M cc M •*■ ••f' •«<■ 



22?f^"SSSS 









= 2 

^1 



ISaSSS 



a b.2 
33ti 



S?c 



•S'S'H a c a § s! § 

- B 33 (fl el^ao 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



91 



|1 

§2 



8| 



is 









;gss 









ccosco-^t^^ioc^oici- 



OcO *o§ 



222^ 



WnSoS^Soc^O;© 



Mliiiiiiil 









92 



II 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONO:MIC POWER 

0> ■OCC'* •*-'« — o- 



Jg« 



SltSSS^J 



CI ro -^f o GO to ■' 



II 

Pi's 



> ^ CC OS (N Oa »0 g 



Is 



2s I 

Hi 









»l2^SiSi: 



"So«S^o>oc 



I o o oS2^ 






M 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



93 



a 03 



A 



S2 



So 









O -H* (N Tj; <c" Cft X^ ^0*0 



=-« 






25 



is2 ~4 



O •« L- t^ £ . 



go 



Mi-& 






I ^ ^^ o X S c^ <D « 









co' ;^ ■^'' *o "i co" -^ o" co" CO Q 



1- 



gOOOOOO'^*^'"^ ^ 

was i^^^e^ «>«»€«•««««» 



a "5 



94 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^ « 






8^ 
2„ 



8? 



0-6 

111 



11 






ii i 



i^ 



2§ g g 



c c 






o o a 



S 

m <» o 0-S2 






.CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POTVTBR. 



95 






fi 



^^2 



SS 



2: ■° 



ISJ 






272188— 41— No. 30- 



i22?5 



JSg 



:SS 






f m CSC 



g4 Oi fc OS "O o 



OOOMOOMS 

QOCi r>. ;o t^ c 



!• C<1 r- ■«<•«• 00 



tom«most~ 






occoomosoj 



§ §=s 



,1, 



.S n 03 >- 



|5S5o 
— 8 - 



ftOcg 

I "S.ll.a'S.sg 



II ^ 



-« I 



s h§ 2§ 



g S255 



si mi 






I ;:: 



I 2 
■ill I 

3C0QO 



pga 



to c a 



III 



i|l 



CONCENTRATIOJS' OF ECONOMIC POWER 

ciaic6-« -^ \\ t^u 



fcSgS 



ill 



!S^ SS 






cD»otDoo r*ioo 



II 3: 



SS§§ 



ss 



^11 



2gg3? 



sy^8?5 



?39S 



iSs 



SS 2 









s23 



Se5"?3 



2. a 

2 £.9 
I * 



iSSS 



iii 









M S "3 g li •* ■" 



9 ?i; 



■55^0 



3 I 
I I 












fe§^ si 



SS..S 






ffl H QJ 



.2 'O. 

r.9-g 

§"3 3 

PI 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



97 



i is 



ig 



TT I CO ■«»« »0 »0 »0 



n 



CD to "«. 



03 00 
I ll 



>3! I 



li 



xj 05 o 



Sg^i^ 












§ l^g^l 






§ il 



l:iS 



l?^Sg 



§^2S§ 



S3 



^ h§ s 



Sco <N r^ S 



* CO CO oc^ 

ir^ocoBjH 



S§ S 






S2°^S' 




Si '2 3 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





^ 


o 


01U5 


= "> 


' 


« 1 


Q 


c> 


-~ 


3> 


o> 




c= 


j; 


U5 


o 


1 "" 


II "^ 


1 




. o— • 


ri, r^t^^ •-; 


m 


-^ 


csico-; 


c-i 




c^<iw 


« 


^ ^ 




^s 




J 














il 


si 


i IS-""' 


i 


1 


iSs 


i 




IS? 


i 


sh 




o2 


uo 


» 


" 






1 


^jfKoo- 


^ 


II*- 




^11 


-1 «H~ t- U5 t- 


__ 

00 


00 


1 =°!°: 


"u 


II 


CMNW 


N 


rr N 






■«; ^ t^ " ^ ^ 


CO 


c6 




-•r 




^tco 


ui 


rO <d 
















II 










o_ 


(N COfS-OCO-* 


(N 


OS 


o o> — 


o 


j 


Ȥs 


a\\^ M. 1 


1 


s 


S SsSI" ^ 


o 


f: 


Sj5'° 






g 2 S 


1 


ii 


o 




"^ 




" 




S5«^'S 


r ^' 




111 


O » * O I- t- 


M 


•w 


N to t^ 


00 




00^00 


"11^ 


t- 




1 


^ '^FJ'^SS? 


<S 


^ 


i:=^2 


" 




2S^ 


Hr 


8 
























.a 


°8 


g ill-§ 


i 


^ 


i ssp 


i 




gil 


iiisi|g 


1 


ll 


^- "- 


.• 


2" 


"■-" 


« 




S^-s 


i r" 1 


a 


«» 


1 




1 










JS 




1 


































— 




^|3 


00 t~ o=> "O 


'O 


« 


1 0.0 


« 




-«:rN 


1 ^ o> « 


. o 

1 

g 


s -^4 = 2§ 





s 


j... 


3 




S2^ 


8 S 2 


3 


' °i 


i sfi-s 


n 


g 


Sss 


H 




1^1 


1 g ^ 






s 


2 


^" 


m 


■«' 




l?^'?f 


-■ «* 25 




is 


. 












1 




m 


« oo-oM-H 


~ 


~ 


©Mu? 


« 




raeco 


fc 11 >« -a- 






s §s'gs° 


t 


^ 


§SS 


g 




SS?5 


^ h: ^ 


i 


i i^gsi 


i 


ig" 


iSg 


i 




g$S 


sis i 




i 


^ to t-T 


_- 


12 


«!NC4- 


00 




i^n 


TT- r,- rC 




3 -^ 


2 




« 






o 




t3 






. 










II 




ill 


1 si-ais 


K 


i 


§s§ 


"i 




is^ 


i ili 




fe s"-" 


i 


«■ 


gf-" 


g 


1 


Kg| 


s; she 












1 




o « 




O cc^:.^^ 


'nr 


1^ 


csi^to 


N 




Moom 


m « II 1^ 


lii 


00 


1 


1 


c< 




oo^t^ 


^ 


ii^ 


a = a§ 


S »"^ — 


s 


p 


1 .«» . 




9"? 


§ " 


Ili 


2^ si 






L 


il 






1 1 






i 




















C 




















2 




















8 








■2 












1 










is 

IS 










1 








^ 






















if 






si 




« 








1 








1 

1 


§. 
Sx 


i 
II 

P 

III 


1 

t 
g 

1 


ll 

fet 


1 




dl 

il 


r 


1 
1 


1 

ll 


I 


c 


C 

Is 
i 

■z 




f 

a 
^ li 


1 

■5 


■c 






■g|sS' S?:<S ■£ 


Jli 1 




sill 


li 2 2 1 






!» 


o 










•1 


i 


a 







1 


r 


C 


c 




1 







CON'CENTRATIOX OF ECONOMIC POWER 



99 



! 11 



So 



■iisssjsii i 



^ O O ''J' CO fO :^ CO t>. " 



Is 

(So 



ls 












OS »ft o c^ r^M ci »o cc 1 c^ 






r» o o o ■«■ ■<>• e 



1-J003 — »m 35! 






iSS 



8il 



, :'2 a c = 3 3 - ■- 



"^ = = = ~ ; 



=--=^g8g| 



100 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



8| 






p'3 






)«OCSJ#gj2g«f^ 






<cr icr. COOOO'-OOOOO ■«< 









! g O "O [g S 



§§?:s?g5S?§§2 






8 
Zo 






§gi 



§§S 



■c « 

0.9 

o 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



is 



c-3 
go 



(£o 






S£ 



||.9 



N 00 rj" c^" <0 -h" lO to 






05C0^«^00O»oSo 

m" ci — ■■ oT —- p" ■>}<* o" to 



= SSL^S'? 












igS5SSS? = 



s 



m 



liiJii 



i-o.aoi--- — cooa 
;iN->i'0>o QO-wwwq 

mS°°ooooooo 






101 



102 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






So 

si** 



O ^ N « •* 00 C3> I 



SK — ioooSt^smoo- 



"BSiillssSI 



l< CO 00 o o> to <o ■* 

jOOMtOOTh^jj 



\a3 coooStDC^Sooto 



II 



ll-s 



3rt'*O>0O»CWCCkO»OC 



r-T cf (N (^3 lO O Otf CS' O <N C 






t>.iC*0-«*'COQOOi5 






df;5^§f;§g 



!2 o 



fi 



iiiiifc?! I 






--2 

"I 
Il 

ll 

5 8 

il 

2.2 



«i 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



103 



Is 



§2 



So 



So 



°s 



II 






28 £^ SS 



MOO O 0000 






)„.o •» c^o 



". '°2 






Ot3 
feo„ 

s|.9 



S-§ 2 Sg 



2:0 



!2 -g »S 






.a.a.a a So 00 






104 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Is g 



i2S.t;: 



sM 






CO coco >og 






t^ t^ M •* 0> O 



;|gii 



II --III 



, ^« 1^11 "5 CO CD C;- 

fe a"t;ii t' ' as -^ COIN 

S8°| , *l -^-^^ 



5 O 



(2^8°S 



Ilii- 



S8°o 



Bo '-3 



•a> o CO 13 g -d 
•a 3 rtS„ S 



S i i 



1^ = 8 g.2 






5 II SSmN 






lO •-« ^ (D to O 



-OS t^l^ t^O 



) ^ lO M C-l ■* 



OS oococdSo 



l?hEi 






2 S?SS 



OS «-^ 



t~ e^ ■>(< OS (N c^ 

OOOlN OTf> 
Ol CO t- to 05 ■<}< 



•:j'-2§ 






goSoo 



'Sol.t'g.Si 5i2 

■S-o.2^^gfe8 ■ 



1 1 



§ femoo 

o o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



105 



8S5 



^• 



U5 C^ 



2 g 



o I o » » 

Ci I 05 2' 31 



8S 



89S 



00 ||5^« 



23 



III 



s^s 



§S 



;l § 






li 



MM 



ii 



3S 



ggaga 



n' 



2 3 -S3 
S2 g^^.; 



3 OS t,— 



ii; 



•2 =^ 

2" 3 3 









■-•2 0> ^ 






!l 



8 S 



^ S? S 



I 1 



= 2^ -Si 



fegS 



111 



5.- S 

3— — 






I II ?i 



106 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



IJBBS 









li°l 



3=1 






P^i 



^g 



S5S' 



ri?3 



II 



sis 



s ?? 






8 S 



2 II 



i I 



s§ 



s§ 



00 11 o 



2 11 § I 



SI 3 



s. i. 






il 



8 



B 



i^l! 



sg 



P ill 
S'S la si 

^ S D 3 



5 

Ik 



s 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



107 



o c ■* » 0-. 



« I = » -T O 00 O 



IS!!: 



IIS g^ 



II § rJ 



I ???s= 



II S SEJ 



02 * 05 



So g 



ill i§s i^ 



SIS 85! 



ass 



s s ss gj 



o: r- -i 1^ : 



s; ?3C 



i s is 






§ fe35 



rri 



s s ss 



g SI 



??S5?5 



ai||0|| 01 e^ — t^ o 






s ??; 



is!8 s 



S? "3 



SJI S||i| 



S5 " ""2 S 



S2S S * 



s II ? |i 






§||i 



Sii 






S m M 5 !^ 



iii ii 



15 

2 Ur 



S 3 -< I 



< oeo 



5 g Sg I 

00" o" ooT » 
m m fSTf g 



MBS M 



I1 11^11 



I- O CO « o 



irii 



It . 

5 
O 



I-. a 



> £ s c 

|sii|i|i^ 

5 o £ £0 



!!§§ 

c o 3: 1;^ 



ii 



■BS9o 



3.2 
II n 



5 c'S 9^ S? -2 -^ '■? 



« ea*2 t 3-0 aes 1-.2 t-1 



108 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



■« 2 '^ 









IM 



S8' 






S2 ?S S'^ti i; 



g-H 



§ii 



Oi t^O I CO 

I 



SfJS 






Si 



Is" 

§■5 '-5 



sii 



I I 



1^ ° s a-2 



= 55 5? 
r-e5a 






:§S 



Tft^ to 



ssi 



^51 



ocooo 






S I g" 



a P..2 -g 



-2 1: a 



^.H S 









S 2 



S S 



|2||^ 



SII8 



S S 



«- 



rt o S 

S S "_ 

s s 



g3 



§I|S 



s 2: 



a 3 

^^ H gill I iHlE 1"^ I I 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



£■02-2 ;P 



5 a-s5 o 






J — CO 03 I to 









zSSB 



^8=5 






lip- 



S °''3 S 

2o2 5 



'gS 



?Sfe 



585 



;iKs^ 






■Rggg 



> CD « b* »0 CO «5 






82S22d 



§iisi? 



•-;i>02 ooo 



ceooM-ofoo 



8SS 



ill 



S3 Its 



;S5S 



8>Aco 



osl-H'g.Si -a t3 



II 



li I 



.2 goSoO 






« £P5C0 



109 



no 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 












oca II -frt. 



(2§' 



si°l 



'?S5:55 



(M- -H- 






sjlsss 









Si°J 






«0 lOt^ffl 



^8°5 



l^sal 



a*2i 



g52S2 



3Sd 



;lii 



OS rJ'OOO 



11 O OiC^ IM M 



^■S a 1 

.S 0! O i 



o:= a o 









:g a 

'I .1 
13 2 



III 



I. b' 



fei^ ills h' life 



3 03 k. — 



■S br M .^ « E 

a:S:a 2 Is 

a c3 



.S3? ^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



111 






^s 



^t 



s ss 



5 ^? 



•* II NOi-lOO^ 



silfc 



^g 



If SiSli 






sj: 



gg; 



t^S 



SS^gf 



Iff^ 



2 828 



gsss 









lis 



slji 



iiils 



p:sss 






iss 



«5 rf 



CO rt- 






is^s'sl 



i§i 



llli 



§s§il 



«8Soo 









Jlil 

-■2 SI 

o (s H S a £ 

S|lii I 






2B3 






4 ^S.o -?§ =21 






II 



I 
... I 

feP5<!w 



Bo. .| 



8a| 
g .9«3§S| 



g5oJ 



:i^B|ll 

g 08 a-g^ OT 



;s 



272188 — 41— No. 



112 



OS ;3 






11 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

CO 









S8°S I 



spi 



»i|!^ 









S il 2 



II "5 II o: ton 

IHI - - 



^SSs 



l§°l 



£S°s 



2284^ 



3 ® o I 



Ss®] 



^111 - 



il IH |S||S 



5 ss 






i^§ 



sj-^s 



as 



• SS 



HI 



ui 



U i 



.2 c305-"Coacet-.2 tM 






s 

'Sao -g 



:S « 



■a 

0) o C 
Oh O E- 



a3§ 

<5CQQ 



CONCENTEATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



113 



s" % 



§ 


s= 


g 


o 


1^ 


p 


S22 


2 


? 


ii 










^52 


1 


s 






n 


s 


^ 




5 




i 


■ O.C000 




OJ 


o 


5Si 




i 


1 


•oo6« 


>o 


w 


CO 




s 


° 


i 




-^ 


oi 


- 




2 


i' 




VOOO 

^§2 


2 


to 


iS 


ill 




i 


1 




== 


l" 


2 


iJs' 


§ 


1 

M 


.2 


1 
1 

a 

8 
1 
1 

i 

i 
1 

a 

f 


1 

,l 

1 

c 


'1 


1: 
11 

^ ; 
li 

1 
1 i 

11 
II 


1 


6 



^. I 



52 E"? 



.81 B^ 



2a Sf^ 
5 -.2 a 



- Oc -. 

£ 



114 



III 

^J PS 

11 § 

^.2 o 



(X)NGENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









£8' 



iM 



mi 



kPl 



^8°! 



Hill 



.i S " n C t 












|l = ia| 



gSlilifg^ 



iSSSS^ 















<«0-H-<«t»<Oil>C 



lil§2S§2s 



rH « e-» CJ CO 



»-(C^CCCSCOCCCOCOp5 



«D Q U3 UJ" C*f CT ci" CO 3« 









g|ss|s:gs^ 



00§j«»SSISloJ 



«^^ a a a a S S 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



) © to 00 -^ ^^ (31 CD e 















©O'^-^MWMNCq 



55 S S S; S " S S3 JS 












CO »0 «0 00 ■^ <0 od op lO 



• OeO<Or-i csoosi> o 



BStl 



N t* OS •-< 00 eo'co CO ^ 



(28*2 



5-ao^ — 



(2;8°2 



i°2a 



£8°3 



) to O OJ •♦ 1-1 CO P» © 



ai>oin<S-^c:t 






8°2 I 



citdNS 









i§ 



Jllllllll I 



115 



116 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^r^i 



"-•0— =? 

^I°l 



^r4 



»|o| 



isgl 



li°l 



00— ~^"o*r:"2i'^ 



=ili 



>iMa>ooo — r--CJSi 



SSSS§8SSSS-!S 















rO C^' -^jJ Oi CO CC oi fO 05 CO -^ 



t^M'^SccJoSSoc 



2^ 



OJOsoo-^oiortt^coc 

'"'5!: 






;2g!;;§2?3?3SS 



§£?i 



SiSSSe 



?ss 






SSgSSSSSS^" 



§53 



■"'""OOOOOO-uo! 

Miiiiiiill 



OONCEOTDRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



117 



£§' 






aSoa 



ill! 



sgs 



B°2a 









> O ■-" P« •-1 00 rt o o> « to o 



?ilisliH_§^ 



) lO r»i .-< CO « O ■»< C 






O0CO0C0CO0CO0O»C'^-*<u 



Sc3f3S«§§c5S 



°'j „ o o o o o o-« OJ 



i a 
fig 
§■& 

II 



CQg 



118 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^ 


6 


i5 


a 


*« 1 


o 


li 


g 
tf 




■«j 


j| 


w 

OQ 


Q 


!2 2 


Pi 


II 


O 


P< 


o *» 


fe 


^o 


o 


§1 








lllal 



fed"?; -2 






H 



I- I 



=2i^^ig§^gi 









• rt ,-; oi es Ti; « T 



'«s2?§i| 



ci'NCC'O't^t-^"*'' 



■^ c4 >o i-^ » g j^ 






BH 






1 1^1 



I 1 



S O M 00 00 K t^ CO 






J82SgSS?:s 



liisfil 












III 






-"^^mMma 



iKggssssEo^a^ 






SS2oSo8S8§ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWBS 












i°2a 

5 ffl o g 



lr°l 



ilii? 



««<00.-l««0»0>Oil< 









oir->ooort>ooc 



'"^'SfS^SS'SS^^" 



^" CO in CO IN IN CO cm" « s 



£8' 



lllll 



.^r°l 









(S8°| 



IM 



it 



5 M -^ <p os.«o « Q »o ic ro 
^' « <0 <D lO lO* CD" r-" Q CO 












119 



120 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



iiHI 



\H 



a ot3 






i5?S?3?SSSS^g 



00 '-<' »o o CO ic" !d" r-^ CO t ■* cc" 



JOlOSdOCOOCOtDi- 






§s 






Hot? 






M" -h" CO (M" O C^" tC r 






3 C5 o f-" cj m CO CO o" oT 



.a>»nwicoo^oo^o 



)§!5SS 



> CO ■»• » N O (M 00 t 



S^feSgSgg 



^^■^OOUO«D»CCO^CO 

oi" ^ 04" cf to oT oc 00 irf oT Tp 



^ be 
25 






5"o 









?:§S§«s§sgss 



■sill 

goop 



f^ffiffi O O O "^ r*^ 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



121 



«tD05tcoc>a-"tor^oio 






ir°l 



ZSJ 



:5?g 






:ocOOcD^< 



I ooeoo OS » 









228-^S- 



a o^ 



='S::iSS5S:2 



oot^eoQOOiasCiCios'^^ 



Hoi 






CM00«-.l-O<eOTti-*00 

(O t^ c< ^ ci" oc -^ jif CO «o lo 



3 O « M -H Tl< ^ <D r 



looconoomo-Hooc^o 
roM»omoocJ^cir-r 






JtO lOOltOOOCC 






'O c o <a (2 
^ «« ^ «e «?«»«» «e »««• «e 






0-g 
a ft 

ft a> 



11 

S o 



122 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^i°| 



Ijlil 



sin 



I 1 















gss 



gSI si 



^ lO CO 25 5 



gSJ^g 



R???[- 



^i=S 



!?;s S^ u 






o i Si 



lgg 



ij§ Si 



III i 



gfcS 






I 



Ills 

III! 



J2 .2 43 a o o 






l§al 






illll 



iS8°2 






Illll 



IM 



§S2a 



(i;§°2 



IliEl 



<s;8°° 









ills; 



S2? 



:2S 






•is§^ 






gsr-- 



lil^ 

ZZg|| ^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



123 






SfeS 









|"i^ia 






3i2 



feg"! 









JSSSSS 












Sil 






■* i^' OS o' ■* id 









Sg' 



•«<»oo 



3i!5igS!5;s 



ISS 



SroS fH ceo 

rHeJooiooto 



se: 



(* p- " a a 5 



SoioSooO 

csTcntvfco^'g 



III 



O CO OSM « 00 

»o oor* r^oo »c 

iiiiii 






Sottas «oS8 



m-<N-!0 






N-^iOSMOC 



P^ill 



ara^.^^<»oo 



...3 



2* > "g ASS'S 

5-3 as ^ tisa^a^ 



.§1 



£s 



I 

J.g| J 

^£.25 ^ 
&nQO 



3 goioo 



8 



124 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






UH 



o'-S 

1 I 



^^Sg 



"3S(M<0 



Jgg 



S5 232 g 



O II •>»• — o 



(NtC 



^S5^ 



li°| 



i^i"^! 






J:;S?3S 



S S 



E^N; 



ills 



t~^ -t ci 



iS^^ 



S§°o 



(£8°° 



I I 



F 



■OiO to 

?3^ §2 



?5^; 






sgs 



2 > " 3 n g 






- B 



g gJS ?3 



^?g^ 









III 



ir^ II 



3^ = 8 |.2 



II 1 



pSli 

em a c a £= 13 £ 



^ 57-2 



"SB 

■ills: 



-° >--s ^ = 



,S15 3 
eOO, O 



S" ^ 



:H 



OOJ^CENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






125 



^S' I Sll 2 fi c5|| S^ ^- 



s a 



S fc 



• to iC||t^0O[| CO o 



?3g 



^1 



12 g "S 



S8 



S ?5SJ 



S||J33:|| 3 § 

M -Jc lO CO 



IP'-l 



99 



Wl 



5S 



||||2| 

« i3 



5!g 



» i 



Si5 



ii 



ni 



•2 -g 



t S 



>1 i^ii^^ 



^ O — S J3T P 



11 

9-3 

1! 

II 



■ga 



■gs M o3 S rt 



o o 



C 3 3 



3^ 



o a aj 
O 4) 3 



126 



: s? w 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









kM 



IM 



SlEQi 



(S8°S 






<S8°° 






sl°l 












i I a- i 



00 e<5 -<•-( <c 



S 2 li i 



?^ § ?SS 8 



« CO w 



5 g ^g 5 



i ^ if 

S ^- «5 



;!2 S 



8 S' 






o oi-H e 



OS M5« IC 



288 8S 



Igs gs 



eooo ooo 



oooo •-<• 



8SS gS 



S3R SS 

TliiOt^ COO 



t~«o <oco 
■*eoeo ton 



sis IS 

efco ooeo 



588 S55 






Sg2« 



SS' 



isii 



2 S 8 



i5!|s 



5 lib 



iPii^ 



o> II CO 11 eo 



3|pp 



illii^l 



life III I 

s =^" " 



.a 

= a 
\^ 



||8 



a5 
a 



aga 

igS'oS«58 
o 5 5o 



3 & = 

H I 2 



<s a 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



S 8; 



O OC 



S ?5? 



« w- 



o otDa>r 

5 SSS: 



i gis- 



«-OCrt 



■o- « 



I Sg^i s 



g «*«-|5- 



I SSS 



<0 II '-I 05 



?5 2^S 



;§£; 



8 11 g5 



8 «S2 



611 ^ni 



°s§ 






55.2 

llllll 

C ^ CO t. M £ 



1 1 






sa 



g S 3 O 



f, o w = « 



S^ 



IIk 



5|| 
o^ ft 
Eh 



B 1 

1 1 

a 2 



27i2188— 41— No. : 



127 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






o 



Of! I 00 :* L 












Illp 



^M 



^2°3 



5i§ii 



s°2a 



Sll §25 



!R§ 



ay sgg 






S8° = 






rX ■lO |^^-^ I O 11 o 






JSSrtoS 



ooo<ocsoooo 



S2S2SS 



gy §^s^s§ 



8 1 ss^s:^8 



^11 2SSSS 






a — ■* 



ioS3s 



sg 






-" J3;3t35 y 5 55 

» •H'O.S b-s'3 aS 



$il 



ig§ 



S fepqQc 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



129 



i^<NO O I C^O^ 



CO cx) I t^ r^ o II t^ 



I t^ Olio I <otcot» I I 
«D »o r^ c4 c^ o 00 j < 



<OtCOt»|t'|| ■<C'H to 



§8 § 



I "§ 



2SI' 



§§' 



ss; 



gS5S 



:^SS 



gss 



SS5S 



ss; 



Sf^Ti 



S!? 



s II? 



u 



- ■S^'O -g-Hl 



a a H S — 
^1 



3 2~ 









g^S iiffiP 



o a B a 
1-3 S § § 

.E-g fee;5 



iSE.S- 
E-IS" 



„ a 

|i 

ir- 



130 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



<»■ O l-H 









n 


<o 




O! 


II " 


= 


■V 


tc 


' n 


1 tCCJC 




c 


OO II 






ll^i 


?3:2 s 


1 ^" 


?i 


o 


2 


1 .=. 


s g 






1 r 

! 












! 


||l|f 


g:2 


s= 


1 


2 




2 " r 








„ 


ii — c 


» 


„ 


» 




» 




O 


^?-i 






li 












a°^a 


ss 


5 


I -' 


^ 


2 


i 


S"2 


5 


g 






sii^= 






I 
















_ 


-.o 


04 


II ^"^ 


r^ 


CO 


>o 


N wa-tocR 


■^ 


1 


I 


li^i 


g= 


" 


1 '' 


2 


2: 


2 


C:««J:S 




lliii 


~2 


S 


1 ^- 


g 


i 


i 


1 i^rs 


i 


fe 
^ 








1 






'^ 


'^ 


M 




ao« 












«:(N00Tro 




« 


S 
1 


.^§^i 












1 






ao^a 


ss 


i 


S§ 


2 


S 


i 


i^r§ 


o 


03 




111-9 












1 








_ 


TTO 


«: 


t~^ 


■*• 


— ■ 


1*" 


ocot-oocM- 


00 


■•3 


s 


an 


CO si 


oc 


1 


o> 


- 


00 


0>t~r~-;05 


00 


s^ • 


§s 


g 


S^ 


« 


s 


?5 


i^s-^g 


,^:; 


■i 


f3 
1 


psp 














' 














00 


' 0> ■OOlt-M 




1 


■2 
S 


sM 


'" 


'" 




'' 


"^ 




" 


11 


i|*s 


is 


g 


1 2- 


S> 


i 


1 


1 i^ri 


gj 






:z;^^" 
















1 




„ 








■»■ 


-< 






o 




1 


IPi 


?JS5 


" 


. SS 


S 


s 


?3 


?icJ§c5S 


S 


|iii! 


§s 


1 


1 gs 


1 


S 


i 


iSI=§ 


i 


_ 


"" 


— 


II * "^ 




cs 




MOOOJOlO 


<o 1 




2 


nn 


00 1>: 


« 


»« 


"" 


r~ 


o 


t-^io t~:-^o 


t~ 




2 


• "= ■ 


is 




ss 


? 


s 


i 


iii-i 


§1 






i^ll 


«-•■ 


^ 




„- 




(Y-- 


»C -T cj 




























2;5«- 


































u 

1 1 




2 


.a 

I 

B 


P 




1 1 






.2 

1 


III 

If 


s 1 

11 

1.1 

S 5 

II 


is 
11 

1 

il 

5 
o 


c 


.2 -9 ! 
1 1 i 

■Ml 


III 

iflll 

■H^acsS 

lllll 


- 1 
1 1 

11 

1 i 












a 








s 


















fe 













CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



131 



41.5 
13.8 
13.9 
16.9 
4.9 




I" 


I- 


[T 




s 


S 


s 


s 


n 


2 


: 


d 


o 


n 


2 


J 


d 


1 






1,026 
119 
42 
148 


^. 


■ 


IS 

t 


i i^s" 


s 

« 


i 


§S2« 


B 


0--H- 


s 

m 


^ 1 

5 


• ■ • -d 






1^. 




^. . 












gS-S3- 


s 


r 




i S-- 


1 




s^^-^ 


s 


RSS 


o 


" i 


11.6 
17.2 
26.8 
16.1 
15.0 


^ 


h 


00 


d SK^ 


(^ « 


td^^ 


^ 


M-HO 


N 




i§«5" 


S 


s 


1 


1 "" 




ggtS 


i 


|§| 


d 


s 








p 


r- 






inr^t~ 


• 


-*" 


■ 






Siksf:2 


5? 


|S 




1 i 2-"" 

1 " 
1 


\\ 


5; 


2S?S 


g 


25S 




s 


1 

o 


0.6 
8.8 

11.9 
7.8 

10.2 




F 


i 

1 


oc dc2«o6 


00 


^ 


d-jd 


d 


doot-; 


00 

d 






SSJggg! 


o 


r 


r 


1 5 ^^^" 

1 


1 


s 


§52 


1 




ss 




2 




«■ 


- 


11! ■ ""' 


2 




oocor* 


• 






• 




2glJgS 


§ 


g 


r 


1 1 gg5S- 

1 


s 


s 


SS?s 


i 


?■ 




g 


i 


16.5 
23.3 
18.9 
26.4 
29.2 


g 


i: 


lis 


2 SSS^ 


oi 


d 


?38^ 


J5 


C;^?s 




^ 


!; 


l§-S- 


1 


!• 


1 g i"^- 

1 


5 


5 


§Sg 


^ 


1 nm 


2 


s 


i 


dt^r~-du5 


d 


5 




^ 


^ 


dodt^ 


o 


^d" 


o 
d 


d 


d 


1,838 
956 
240 

1,120 
303 


-r- 




§ 


1 i SSI- 




f^ 


ilg 


§ 


1 §ls 


s 


1 


i 


'ii 

St 

V 


1 

1 


1 


1 
.1 

B 

■a 


i 
i 

1 
« 

1 

i 


1 

i 

I 


1 
1 

1 


.1 
1 


li 

2a; 
5 


>• 

1 
1 

li 

1 

o 


c 
1 

i 
1 


1 

1 
< 


I 

1 




1 
§ 

c 
O 


1 

.11 


.1 
1 


1 
1 

T3 


G 


1 


1 
1 
a 

8 

1 
1 

1 

-:tr 




i 
B 

o 


1 i 

i 
li 

& ; 

la 

li 


1 




1 
S 

C 





9 


.5 


















o. 


SM 










a 


?8 




11 



o « 5 

I •§! 

I |i 

i^ II 
§2 «2 

S" "SS- 

«o ga 

2i ^.^ 

PIP. 
p 8 as s 
g"H3-|i 

'C M P •" o 
" o ea^-^ 



3 



132 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



fco-<a<"!Ooo 



sss^jjsgjggj 












llHI 



.a a 


















(^ to »ogfD'^ ^ 






" -^M MOO 00 

5 -■ o — 00 a 



)S <o® 00<N ooc 



j-ooo--;-og; 






SSSSSgSpIS 



-§ 



'^ t- t- t. S D t, 

©TSTs-o c a > « 
i-g-g p a a a 3 8 -g 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









S§°2 






lr=l 



§°2a 

2 o o o 






lllil 






3 fe o c 









a.°2i 









ilis^iiSi ii 



«OC~<0'0'«'>0'«»'«0 






•-tS»Sr^c5^»0'-'< 



»n»o-H00t*»ot^»o<o 






-7 r-J « N CO •* to 00 



<o>oodM>oodgoo5 



si^ 



2528g§ii 



]33 



134 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 















1 1 






lii| 






||S|I 



^a a 









?sg§ 



M to O 00 C^ 00 00 M C 



OOSCOINOt--<Tf. 



llllfii 



51 



-gMM^OO-^MjJ-l 



i-S2 






S !S M 



-CD U^COOOO 



2 

So 



g 

■a S2» ************ o a H 
a 2 2 ■"■"•"-"•"■" o Q 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 















i28°2 



m 



S?g5S2S222s; 



>^r^»ccoSocow^c 






iBiis 






■flt -h" e^" to «" fq c-f m" -* 



, ^ ,— I ooxo. 

(£8°S 



!Sf:SS 






gggggSSS -3 



o o o o o «j a 

iiiiiii 



a^. 



08 



8-3 



y 



135 



136 



^ 


O 


1 


7, 






so 


Q 


Oi 


hJ 


■"^ 


O 


"« 


m 


Ik 








^-1 


Q 




O 


■•:s j;< 


u 


.$1 


P3 


« s 




^ ^ 


O 


1?« 


P5 


^ s 


n 


fi 




=is 


^ 


<~.^ 


h4 




«^ 




H 


•t 


O 



CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER 






Hill 












w''^^ °*^ 



fe a-'i 



Sii 



^-*-Tftooo> 






?J?553?^cJSc 



■gSggi 



IM 



o6ot5t^oc4o6oso«o<N 



u M I oo to •-' o lo o> '^ c3 o <: 

iz; 5 I 



IP'°I"I 



33 

11 



3 is w 



(NkOCOOCD^OOt^'-- 



'~3"?S8?5::' 



S ■^ iO t^ Oi O u^ r 



'--sis^ss 



ill 



a o> OS w cS cS O t 



CONCENTRATION OF DCONOMIO POWER 



137 






l-"^ 



§22 a 






•"SBisii"^ 



o»t^«5oto — !OOooe 



§22i 



lllll 



;s2ggg 






J-U-N OOt^tCOu 



lO |0 0> in-S — O O CO 



Jill: 



Ipi 



S=2 






:> o> <o 'Tf ao t^ CO a> 



»-7 -^j? oo oi" oT jp ro lo •■ 



ill 






o o o^ 
oooIT^ZroooC? 

OiOOO 



l2§l°-°*--' 



138 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






HI; 









ilii 



55' 












^S^2^S32cJg5i5fi 



SS22g2SglSS2 

00 ec o GO 00 ■'S^ 00 o Ci ri" o 



1 O •* >0 00 --' «o o 



ooo otor-ij' t 

CO — O-^ -H t^ I 



ISSS? 



tC05 -•QOCTlOOC 



SrS??^SS 






OOJOOM-iINt 

•^ Tj< ■«}' CD »0 CD t 



lllif 









2^ 



)00 t^ »0 Oi o <■ 



m' •<!<" tC cJ C-l" 00 CD O >« OO' O 






CO CN ^ CO u^ od CO Tjl" t-" Cf CD 



i°3 



TfQO^^OcDt^oOcO 



S2!?SS2S3S!? 



Soog 
^_ _,__-_ — 2'=°'=' 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






tsasow — oooo« — t^c 
— ■a'pi — -- — -•-<«■< 



ilSil 



^r°l 



^ 5 o n 



« lO U300 



gggS?S§SS;2f3S I 



JOSOOO— »co»oo»oo 



i^2.i;o 






a 22 a I 

3 fe o a I 



lllif 



ioo«to«>OT>r-o>« 



:IJJ 



fcS°2- I 



jmrfM-WOOO — <NC 









5 S= I 

z i ' 



1^ A ^ 00 -V tJ 



■rr®(NNt^tOMOC 



-Otfttee^wssa^ o c o =5 ^ 
Ooooooo~^^g '^ 

O g O O O O JO ~. j^'S 2 



08 



o a 
S-2 



139 



140 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



M 



o a-^ 



lis. ^ 






a 0:5 

I 5 






Hill 






^T30-w^ 



; (6 CD r^ O c4 



;§ § §; 



CICM -. rt --. . 






iig ^ 



« rj« »0 O «OcO 



;gS 



:g 5 s? 






5o— « a> »o 10 









; =; g s *^ 2 



fcS 





^ 














; i-Sw 








oi ,;>if 


2 
3 






st^5 






•g-g^-2 
«^°^ 


E 








J3 
1 


1 


J>!^ Z, a 


a 




fesa" 





« 


>,,.^^ 


n 


>. 


Z2S2 




! ^ 


don 
don 
don 
ted 
nee 


^ 1 


2SS=-5 


"3:7. 


^ 






333C3 


p 


z 








CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 












3 S o a 












a°2a 

3 « o H 



IM 



So-D 






i2ii = 






OH o 

^ ^ ^ ^ 03 O 

a p a^I!'S 
° ° o^ »■" 

.2.2.2 a o o 



141 



142 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






g8°° 



a -a 



S OS OS OS 



II ^^. 



5 OS OS OS OS 



^11 5Si5 
ton 



Oh S ° S 



fa8"° 






IlliWI 



S SS§ 



S ".^ 



§1 liil 



|il 



00>O« 



sg§; 






11 



g^.2 



3 >- 2 o 



to (N OSMrf 



O CO ^OOS 



?S|I S 2S8S 

00 OS OSO t~ 

■§ I i lis 



IS II 



t^OSC 



S82 



IP II 



sg?: 



PI 



''?3 ^^ 



C2 IM ^J 



s s 



§ B 



3^- 



?= -ap 



o gOgOO 



CO 3 « "-"ij— COS 
■g OTSO S Og 



■^2 
oft 



IE g 



£■^3 aj o 
50O 



§S§| . g 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






SEi £:: 



§ § 



5 g 



«Q0 00 

g'S; S 



0> T " 



)a>o II 



2o2 



ills 






is § 

.-•"tC sT 






o co-o I 






3*5 






§ ill 



= "atj c" 



is 

j3 a 



■Sfeisii 



3 3 (0 E ' 



■S«3 



g§s 



ss 



143 



^ 



I £ 









272188 — 41— No. 30- 



144 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



■5 (2^1' 



ri 



IM 



iS;s' 



SoS OS ^{32 gi 



■■9 =•"""— 'a 






11^ 



s?!i2e 



ss 



?4 00 m II o 






ill § i l||i 
8 1 ?f s sis 






a> CO c> 00 ^ 



t^ CD 00 t» 

S K s § 

«- «- m- m 



I s : ;||; 



S 2 S i3 



?5 ?1 2 



S S 






S S" g § Us 



II 



IS s 



2§ Q 
O M 00 

si s 



S 5g 



o> o 



00 00 



is ^ 



II i 



•W II 'K 10 S « I 

« IM 00 r- Uo. 



Km S 
2S5 S 



I IS S 



o> I o ■<»< -^ II « 



1-1 



B-|gS0| 
a ® 2 

03 



bs 



UB2 



31 2^ S.H 
iisSl.2 
< o S 



I -I 

§ g 
•3 Sx) 



a o 



sis 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



145 



;§aB SS 



S § 






«{C^ §m 






i! g i^^i i 



fgs 



c5 = S 82 



ess sg 






■«• — 05 O 



fi § 






gsss 



S §2SS 



g ?§' 



SS2S" 



£§■ Us 



iS g 



g| 



11 



li ^^ 



11 i|g 



!?S 



5g fe|g| 



ii ei< 



l§ 2 



PI 



tCOPJOO 



S«s o§ 



ss g 



i m 



§i§ §1 



I ill i 



S?lg£ 



S? 



S2§ 11 



II § Si^gg 

« t^ tea to 



fs -" 



§11 s 



$g 



sg 



s« 



pfc^" ^' to 






.2 w B i- S « 

■o c la °^-^ « 



si B 



"III 

1 §-=55 

- §«o 
£ 2 



5 

a 
a I 



a c. 
Si 



■30-2 



03-= ta ;S g P 05 



glljl'^ .gill 



II I 



I^J ,.S 
— - b tjL-o 

■5"Sco 

SC.§ES 

ggrtBE 
£ C c o 

S c '1' o o 

^ S 5 o I- 
o "a<a- 
•§■=•- fc^ 
;2'" S ta a 



146 



CONCENTRATION OB^ ECONOMIC POWER 



£§£ = 



i^'s 



S8=J 






I -^ O CO «C»*C OS OS I TT 



-> — c»-iomto c 



00 CO ^' cc c^' Tj* jp iri r 






<»Ot-COcOCOcDMO 



Cf >0 ^-T t." rt" o U3 o" oT 






eot^ot^osTTOJe 



> CC t^ "5 CO •* C 



*«coco*<rso^St- 

l-*lMrtOOOO-*-*00 
r t-J" ^'" ^'" 00 lo" ij<" CO 00 
•05COC^10000>« 






Hill 






lis 



II- 



P^sll 






t-O«0'*06N00— !■«< 

o o ?o c*f o 00 »o lo oi" 



£S?i5SS22S' 



;si§ 



„a0333-'-'° 

P-«28gS§g 



go 

I- « 






III 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









«tt^MiO?5(OC^ — I COM 



oircroM-'sJ'^'cctDiQodod 

C3 C^ O 03 Oi C3 0> Oa 00 00 O 03 



jior2Soom<NooicSoo 



cDOTficr^^co-^rcNitoo 









a -o 
a P.-- 



if Pi 



■^eO'S'oococcot-»n'»ct^ 

^rr^OiCtMCSCOOOC^-tf'^O 

•" o oc »c ^' :r ?=" g 2* rf 



;-^ :?• — oi *ct< 



tCC5CCOS-^00«O«300e 

u:SooSooo8oC'Oiooc 



;se;?5; 



'S"15 c5!22c 






?SSS2§gF:^2S 






1^1 



2SS8S3§feS§2g?5 









c o c c ; o -^ i 






II 



II 

■a OS 



ass 
««§ 

I. a'C 
000. 
a « o) 

M a S 






147 



148 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






I t 



m 



s:n°2 









iiiililssi 

r-T « o =» » i^^" « ?f •«'' -^ 






5?2S2r,; 






'3 O ■ C-i P3 1--5 «> K t 



N'NCf-.-C^- 



isg^g^ssgs 



S > u ■" = 



S2' 



:--i - -^ — .o ^- cj (O ^ o 









'?5??SS^ — ^'' 






— ^Roi ccS 



■# lO O>00 31 ^ — 



I Jiiillillli 



go 



O O d 

Is! 



«3.2 



Mi 



III 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



149 



% s 






tP- 



|il 



£i°l 






S2; 



oxxwosooos25*ooci 









^^ CD GO OC 00 00 ■^ W 1^ '^" CO 

Mr-.'*cc«o»5wto^oc> 



;SgiS 



•O«O?0rtt^ — c 






1 to PO 00 0-. OS C^ P5 



"^?3?55S 



^4cceooo5oooccc-»'Grco 
Stj- — c<5cvine-)«i.-:tcm 

00— 'rtM-^MW^OlOCV 



rcor^ot^t>.eco5C>jccc 

o5t^t^«00fX0CQ00C0CC 



««53cooco>oc^^co?^r^ 
coScoooi^nooot-iooo 

o 00 00 en" ^' x" o" to "^ "' g 



« O V5 ~S-0 



= o j5 
III 



> a 



fer""<°ggg? 



p:g 



ooct^oovt^o; 0CTf3! 



) t~ 00 00 00 m — o - 



3-. rj h- -O 3: CR 2 2 "^ ^ ?3 

Oi »c c ^'; T) i^ S ^4 OS -^ -^ 



?3SO«?«rW»»? O O C ' 

CoocoOO*"'*^'"; 



:8S8! 



11 



a5 



=0 oil 



O o C 

SgS. 

S ^i o 

ill 



' S.5 



150 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





_ 


„ 


« t~ o> 





^ 


•<(• 


3 




1 


IN 


S S 88 


^ $ 


s 




■g 9 


i § 1 


i 1 


2 


2 






m 


(N Cf O" 


§ $" 


i 


"S 


o 

.0 


§ 


S" 




e-f 


s 


■ 
1 


kPi 


g g s 


S t 


<g 


1 

•0 


M 


i s i 
§ i' i 


§ i 


i 


s 

1 








>-■ ■«"■■ s" 


<N- ccT 


7° 


— 






Z 






'A 


TS 


T3 










S 






■<• CO 


■« « 




►-. 




&tn 


« OJ r^ 


2S 2 




1 




g § S 










s 


1 


f; 5 


^ 


g 




K 


1 


S' r:- R" 




t 




















" 




00-1 


e4 - 


CO 


u 




•i 


£s°2 








3 


W 


i i i 


i g 


i 


1 


1 


1 


g s g 


cf 


i 


a 
2 











00 «o 











fec-s2 


t>: «= ci 


•-; tA 


>ri 




a 


s 


i28°S 








fe^ 


m 


















% % 






g 


p 


_§ 


S 8 ^ 


B 





1 




^ 


1 i ?' 

r-r CO « 


% 2 


S 


11 
1-^ 


■b 




— 


«= r- d 


,r « 


r- 


g^ 


K 


S) 


£i=S 


g 8 !:; 


3 S 


s 


^! 




■■5 


s ■ 


g i 1 


» 


% 


=s 




K 


E 


n s i 


t>r cD 


2" 


^1 






2 




i 


0.5 


Market 
value of 
average 
share- 
holding ' 


i.s S 


g g 


1 


!o 


fe - " 


s g 


10" 


1^ 
1| 




^-^•c = - 


1 i 1 


§ S 


i 


c2fs 




lUlll 


i § 5 


t t 










§ s i 


1 1^ 


i 


^:-g 






B 2 1 


i i 


£ 


&2| 




1^ 


" s 5 a 


2 2 


i 


|5i 




SiS) 


i s § 


g % 


1=^ 


ssj 




z"eI 


g 1 n 


oT r-- 


i 


ill 
















3 = 2 






Si 


a.S« 




III 








lil 
















li§' 


t !^o \^ 


H 


2 ; 








c^- 


>c,>'^%>*^^ 


>. ■ 








111 


mm 


3 

IP 


t5 ; 




19 

.2 3-S 














s 




5 '3 3 P 








• h 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



151 



0.8°° 



&;8°° 



l§°j 



ooooSao I M 



• r^t^r* »t* 









00 Ol cc o 






:|gs 






ooooc 



■oooco t~c^ 



g;s°° 



1 -iCOM 



is 



sss 



gS?5"'c5S 



SSSSJ^g 









00 00 30 00 00 en 









Soto 



II I 



SJ5:2 



s 



So>Sc5 



:> C30^ Q0 03 00 



:gs 






OOgOl — QOt^ 



gfss 



- O « ir. O « 



S ooi« 



i22:'-'*s 



ogo" 
cfoo 



.C)-<fOO 

rorfo" 



SSS2? 



^^^ 



1^.1 



3 te S o <: 



tog 



;l I 



j^ © 



!§2.S-3| 

J o„~ ^ c-i "5 o 



■fss 



^1 
3 a 



3 111! § 



152 



CONCEXTEATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



il 


Per- 
cent 
of 
total 


CO — 

S2g 


10 


S 


=0 


89.5 
86.8 

80.2 


85.0 
76.7 


s 


'M 


i 


® 


■s 


<! 1 








« g S 

i "" i 


il« 


2 


m 1 




8 


§§ § 


11 00 — 

1! a I.- s 


r- II « 


1 


gisi 





ss s 


2 § s 


^ J§ 
















o 


£ 


s 


s'lii 


_- 


--M r-.- 


-.- cT 00- 


g i 


o 


« 


H 


S^ 


,ss § 


S § S 


a 


M 


Z; 


c.«- 


'^ 


.CJ— M 


?f "- -s 


s g 


2 




















>o 




00 

ej w N 


to , N 


W 


1 

2 


li^l 


'-•222: 


S 


^^ 2 


1 


S^Si 


g 


ii i 


S 1 s 


i i 




W 


E 

3 


--rf^-N 


2 


«ef TT 


g " 2" 

II 




1 ° 


kPt 




.S 


S2 S 


II ° «. ^ 

11 :2 s s 


-ls 








liii 












^ 




fe 


is s 


1 g s s 


s 


s 


1 

1 


s 
§ 


300 


s'--'- 


S 


"gf 2 


2 =>' 2 
II -- " 


s 


§ 






«t-«CO 




i-o> c^ 


II C^ -H 0= 

^ a t 




1 


sH 


iSS28 







-1= 


1 


isii 


1 


ii 1 


II i e i 


s 


i 




e 
3 


glBI 


i 


ig g 


§11 


1 


s 


1 


' 


Z 




- 


- 


II - 





s 












Mil 


^ 




1 


is 


s:r4 


§S5SS 


s 


ss s 


S5 


00 


s 


mm 


1 


IS il! i 2 i 


« 


§ 






G 


c-;.-i-»v 




M- Ccf 


s =• 5 


1^ 






W 1 5 




10 


--.D C. 


S 


ft 




1 ^ 












Mar- 
ket 
value 
of av- 
erage 
share- 
hold- 
ing 


Pii 


! 


1 ii i 

1 --<M- N 


ii |!5 


1 


v 


arket 
ueof 
ares 
ut- 
and- 
ng 
000 
itted) 




m 


iil 


11 § « § 
Ii £f g S 




^^" « E 




" 


1 " 


r- 


•«r 1 










ll N 




i^ 


ig^i 


i 


1 iS i 


II § S s 


ill 


i=5 


is'ii 


1 


ti 1 


1 § H =■ 


n 


i 


-cl^ 


r<-rr<N 


cT 


«■« « 


1 g - !5 


s 


s 










1 






SJI 


^R2S 


£■ 


§5 ; 


1 5 i 




111 


Sf^-2 


§ 




i =" § 

1 




«'S« 


S 


1 ^s = 


II s « £ 


2? 


" 


Z5.^ 






1 


II 






B0.2S 


"-S« 


SS 


11 -s S 


II 8 " S 


£? 


1" 


||Ba-s 






ll 


1 




1 




^ ! 






M ; 


i 


^ 


1 .§s 


II 


? ; i 




"gc^ ; 






"^ 1 


a. 






-Ti 




.1 

•5 
a 


fiii 


•c 


1 

1 


11 
11 

V 


1 

S 

3 

1 


ill 


nil 

i.lll 


1! 


il S 

il £ 

S" 9 




j||C.<= 




lllll 


||o. a 






^^ 




-; e^Ch 













1 s 





















CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



153 







II "^ 


o 


o 


T)- 


CO 


11 " 


■^ in 


OJ 


1 °' 


1 ooco 


M 


81.0 
78.8 


' '^ II 


s s 


1 ^s 


g 


?:s 


1 s ^ ss 


1 " 


1 f^§ 


t: 


§1 


§ i 


1 ^s 


i 


Si 


1 1 « §i 


g 


1 ii 


S 


1 i s 


s 


2 § 


^'s" 


§ 




§ g" ^•^- 


s 


1 §s- 


i 


g §• 


i 




II 




— 


11 


^ 






1 - 


.-4' 


« ■<»> 


1 mTT 


CO 


TTN 


1 » o -o 




II '^■'° 

1 gg 




1 « 00 


i\ 


iS S5 


^S 


s 


ss 


f: £5 S^S 


g 


g 


1 § f. 


S ^ 


sg 


§ 


%n 


1 i ^i 


§ 


Si 


§ 


1 i 1 


i 


i § 


S?3 


o 


Si 


i i m 


2 


H§ 


5 


i i 


i 


«5 « 


£« 


s 


^5 


CO t-- os-^- 


a 


"" 


5 


1 .. 


g 


"H O 


1 coo 


'f 


r-.^ 


o « cso 






■«< 


II <= °° 


« 




_:<D 


00 


nJo^ 


m m cood 


« 


•r t-: 


^ 


d « 


^ 














1 "" 


■^ 




'"' ■ 


1 g 


IH 


i 


sS 


S i SI 


1 


1 §S 


S 


II i ^ 





O Tf 


2fco 


s 


^s 


'"-^ 


s 


^"2 
1 


s 


1 ^ ^ 


s 


— CO 


1 oo 


^ 


ot- 


II <c CD m — 


o 


S^ 




1 o « 


CO 


n — 1 


-NTT- 


CO 




-. CO «f- 


00 




» » S 




— M 










"^ 


« 


11 - « 




S 1 


gi 


g 


ig 


1 s i ii 


■1 


ii 


s 


S i 


s 


(N W 


ci-«- 


co 




M-- ^:. ^-os 


CO 


'^"S 


^ 


IS 


-«f 








"" 


1 . - ^ 


^ 


S" 


-9. 


1^ lO 


t-<£> 


t^ 


tcoo 


(N « OO 


CJ 


! Si 




II m PJ 


' « 


S £3 


;^:^ 


•z 


?3;= 


?3- 2 S2 


a> 


gl 


!l - « 


s 


S § 


gg 


i 


i« 


i i §§ 


i 


II §s 


i 


1 i i 


g 


§ i 


i"§ 


g 


20 


§ i ii 


1 


m 






S 




--■"cf 


rc- 


CB05 


t,- -H- ^^ 


~ 




2 


i =■ « 


s 


OS — 


t~o 


to 


OS CD 


1 o « ooo 




II OOP.. 

as 




1 5 s 


«ii 


§ s 


1 ss 


w 


g§ 


.^ s ss 


s 


SS 


HI 


i s 


1 i§ 


§ 


si 


i i gl 


i 


1 ss- 




|l 1 i 


^ ill 


g s 


eiof 


2 


ii 


^" g 5f5 


c^ 


1 Ss 




i 5 s 


1 


§ i 


1 « 


S 


S2 


1 s a IS 


p 


II §" 


1 


S s 


g|| 


— ■ lO 


1 


■»»< 


com 


II 


c^ 


II 


N 


CO- ^ 




s s 


II ^6 


Slii 


1 i IS 


i 


II §§ 


1 


1 i s 


Hll 


oT M 


S« 


in 


^1 


1 i i i^ 




S« 


i 


g 1 


- 




il 










ii -7 




I -H- 


ciW 


s 1 


1 iS 


i 


o? 




i 


KS 


i 


s 1 


ill 




gg 


i 


gs 


1 i il 


s 


i"i 


r- 


i i 


S 


OC CO 


1 "" 


g 


^'s 


^" " s'-" 


? 


:?2 


S 


11 


g 


§ 2 


11 §K 


I^ 


22 


s g gs 


s 


11 ^S 




i! g S 


rll 




















§ S 


1 '' 


g 


SI 


1 SC f2-?? 


^ 


il ^^ 


i 


h« 


4 


^ N 


1 ^= 


? 


SS 


11 « - -^ 


■ ' C-; 


.^ 


^ 


Ii 2 ?: 


1 


S £3 


f52 


§ 


?:s 


II 5 - °-2 

II 


■ ■ c; 


g'- 


TT 


I 


1 


i 

O 
1 


1 
1 

ee 

St 


o 5 

11 


a 


ii 

il 
11 1 


1 
i 


■2 3 

1 i 
iPi 


Is? 

III. 

1,111 


2 

.1 


11 
|§ 

III 


. lllll 

~ 0.2 * ce 


III 


11 

m 
. i|il 


1! 

1 ;■ 

11 


»r 


iit 


= E« 


s 




= 


•F 


iiat' 


■< o 


i 




^^« « 




i« 





154 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 







■ w -^ 




ot^to 




o 


I'' 1 


o> 


lO 


N 10 


w 


as 


ca 


t^ 


(N t^ 


_ 






fe 9'S- 




^f^S 


^: 


^ 


-' 


s f; ss ?: 




^ 




03 


a.3s = o 




^ 


^ 


r\ 






lo? 




g^s 


5 


s 


ij 


s § ig g 


i iSS 2g 


s 


1 


s 






g5 = 


1 


i 


?! 


g s sg s 


1 |§| s^^ 


! 




' -^ "3 




t-(N O 


o 


o 


I=» 










1 


<22i°o 




J^KS 


S 


g 


Is 


s s gg id 


f:f 3^3 f:iS 


s 


^ 




sii 


i 


i 


s 


2 2 II g 


B II iii Bg 


3 


■s 


§ 


i 




sil 


^' 


s 


g" 


2 i ^'i g" 


i gii ii 


§ 


a 

2 


" 


z 




r~-oi--r 


00 


^" 


S 


o CO cf.,- 05 


J^-Od--- <C-<N 


s 












to 










tn 


1 

2 


(Si°| 




22^ 


t 


:= 


2 


2: 2 2:2 d 


2| 1222: 22 


2 






»sl 


1 


s 


i 


5 ig s 


ill ill ii 


1 




H 


e 

3 

z 




22^" 


??■ 


?3" 


s 


00 W «o" -■ 


s s-s »■-• 


g 






• *J -" 






« 


-«■ 








OS 




"3 


11=1 




SS2 


^ 


s- 


2 


s s 2S & 


5j|| ^2S ^^ 


- 






§§2 




2 


=i 


n i i^ ^ 


ill Ssi s§ 


i 


1 


1 




?2-f 


-r 




S 


^' 2 n^- S 


g 2§fS 2-" 


g 








««« 


■* 


o 






-5- II C33OO0O ^ C-J 




1 


2 

1 


IN 




SSS 


S 


s 


2 


c3 S C:2 5; 


S ^:22 gj2 


2 


1 




sii 


i 


i 


11 


i i ^1 i 


g SSK SS 


i 




s 

3 




ill 


i 


s 


i. 


g- f g'f i 


i mi n 


i 


D 




z 




WM 




«■ 


SI 


=- - of 


?f --•- -" 


2 


















II o> t^ 00 o -^ 




§ 


1 

2 


li°l 




sss 


t 


s 


^1 


S S SS S 


§11 sss ss 


^ 


1 




gl§ 


i 


s 


^1 


g s is ^ 


ill §ii ii 


s 




W 


B 
Z 




sg- 


.o' 


g 


11 


i -■ -'- g 


,lj,.,.2 


i 


s-si^iis^ 




HIS 


S 


s 


i| 


i e 11 1 


i 


ill fi 


1 


s-S^il^-- 




S"^"" 


--" 


«- 


« 1 


« MM 




"^•" -■-" 


M 


Market 
value of 
shares 
out- 
stand- 

omitted) 




§11 




g 


».! 


§ 1 §1 § 


§ 


ssi ii 


1 




|§2 


i 


2 


1 


i ^ ^'1 S 


1 


^m «"^" 




3 2f 




IIB 


s 


i 


1 

32 1 


S § ii i 


i 


lii is 


§ 


gl 




ill 


1 


g 


i i Ii g 


1 


mu M 


# 


2| 




oTf^- 


S5 


J5 


li 


s - "» s 


§■ 


S23 -^" 




Jil 




S|g 


s 


§3 


i i is 5 


g 


i -i- si 


g 


ill 




g35- 


g 


ii 


2 ?r s's s" 


10 


i^'S S2 


K 


Zo5 








o 




1 












1 " 


|rt> 






1 OU-. 00 




B = § 








- 






'" " 


* 


III 










1 






1 




a = .2S 




^^S"" 


g 


1 ^ 


S 


=0 00 m- « 






S 
























Z^"a-5 








1 








1 1 1 




1 
1 


a. 

i! 

II 
II 

II 


1 

3 




|g 

If 
|1 


k ; 
Ii 

3 1 

g : 
a j 

§1 

|| 

1 - 


1 

I 


S 

li 

IP 


1-4' 


ill 

in 

ijj 


a : 

ii 

'3 ; 

gg 

« g 


11 


E 


1 

1 

•5 

2 


1 

'a 

h 


1 

s 


g 

1 




















s 












b 








K$ 













c5 ^ 






gg 






SI] § 






III i ■ §s 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

IS 



ooSS i^ 11 !*« !o^ 






S5« 



i§2 



R$ ^ 



S S5 

-r M 



:s :2 



S2 s 



si 



il g 



SS gf 



g2 g 



JgR 



s«:2 



S2§ 



S'S'S 



OtO-< 

22^ 



:§§ 



. rt 3 n £• 









, „ ags , _ „„ _ 



ISi 


s 


««= 


i 



I ^11 



II a> 



«• I 



^ « 8 -2 

III -s -s 






^l 



155 



Ss 






^fi^,- 


y 




,2 








^ 




a 


l§2 










|l!.sl 



.5 &I S S 



156 



-si 



CO>-CENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



•2 e o 

8-1 S 

8 3 O 



w 






3:^ o 






?s:g2:si 






a;s°° 






I 00 0> 00 l>- 00 05 t- IN 






'2SJ:§S5?^ 



;s5f;g? 



;^£.« 






^1 









§g£5SS2S8§ 






2S85 






an 

I 






■o'O a H n 3 3 o 






§1 



'S'2'S « O O S 03 03 
"gg fl 03 03 OSooo 












CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



r^* OS — ' -^' Q O C< 0> » CO <D 



^ o 



iPl 



^d°S 



r-i0C30CCi00iOOC03iO 

c*as03C^aiai«oeooscD«:> 
-**** 00 <N ko" oT :o »-r '^" cT V oo* 

cor^co^CiooeC'-^cor^cri 



«r^^cswcoMOi<o?or^ 

S' ::^' -^' Q Q c^* oi (D <d <r5 
0030000000r*t^!Ot^ 



C^OSCOTf^-OOMC^CCCCOS 

oocor^ioooc^ocooooi;© 
<£? O CD lO lO on rC on fc' « ■«}i' 



eOTfiooit^Tf^t^ooc^o 






iSSSSSSSS 



) as 00 oi cj r^ 00 '^ 1^ CO i 
j 00 00 2 2 1^ o go «■ 






-ooo^oaoccooTroic 
iio<DiOidoo?6t^aJTP"- 

■OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCXJCftC 









ssSBSIiiSg^ 



(NTf«00CS»00«?DOTrO^C 

^«OiOC»eoOOOsCO<N 

(N C^" ■^' O" OO' X" ^" tC 



SMQOOoSSc^OOOTffO 

?5cou5oo5«o<Nt^oo?o-^ 

^(©t^lMOOMCO-^iCriO 



lis 



■♦COC^Tf^J^iOiO^OOO 



isf-is 



;s§323s' 



■<Oi'*'05a>ooMa>Tr<M 
f oT oo" eo' -m' r^* ^' o"or 00 



8Q 
"3 a 



5igH-S5-' 



■"'^'^oooooo-tja 



&33 
O ^ 

aos 



E.2 

la 

«'2 



2a§ 



gfta 



ill 
ill 

« M O 



157 



158 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



n 






11=1 



iW 



41 



CCQOOOOOOOCOQOt^r^CCt^ 



o cs cc oT ^" CO «c r^ Q L 









^iii^ 












■ 00 O t~ 0> CO •>}■ M 
r- CM <M m 'J- -«• t^ 









i; 



CCOC — t^CCOOCiOCOOrtOO 









E = § 
III 






i-H CO ■<*' 00 co^S to O o 



SiOM^'OOlW-VC* 









ja cs 'J- c» o o o *- -M « o 



sss^ 



;5e}52ss?5 



i.i 



o ® 



lis 

o g a 



n * S 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



159 



iN 






:c C2 £-. go 






^^"SBiiSiii 



g' -^ c C: c 00 « c; c ' 



?2?giS 



c: xoct^NtCOWrosc 



CD r- -^ c" r-' -'*' »c" M QC ^" ei" 



?5^'SSS*c5'^^St-2 



1^1 



ci ic' 2 =' 2 "■ "' S "^ "^' ^ 



•S o ? £: .5 
S ? ^ - o 



Sg^ = l 



S = , 

II.I 



F-fCoSor^QOC^Q^COi 



?i^' 



o ^-" 



aMc<:oc-«<oooto-Ht 

5o6cC»QOOOOCOOOOC 









Scocct^'Sor^'-'COfoo 



mimmm^i 



tc»cS*CTPMa>Tfc5M*o 



I- 



=-° 



^2 -cSslgSse*^*^ o o o ffl o 



272188—41— No. 30 12 



I 2 



o g p 



160 



CONC^INTR •.HON OF ECONOMIC POWER 



3 



II 


4 

o 


11 


< 


Jl'-S 


g 


II 


DO 

S 



I i^. 



fl 



SI 



Is 

1l 



£S' 



khl 



ill 



(O o ; 3 



a ^ 8 



O 1^ o 

S S JO 






i !i 






s 



ll°l 






« o w aS^ 



i S °" 



i IS 



« S — I 



8 i o- 2 



SB 



ill 

■^22 






g I g 
§ I i 
i S § 



^ 8 S 
I I g 






J h) iJ w ^ 



25 



as 



P 3 - 



X3'' 03 

S o a 






3 9 

1= 






■2S 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



161 






P 



=s- 



2?3^:ss;? 



•2§???3s;s 



I SoSSc 



p 



ooooooooc* 



162 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



X. ->c»0'fto»<ooot^u5ooRc 

> 



iggglgg 



3g 

•36 
■g-S 

li 
IS 






I- 



■ooJcS^«?5 



•s^ 



1-° 






00 --^ CO «o *o "« 



i-Hlcr^CTiO^CO-^OOQoScQ 



gggSSS^*' 



iiiiliiiii I 

5ti!o»"1"'oppoooqqo, 



5!liii§§il§§^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



163 







M 


^ 


c» 


r^ 


« 


_ 


1 <*> 


^ 


o 


>n 


- 1 


U5 


II *"■* 


N 


f. 


II n 


^ 


^ 


o 


« 1 


■9" OS 00 






.If- 




^r^ ••«.• 


-i 


•c<«^i 


"I ■ 


-^ ■ 


iri -w-iiTi 


« -;<Desi 






-12 










li 


II 




II 




fei 


?3 


-i = " 


i 


S2SS 

— M -H 




ss- 


1 '^gSt 


= "i- 






s 










1 










-•;. , 




o 


1 oootoco 


-1 


<o 


00 a . 


iM Ot--<eo 


<0 -nXOf 






te°2 


O -H ■ 'oo 


^ 


^««-: 


oil 




^c- 


« «i-;N 


N ••«1^ 




- 


.ys 




I 


1 












_o 


S S|Sg 


M ssss 


^1 


2 


S52° 


1 °s^s 


g "SS 




g 


§1 














■ 




1 


s« 






1 












. o- 


» MO«00 


O M-^« 


o II ^ 


II MO!N 


t^ tantat^ 


O 00.00 




■§ 


S-5 
^§5 


« ooccg 


'^ m' 2 ::3 8 


2 h^ 


OJ^IN 


3 "S^ti 






^ 






1 






1 • 




2„ 


1 §S3f 


ill ^i§s 


§|k 


ii- 


2 "iSS 


§l§ig 


1 


■o 


5s 




« c-J^- 


•* 




„- 






1 






1 






II 


1 


. o- 


«0 t~01MO 


TC wtor-uo 




«o-. 


to ^ot- — 


«. ||!0»a> Ij 


1 
a 

9 


^|2 


ei irf irf o> -i 


- 2dS2 


^r 


-"■* 


« «2-^ 


r^ L^ejod 


°o 


2 siis 


1 ISiS 


8 S 


s^- 


1 "Sss 


i ^2S 






^"rt 


co" -"rr-" 


o 




-^ 






i-' 














."S- 


t~ OJ-S-OOS. 


o. «-«^ 


N U5 


ocous 


«|l ^oo-^ 


- ooooo II 




l|| 


§ SS?gS5 


g SSESE; 


s s 


.S2SS 


s ggsg 


s ^^d 


1 


1 §is§ 


i siii 


^lli 


1 Si§ 


i iISs 


i ig^ 




o of«i-« 


« ^-cso«- 


ao-|l<N 


^-m 


«- w 


« 




















Q. 


















• & 






II 










is! 


glllli 


sl ieii 


i|l§ 


sii 


B §iii 


i 


sis 


o «g2 


S --2- 


-rll M 


«-«- 


r-- ^-N 


Tf 


rt-l 


















§. ^ 


II 




11 










A-s" 






-f- 


m 


eoco- 


h. II iieotoej 


^ 


-««l 


III 


















a°ai 


CO 


1 "S^- 


J- «««« 


2 




Mm- 


- -««^ 


2 


-hMM 


nil 




II 






































i 

3 
1 
















1 




1 
1 
















bi^ 






















S ^ 


.2 


.1 

1 


1 


C 

c 


i 
1 


1 
C 


1 : 

|i 


fiili 
till i 

nil 
iltf! 


1 „ 


1 • 


1 

1 
O 


1 
1 


■!i 

li 

il 
1 


1 

5 


1 




1 


III 
III 

^1 


i 

1 
t 












< 


w 










-« 





































164 



COKCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^|5 



''S 



S^g 



^§2 



on <coc 



s|3 



s^:§ 



ss 



§g ^; 






CD W to IC 00 



;g| 






ic OC CC CO tp 






6°; 



tC^ «•«<« 



5 <u !^'*> 



on CO 



§o 



c g g ^ 

lis II 



S 2 



H H B 



— is o 



i^3 

1 --o 



•<oS 



as 
eg 



■ill 



CONCENTBATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



165 



c 


- 


<o 


1 2; 






I' 




: 


00^ 


o 




t^eo 


OS 


^ 


ce 


■a 

e; 


le 




^s 


5 


il*"° 


S 


fe 


S £=2-^- 

cf 


N 


1 i^ 


1 


9S8 


s 


1 II 


1 
CO- 


1^' 

2f ' 


tin 


■a< 






:: 




o 


ii 




tOCOtc 




mm 


" 


cj 


"- 


i 


1 gESS" 

1 


1 


00 


1 s ^S^'^ 


of 


1 MB 


1 


1 SS5S 


R 


is 


1 


s" 




M 


r--oooooo 


X5 

S 


o 


2 <do;o« 




1 com 


5 


t-:o6c; 


5 


5i 


CO 




as 


•*- 




5 


s 


1 gB=« 


o 


5g 


o 

00- 


i§S 


§ 


1 §s 


s 
s 


s 


— !2 


00 


s°^2d" 


" 


n 


2 d"^ '"^ 


05 


OU5 


s 


oijjo 


" 


o»m 


5 


5 


li 


'- 




1 


^ 


1 lg"g 


« 






isS 


fe 


Si 


s 




ss 


i 


CRMOCCnO 




IS 


O C-. V M U5 


s 


OOi 


00 


loot- 


to 


to OS 


o 


f2 


is 


i 




s 


i 

1 




s 








i 


ii 


1 




IS 


§ 


og««oc 




^ 


1 mM 


% 

s 


s-' 


1 




i^- 


K" 


i 


8 


MW 


S5 


ts--'" 


? 


r 


« "" — 


•«• 


vw 


m 


mM« 


»~ 




?5 


i 


roio 


s 


J=S-*" 




V "^" 

1 1 


- 


^^ 


■o 


MINCJ 


'^ 


•ot~ 


S 


S 


1 

s 
\ 

1 


1 

i 

O 


a 

a 

1 

1 
1 


eJcS 
II 
1| 

2 


1 
1 


1 

'••5 


! 

B i 
11 


1 

1 

e 


2 
5 

1 


1 


i 
1 

s 9 

•2 Jo 

al 
III 

o 


c 

.2 
a 

1 

1 


s 

I 

S 

i 
1 


c 
.2 

s 
1 

I 

.fcl 


.2 

S 
1 

c 
2 

1 


\ 

1 

p « 

•- c 

of 


.2 
1 


1 

1 


1 


1 


1 
1 

1 

1 
1 


i 
1 


1 

1 

i 
a 

i .£ 


o 


fl 
li 

11 

§1 
•-§ 

11 
11 


3 
p 





illil 

!|lp 
iiSlI 



166 



CONCEXTRATION OF ECOXOMIC POWER 



o o 
(So 



•tOQOOS— «0>005C 






»3^30SFtS^ 



i-- 



•;:«2--*52?5; 






-HOOt^ot^rot^-n 



•^OOC^-^pt^WCD 






o <N ^ (N t- o r- 00 -»• 

00t^t»O30»Ot^iO:0 






11 






5< 5> 

si 

a — 

'Z'B 



; (N rj 2; a> 00 o t 



PI 



;8S2 



!§§§ 



si^ 



g a > 3 

3 3 o o 



Ilp11|i 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



167 



II 



O ' -^* M -^ « rj M ^' 0> g 



Ot'-io^ct^r^qcr^o 






"SiSS 



l-o 



80 



So 

;So 



8c 

iSo 



= M 

j2^ til 



-3 









255i; 



So SSc -^ 6c : 
o"o'acx'c^'i 






oca)"-?-"M"x"o> —" t" 






i2S- 






oc « f oc r: ^ -c • 
to oc «; o D — 



eg 



ggg 



Sfe 






S5 

go 
ofe 
^2 









III 

III 



168 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



p 



p 



M o « 7^' M ■* e-i -h' lo o 



«co6i cjc« : 

■«■ uo 2 T). . 



Sl«» 



§1 



°-s 



go 

Ph o 



wooi>-r^r^t^<oc 



-.o>oc-oM-x>oe 
^ CO oT « ;c <o CO os" 



<0>tOMOC000500N 



:ggj 



I- 



"-HCOX-^COOCOO 

55ocooi«t^-^coa> 
." ■£ h-.' « e^" to m c-i c4 

M0350-*«C001 






o o - 






^ii! 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



1;>9 



II i --=■■' 






13 

oi _ 



§22"g§g|§|| g 






is 






§s 






fS. 















T3 6««»6l3-60«-«« O O O 03 rl 

g o o o o o o-""*^- =" 



i2"3 

si 






las 






1^1 



111 



170 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



p 

(So 



So 



'< ^ t>* O 4C 

J8 g RS 






t 


Ill 




=5 


^^& 


;§ !s 


ce 


K-'^- '^ 


'?f ' n 








g 


^'I's. 


:^ "n 


— 




~ tl.° 






:^g5 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



171 






f§ 






^S2 



i^2^ 



0C<o3 C4 



Q r- O M oo 
2S Ti- o; a5 ir- - 



o; I.-: c^ o t- -x> 
oi QO 00 cm' (N o 






S?i 



O 3! TC (M -* - 






r^oc r^ CO o Q 



8 ^ 



-SgS 



§5S 






oil t^ C^ M 






l^^S 



e5s 



III 



9 o §.§ 
11 11 






5^8 



> 0)0) 00 



s ^s 



1^ 



•^ s.gs.s 









5g£ 



0-D.C 2^ 

.-) S O CO < 



= S 



8 tlltS 
a gmoc 



H c a £;=• « 



172 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^§5 i 






mi 






i mi 



s^" ?5 sl^; 



§ g?32" 



il 



il g i 



S22 



s Ǥ; 



i^- ! 



^ -M 5 I « m QC 



II ii 



sll^ss 



kS 



•Ss |l S' 



J OiC*1 j 'O oo I »2 



... «= 






S SKS 



I Sii 



^■§^■2 



3 •- ^^ 



p OS'S . S c^ a 

lid is-s 

03 



£ 5 






m22 



!i 






If 






S^ s 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



173 



c-3 n 


r» 


1 00 


- 


o 


00 


e<o 


■o 


|o 


» 


1 "^ 


Nt-O 


t- 


>o 


II o 


.^ 


z-. 


NO! 


CO 


M 


1!° 






o 






■■=■ ■ 


« 


e^M 




«■-;« 


"r 








ii 
11 


' 




Ir 


ri ^-;^ 


is 


s 


gg 


i 


i§S 


o S 


1 


%sfS% 


^ 


II %^%U 


§ 




ira 


8 gSS 


s 


g 


«oo- 


?1 


.. 


«5 J^- 


r 


■^'ci «=^- 


- 


1 cToftC^- 


s 






?; 




=>-»• 


^ 


1 »« 


o 


O500-H 


M 00 


t- 


txoo-omIoo 


11 =oo_«o 


t? 


I'l^* 


(N 




'^ 


" 


«« 


ci 


« •« 


IN t-: 


"^ 


««d.-:- -: 


j| ,..„.. 


^ 


1 


" 


T,; ■-« 




i§ 


i 


is 


«5 

55 


Sil 


i B 


2: 


IsP.iS 


g 


I^SIs 


g 


1°^ 


i 


S iSig 


s" 


s 


c^o 


g5 


« 


«■ K 


? 


«-^-„-^-«- 


1^ 


oT-t^T-; 


g 


II 




S 




-^ 


o 


oo 


o. 


cot-^ 


« -H lit. 


Ol-J-C^MO 


o 


tC «D 0-. 00 (N 


o 


(N 


^ 


o o-to 


?> 


" 


SIS 


s 


S3-2 


. .II. 


*S?;S^-;^ 


o 


^:5S^s 


?5 


* 




00 Oll^tC 




SI 


i 


si 


g 


im 


llji 1 


1 §iil§ 


2 


1 ilsii 


2 


S 


III 


S 2g| 


^-« 


w 


2S 




Odo-H- 


S § '^ 


1 coo-o->c-^- 


■r- 


1 cfoo--ooco 






































































I 




11 






1 






p~ t^ 


00 


(NOO 


lO 


1 ocooo 


o I- oo||nc^-ooin« 


1 -<N-«0 


t^ 


>o 


II ■= 


m o>va 


-:«; 




«W 




iOd^ 


« « "5 1 dciT,:r,-o; 




i:g2'^- 


r~ 


(n 










- 






|| — 








r 


" 




u 


i 


gg 


1 


i§l 


i i i ^gsieli 


iS§li 


2 


S 


Isji l§i 


^n 


s 


«' -al- 


R 


«oo--r 


?f s s ^-^-s^' 


?? 


s'=rs2" 


^ 


n- 


1 « 2f IN --"-<■■ 












1 










'^ 




— -n 


^ 


io -* 


00 


«.-^ 


I- w|o> TK^ovmo 


M 


1 -H O O M- i- 


C^l 


o> 


|U 00 ^0=00 


ss 


s 


gfe 


g 


ESS 


S 55 $ E^S^iS 


^2 


SJS^SS 


S 


§ 


||. . -.,. 


t% 


g 


^S 


i 


!a§§ 


i 1 ill iSiii 


§ 


iiiii 


g 


= 


Igji ISS 


^i 


1 


i§ 


5 


5S- 


£2 g 55 SS^'SS 


g 


ggS5?«>- 


i 


g 


11= "• 




ia 


g 


j ii 


p 


Sl^ 


BJ sl si isiii 


1 


1 lil^i 


00 


s 


§ 


i Si^ 


«s 


i 


li 


s 


§s- 


g" ' 


lh-| 


1 


|:SgS2 


fe 


5 


S 


1 S?-«-2 








II c.-. 


s 


II -^o 


g 


II «o II cr II oooo«r-.m 




1 0--V.O-. 


^ 


II- 


rvi 








II 






li' 


1 






1 


II" 






g" 




II f^- 






§ 


t 




11 00 00 C^ -< "O 1 VC 


11 ou,««o 




lU 


II r, 






11 


I 




"^ 


1 




ll '- - 




ll- 


II" 




^ j i 


.2 












& i 






i : 


^ 


















'^^ 








ll i 


2 




1 1 
1 1 








^i 


.2 i 
is 




II 


1 








i: 










j3 








11 i 


1 
s 

E 


^ 

£ 


1 

i 






1 i 
1 


1 

3 1 

1 » 


111 


11 

1 i 








1 










.s 

1 


c 


1 


1 
•a 


11 
III 


ll 


3 ■ 


t 

o 


B 

Is 

1 


1 
1^ 


lip! Ill 
Ifillll^ 

■2 1 lE||i« ^ 

llillil 


ll 

li 


1 
1 


2 


1 

E 

!i 

ll 

!1 


1 

1 


1 


d 
.2 

o 


St: 

II 


si 

ll 

£3 

ip 

o 


til 

III 

V. 
























\=^ 








>! 










p: 


O 


H 











174 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 


















21 



1 m 






sM 



"^SJJ 



m" crT-Tof 












S2" 



5iS 



■do 

vsai 



.2 2 C <K ii 

So 






g'a 



S I 









ill 

■sis 



gcaoo 



5"i^i 


ntof 
Dec 
icen 
min 
ies. 


Sga^S 


-s-iaf 


s-gs§! 




ess tha 
last sal 

upon t 
ngand 
and tru 


^^Pl 




mr^ 




nil's 



ii 



i'-S H 






CONCKNTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



175 



a a 
So 



£0 



t- r- io o 



So 



a, o 



^2E:lLidi:i?JgS 



'-»2Su;SSS 






is 



^o 

s-g 



cc Q »o cT 00 C^' f' CN to 



omotcx 



;s;2i 



(OOJCOCOCOCC — ^p> 
O 0> Tl CO C^i OO 10 CO CI 

OOi»C-^CTsCsOi'r- 



as 



Xo ' 



2gs 



O CD »0 to »0 TJ« ' 



ijiss— n— No. 






176 



^CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






8.0- 



I- 



a'3 

Ah O 



§2 



^5a 

ir 



Iq 



*'8'!3rSP:"S?3C=g» 



"'"2E5gfS'5"S§?fg" 









3;;sf 



U2SS2'' 



Sfe 






•as 






1^ 






^"1 



gSa 



•3 " a 



.CONCENTEATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



177 



Si 

so 90 









§2 



So 






• o>ocioc^iNO»«>o>eo 






"2Ji«J=:::28g^^S5 



2-S 



p 

(So 



i-" 



5iS§iiW 






OO l^ «0 S «D <0 S O »0 '<*' 5 O 



is 

e 






PO -^ lO 00 Oi 00 00 












178 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






<^a 



a 03 






p 



^la 












tCO00«'*«00>O00MO 






o«t~o«o»<o<oi3>«e 






SggfeSfi^^^S^ 









SioSS^-SS^Sc^S 



8 

I 

as 



l5 



c^ 



^a" 



'""» 2 2 2 « 2. 

— — CH M -f -S I - -. C-l ;n -H 



S|8g 

■C '/.■ ^2 ^• 



4: vS 
S 0.0) 

111 

Sis'" 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



179 







<c« r» 


•n 




^ 














So 


^CM — —-. 


.«! 




b w 








«•« 








PhO 








bS 


is i §1 


<» 






o2 


l=- ^ 


il 












^^ 


(DiC N r-<o 


M 






So 


T,;c^ (>i (N-^ 


•* 




















finO 






_l 


11 


is 1 ii 






Jil«» 














s 
















1 


0*3 


00<C ■»• ooo 


OJ 


^ 


So 


S2 ^ ^'- 


^ 


<& 


fi^o 






B 














1 

si 














pf 










o 










a'ffl 


t-QO O 00 — 


iO 


XJ 


II 


■do o> uiod 


^ 


1 




'-' 








Z 


A.O 






o 


iS g Hi 


1 




iss 


p- s 


1 






"" 


" 


«^„ 


«o I- <ooo 


« 




si 


Sp: f: Sss 


18 




k. <-> 








,? — 








• Pm o 






"i" 


g^ 1 .SI 


1 




o 


i§ § 2"-' 


i 




o. 








hS 


■» rt 


>o 


O-O 


-•* cj r- o 00 


(N 






Vi 

s 




c» 


■5-S 


w-"" I- 


o 


,< lO 






11 


i^ ^ "°^ 


s~ 


II 




" 


■< 


: ii5 
1^^ 


1 








1 • 

MI- 


l|° 


^ 








•gg 


wws 


^ 








i? 




§ 


1 




ii 
i 


IP 


.a 

h 


a 

05 

g ^ 
^ fr- 




1 


""SSo-iSx — 






hJ^J^J 


p 


k5 







180 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 




iM 






SS' 



2—0 

Z OJ3 



i^oj 



P g— il £ O 



S3;??S5 






isll 



g§ss 



??3^ 



I 



^ 1° 



??^is 



5Sa-§ 






'&•■§ s 



3J2 a , 



■l^ll 






s iiil 



I goSoo 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



181 



'S§55J 



2 3 8 



s§ ss; 



i- 









« M ■<(" 



« — .-; O 00 



sifs 



'lis 



sis 



!s MU 



)0> rtt^oo 



SSJJ 



§ii§ 



§ s 



SR 



o« lOtO- 



CO U5 « 

g 8 s 



-to 03 •»• •* 



ii 



?^S; S 



8 5 



% ^ 






5?S SK§ 

»« rooc 



icth T)<Tj<e< 



5§d 

■2n2 



i.2 —''3 '^'3 g^ 



111 



3 i ^^Si2 



sJl 






3 OS t.-' 









;q. ; 



» S 3 B o O 



«J f 



mil 



•S aja 5 



§§■ § 



F 



a«g 



•W.2 ** 



•5s to 



182 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^S°2 






g 2 K 



IS I 



?3 ?3 



<2 ?3 



5§S?5 ^c 



p) -o o a> » 






P^E°2 



111 



to mto o 



OJ <00 <M 



3i" is 



S ?5 S 



!:§s ?^^ 



i ° 



ri t- K o> S 






IKS SI 

3" 2' 



r,g^ ^c 






n 



^s- 






illHII I II 

fri«i' 11 

3 a 



I'" a 

§fea 

"5 S 
So 






si 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



183 





00 lOT^O — 


o 


1 ■>1<u- 


c 


t-tOCO 


•o 


1 


n-ev 


li» 1 


























'"' 










•^ 


1 




"" 


ll~ 




12 gS"S 


^ 














1 .niU 1 






^^ 




























CO 11 CO 1 






- 












<N 




11 °" 




11 CO -Ht~0<«. 


« 


•«>■<» 


c 


OltO -«• 


,^ 




^00 t- 


Ih 


^ 


JL? 


s??^J5 


s 


sj^ 


e 


1 J5^?i 


S5 




?3S ? 


h 






to 


?5S 


a 


' l~tC3l» 


o 




SSI :? 


II u. 








































m ^--H- 


to- 


Ti.- 


u- 




„- 




.-.> 


(V 


s 














































II « ^^OCCO 


co 


<».- 


tc 


CROOOS 


o 




^CS 


c 


II 00 




1 - -'' -^^ 


'" 


(N« 


tN 


'' 


" 




'^ 


- 


l' 




II JH COOC.O 


o 


S'' 


? 




2 




0,0 


<N 


§ 
























1 


















M 
























o 


■* aoam-r 


■«• 


rt u- 


I^ 


TIC -C 


tr 




CO- 


r- 


II '^ 


u 


S 2SS5S 


s 


SiS 


g 


221:; 


2 




?5:£ 


? 


N 


s 


i iiS^ 


t^ 


§^ 


£ 


ggs 


i 




i^ 


1 


k 




00 


2 


«- 


"■ 








s- 


P 


' 2" 




1^ t~n-v>n 


t^ 


^c 


;: 


lOCCO) 


'°. 




'^^ 


" 


1 "^ 






fM 


-.(M 


? 










.^ 








" 










!>-i^ 


g 


■- 




lO tCCOt^rt 


to 


(NC 


■9 


.-^<M 


•o 




(T. C 


cr 


_ 




fS S?255S 


s 


5S 


5 


'^?/i 


;? 




S? 


? 


« 




II § S2gS 


s 


ii^ 


g 


s§S 


1 




'■^rx 


? 


lis 




-r -r 


to 


00 














lis 




II " 














■V 


■* 


1 


1 g 55SS 


g 


■ si 


i 


ic^g 


1 




r^ 


g 


k 




1 "-S 


s 


i^ 


? 


co^-r-- 


o 




ii 


s 


b 




1 i gill 


i 


^s 


i 


n?o% 


i 




?;5 


1 






ttT .oofe-f-r 


..-r 


s«: 




.n<r.o 


^ 










« 


s :2:?jgs 


^ 


«;;. 


s 






!-S 




s 






tfi' 


CO 














u^- 




" 








II 






"" 


"" 


^ 


1 


s si^I 


s 


il 


i 


IS!2 


s 




sS 


5? 


1 




ci ^-« «- 




OTr^ 




C^-^'r-i 






•oc 


<c 


<-:- 






















S 




. „„.. 


§ 


^-H 


«■ 


CO--C* 


CC 




^r. 


? 


S 


es 


eg TOco-H-i 


§ 


"»— 


^ 


CO-H<N 


as 


X5I- 


a 


i 


























. 


■ 


•T-1 




































1 




s 






li 










^ 


ii 


1 


C 




























portation: 
uburban, 
railways, 
ransportat 
ransportat 
sportation 

transports 


..i 


1 

: 
B 


«, 


.1 


•o 


a> 


1 






Si 

II 






a 




er trans 
Street, s 
urban 
Motor t 
Water t 
Air tran 

Total 


i 


1 


as-B 

.Pi 




la 




Ill 


■0 


2 


■&«2 


ps 


f- 


H -g 


s-;* 


. H 





p«0 

2 




•^-<!mQ 




■3W0 












!r. 


o 








W 


e- 














o 






<^ 








H 










1 



184 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^S°° 



mi 



III 



im 






-H II moujoj 






IHll 



feS-sl 



a°2a 

3 « O O 



Ss"=° 






£s°2 



||3S 



-^'s: 



r-iooc 



5^5^ 



-si- 






;^l; 



to t^ O f^ '£> 






l^^l 



s«s° 



S2f:g 



S f:§s 



§ is 



•"X t~<ON 



=• 2S?' 



S 85SS 



t^ OOlt 



S|S 



■■§§1=2 
guSoo 



a> .S .5 o o 
5 g g a) g -2 

■S-oOSoS 

¥ 



^ E 



2 ..-cfeS 



i5 ^ 



o o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



185 



»C t^S^O I (D 



t^st^ t- 



«iO i^SS tco to Sto " St^SS t^ 



t.««0 M 



mi 



i§£ 



sa Sg 



50» t^tOO 



OCO CTtO-" 



§ga 



.r- tomoo 



!SS SS 



§S 



.^^ 



"SftS5 



2gg 



:SS5 



'SS 



mod 



i? isl 



5 S "O 

So. 5 



c .2--.C a 



S o § 






nil 






152 i 
» £'5 



a a 
If 



oS 



oS 



186 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





1 


„ 


<o 


■^oooi 1 


M 1 


«>' 


0<O>C 


Ml- 





^ 1 


CO 


coo> 


-co 


-1 








ls»l 


Sgf^sS 


s 


si^srts 


e 


" 


s tssss 


K 






















1 


« 


lllil 

CO ° 




i 


IrsS 


!- 




1 gSgg 


s 






-H 00 •«<(>■ 


^1 


«5asoo> N 





t~ 


CO COTl.(N^ 











Hit 


$32g 


2 


S^"SS 


i 


^ 


2 ^rj^a-"^ 


9 




1 

c 






















iM 


^r-'ooo 





or-:r-:-<2 


oi 


^ 


° !i5";^ 


;r 


























Jllll 


SISSS 


! 


B§"-" 


! 


s 


i s»-^ 


1 






g 




















1 


8 


IM 


cow cot- 


r 




CO 


S 


—1 ID r- CO 00 


- 

1 






i^-s 






^ 




S SL^'^S g 




■3 


" 


e°HS) 


§ 


^t^ " 


CO 


'"' 
























& 

■S 




/'.^•a- 
















ra 


iM 




CO 


c;ooTOOJ 


c^ 


-: 


CO T(; .0 e^ CO 







lllil 


|..g 


i 


i§'~""' 


g 


S3 


3 SS'-S 


i 






S 




















1 


c 






-^ 


CO CO CO 01 o> 


s 


ci 


1 :• --- 


1- 




b!^. 


g^^3 


r? 


1 'i^,°'^'^ 


^ 


;:; 


g r;§^?5 


f5 


1 




























X.-5-2 
















1 




IM 


comoo 


2 


ooojicdad 


•0 


OJ 


S oSr 


10 


1 


?'T30-i--^ 


3§S§S 


Sf 


1 gjgssts 


^ 


1^ 


t2 SSSJ? 































01 


I^Sgl 


-■ 


-^ 


1 


1" 




-"■■ 


'^" 




■^^^"3 


OOOIOOO 


■^ 


1 (NOOCOOOt^ 





00 


00 ocoooo 1 -J" 


1 




5 

2 


4S^s 


COOOOJ 


^ 


cooocj^i'- 


- 


2 


tocooooi 


- 


1 


i??s 


sg^i 


g 


si"is 


i 





1 n §i«s 


i 








10 


to 


OirH- 


")•' 




V 


10 








y.S^- 












1 




































i 




















■S 




















t 


















■3 :1 










m 










■a 
















1 


a :| 


J 








R • 








1 
















as ig 


i 
















rt 














1 


as a 








S ; 








II 


1 




1 






nil 
111 

lip 










.2 ' 


3 






22.5 ^ 








1 
g 




111 


1 

a 
•3 


s 


il 


pill 1 

i|||l 1 










•goQS^S 


Stfo 








'A 








S 












« 


t^ 













CONCENTRATION C>F ECONOMIC POWER 



s s; 






F^S 



■S '3 



j3 a -2 

OT3 3 



s5 :: £ 



a 0.0 

3iT3 



^ t. a ■: o 
a ^ a Z. o> 
S 1/1. Si w -v 



gBSo H -goo. H 
■s^mfi -gtHO 

I-. a. 



„, T3 . . O.T3 "O 
_ ... o .- ■» -> 



187 



188 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






£ ■* j3 .t; c? 



AhS^S 



I:SS 






!gg 



iM 



-is 



(S;8 = o 



x> a 

S oS 






Il§i^ 



<5DC^Oi^f^»Ot>-C^ 






C^" O" 0> b-" 5; W" «5 «) jf 



ON<0«M-<(>Me<5i-l 



— SSmScomc 






i§||SS|g| 






PS^sS^; 






•es.s 



CO — t OJ CO -^ Oi^OO C^ oa 






ss?ssfs«2; 



|i=il| 



^ tj J. t. s s ^^ 

i_._,^^^ a a a 
3^^ p a g 0! OS a 



CONCENTRATION OF EX^ONOMIC POWER 









i2i®| 



Ills 



£i°l 






!?S22^'2Sg2 



oa»«»-H-«<'«i<eoN 






= S 2 =1 



IH 



ii^i^ 












Il5-a 



<o of o ■* 00 « V t^i~r 



8S? 



8i = 






189 



190 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEIi 















l§°| 






<£§°l 



lOCDCD-^^OOIOOiOOOt^^ 






e«j to o w lo t^ t 
•-.■«' a 22 ^ r.' 



> O lO <o o -^ c*^ 






"K t>- «0 CO «0 00 * 



x> a 

a'ois 

1 1 



.■^°1 



a (^ 






Ip 



00O00<DTt«IMO<-tC 



'ggs' 



-^O odco o6 1-^ odoco GO t 



ggg< 



OOOOOO-^M 
t-i ^^ Vit^ </:< VJ i^ *4 f^ Vi 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



•gs 



(£S' 



a"S:a" 









.05 1^05 






§s;;ss§g2''' 



5 t- 00 ■«" 00 C-) «5 C 



8=21 
a fe o 1 






o>b-o*o«»a6»ocD06e 



l8°5 g5 ■-:::;: 2 "23' 






272188— 41— No. : 



(MoJoooTecVeq 



Si; 






lie 

Sua 

!5.§ 



tlDM S 



5 3^ 

iS3 



-14 



191 



192 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






3ll"|l 






03 ■32 aV 
00 o 



«S"s5 



:g|32si§S; 






^(DrocoSSco^Mc 



'"siisl^§ 






a o^ 









Jt^OS t^osi 






< r) o 



ICOCOCOCOC 



!§§ 



3S?2§£Jg 






is^^isiiil 






sssjssss?^ 



'Sc^SS^ 



g-ss 






Mr-CN3<(Nt^t-00«r 



11.2 



III 






I S S 8 2-'"- -o^ g S 



CX)NCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



||"3| SESSRSSSSSS : § 



SB 






i-i OS to o»o c 



zl^-2 



^nnsu^n"' 



11 °l 



•§i 









3 22 a 



£S = o 



£2gio 



5*22 



IM 



§28^© 



IM 



fe a 

P CO 



. t~ -H to 35 <S « -^ (N 



C0O*0^g^*^^Q0-« 






"liissiiJI 



h- '^ ■« »oro c*-^ CO a*oo 

*^ £2 2h ^ ^ S ^ ^ '^ 



l§i§H-; 



l^-s$ss 3 



;ssj 



193 



194 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









lllii 



11=3 






li«l 












ilBiiiiii^i 



xocoocot- 



oi.-«>o<D»oooo5ai> 



jSSSSgSSI^gg 









> M •*•>«"« C<> ■♦ 



§95ll:;5SSgg§f 



^l°l 









•est" 
III 



?^ I 






1.1 



22 -■■"'■""S 2SS«"^ 1 1 



lii 



SRsSisSisi^ 



g|.s 



,r-«t-<»g3«gg«<J 



li 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



195 



«|"3| fissgg^igfisgg |g 



g^J 



^.^2.! 



fi:s°s 



isg-ii; 






t^cp <»S<D oci r-c< CO ^ , o 



..olco 

JOOCO I « 



«3iOCl"2M*?D'TfiOQ0C^5O 



isiSssis 



;E52i5Sg§S2f: 



) to <D (d «o ;d (£> 00 Cfl ui 



)-^-TJ*CO»o6l<DCOOOtOC 



(M" ^' rn" -; ^"^ •* (N TT iC -h" I 



•oS»S5«sK«*«» o o o ea o 



.9g 






S2 0.2 



O o D, 



I 83 



196 



^•S 1-1 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWEI? 









!2^ SS 









^H 



I I 












I 3 



III- 



Si 
§5 



(O^* P3M 



ISnc^ """ 



sss ;;§§ 



t~Ort 






^11 



g|.2 



•IS 



si 



8E=S 



O O aJ O 

ml 

§ § §"2 Si 






3 fe O C 



isgs 



irr octor 

•*r^ 00 OS OS oc 



S ^ ojotS 



« lOobM-H <o 






£^^2 



llsil 



■£8°2 






Moomttstti 



B °'3 ! 
3 So I 



«D CO ■* ei -H id 



a o^ 



!§S 



b t; S 3 S 



fc&^.3« 
« 4) CO n 

2:Z2S° 

.2 .52 .£"3 o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



197 






lirii 









5||a| 



iW 



B o'-i 









•<«• «o^t»eo 



1 



rv-<N- 






(DOS t^ ;o<De 
eq ci o> ■>9<' CO e 



S?§22? 



S?5g2 



SS2S^ 






S0«0 rt M 



SS?3?3f3S 



»c « <-< iC O^ C^ 



ggs^sss 



sssss? 



CO O ■^ ^- ^ "j 

00 ooo coos 



"3 00 t* 



sss 



ocooo 
Ksoceo 



Mooes-< 



§r 



mm 



■S«.a 



SSgl 



CO -^ *o (N -^ CO 






t. E a 



>t^OiOM«5 



•-.H 



^'i I iillilii^ I 



•9e 









•2 

i3«fiO 



198 



^ <a ^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






i-tot^oo 



a o^ 



3|: 



IS 



Ss°2 






|ov;||f 



a i-v-s 



lS°BB.i 



I 



05C-1 00 



S§?i 



2g 



5 § 



I Si 



I S 



S g 



S ?1 



S!iSc3S?i 



:f jU-«-«[| 

" II ^' II 



II §5 

II 



II •^^•" 
IIS?3S 
II 



■§ s 



■s; 2: s 



8 -^ ^ 



. a 






i 1 






■SSOm<!S 



3 i = 

P « S 
S l; la 

HI'S -•! 






!3 a .2 






"O CO 

ill 

BOPm 



•.S"* » £ bixi 



If 
■IS- 



„9§ 




il lis 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



199 



cr. -I O II Oi 0> 11 

12 11 






s ;i 



50<0 ■«> 



I § 



g?s 






ss 



f38 









si 



s '-" 



8 S 



gg 



S {^ S? 



g{; 



SSZ 



g s ss 



ooo 



o « 

5 s 



55S5?J 



ss 






cS§ 



i§°° 



8 ? 



.£■ ft 

a 
a n 
* I 

5 a 



a SH 



C? 3 3 '— ,» 



.2 -g 



ts « 



3 1^ I BJ| So 
a S 



II lli 



M 2-22 o 
2gn m ^-a 



-8 SSlI? -^ Sll 



2 o|. 2> 



g "3 b m— 1a»3« -S « —Sis':;© J3 o —Hti.s ^-p ooojo iso- 2 
9 m -a ffl a ■" =*•" « '^ S ^ 'C •- ^ oeari paswoft-^coiSc-i © 



•3 8 



S«^^--0 § 



200 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









CM 


-<)< 


CO 


,-1 


9 


CM 


« 


■«< 


II ° 


c^ 


CM 


C~) 


r. 


CJ 


o 


o 








£i=l 


2 


21 


2 12 22; ii !2 


II === =^" 


M 


s 


00 






<3 


o> 






Sfls =5 












§ 


g'^O"-, 


o 


t;^ 


2 S 5E^ S 


t^ 


« 


i» 


s^ 




1 


1 


ps|== 


TT 


2 


oc «- 


« 


«-. f4 - 


t- 








11=1 


O 


o 


-H ^ M(N UO 


•c 


■w COO QOO 


co 


a> 


9 




a 

1 

9 


3 


" 


SJ 


« s ss s 


n 


l?^§ ^K 


" 


« 


CM 




^ ^ 


i 


s 


i § 51 i 


fe 


S2g m 


§ 


§ 


i 




J 




a t; 


2 


1^ 


O Ol t~M g 


?, 


S = g ^" 


s 


CM 


•^ 








z 5 
















1 






o =t:;3 


<o 


^. 


c: M <rico >o 


° 


CM CM CO CO .■ 


^ 


cvi 


|S 




^ 

2 


e 


(i8°3 










1 






1 




lull 


i 


s 


i 2 -i S 


« 


iss i° 


f^ 


g 


IS 




1 


1 

3 


M O 




II 














IH 


?1 


?3 




s 


-H o. o t- « 


?5 


i 


R 




5 ^ 


1 


2 
S 


i i if ^ 


g 


Sis H 


1 


g 


i 








ri 


s" 


1 


S - -2 5 


2 


§-"g- 2" 


s 


r^ 


co- 




2 




z 5 


. 


_- 






































■s 




H-l 




-^ 




-^ 


2.S - 


- 


- 




i 












^ ^ Sg8 § 










?5 






M 


^^s.t;T3 


^ 


s 


tc 


jci-r^ 00- 


oc 






























2 


O 


S^Sg- 










II 










_ 


o 


,-H 


m =. — CN -. 


^ 


II CO^l- c-j-i 


^ 


1 o 


1 "" 






s 


an 


« 


" 


?? ?5 sis ? 


" 


SgSJ^ J^S 


§3 




r 














II ^iSS 2S 




















S 2 g2 ^ 


^ 


s 














-- 
















i°l 


s 


g 


« OCl -o-* — 


i 


«^2S' 2" 


-o 


2: 


CO 








z 5 










i! 














g 
§ 




« 1 gJS 5 
?5 - -3 .8 






i 

1 


g 
s" 


c5' 






























H 


g 


S i ii^ § 


g 


ise ig 


s 


i 


s 






«•- 


i 




o ^- c?f o>- 


cr 




.,-■ 


s 


r,-- 






wH 


^ 


s g g§ s 




S^g S" 




S 






;?: 


o 


o « «o « 


s 


s»3- »-• 


s;* 


o 


CO 






§ 










II 












|£| 


g 


^ 


i ?^ ig i 


s 


II lii SS 


S 


1 


s 






III 


i 


s 


§. s s^ 1 


1 


S^"H =s"-" 


i 


§ 


2 






l-oi 




« 






1 


















o r- ceo — 
















P^l 




1 
























1 ^^"^= 






« 










pnH 




Sc 
















's, ; 




i 


1 




1 i 

B : 










1 
















ill 

611 S 1 


' tn 


^ 


1 




1 ; 


^ 








.§ 














1 

1 


B -H- 


«2 


•a 


Hj 

8SS 


1 






S 


a 


J 


a ' 

1 ; 












III 
2 


^ 


"2 s 

IF 


Ji 


JI 
1° 








"3 c 

■So 

1 


1 
1 


'c 




i 


5 




1 

1 
1 





CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



201 



S o'^o)' 



??3 



g = ?3 



1^*-- 



n s; 



gjsf; 



^gg 



^ g!£2'-?? 



SSS 



SS^' 









I i 



S-?33 



^S^ 



?SSS! 



II ii 



to 00 to 



S II" 



gf;2 



g2§ 



§ sisss 



IIS 



§"2S 






; a o « 1-.2 

3 s^--<s 



H s. 



E 

E 

8 

o £ 



§S 



ag 



sill 

•Offl-OO 



32§ 



202 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



P^S 



g"o^ gj S5SSS3 



IS 









(DO-^C^I «D II CCCCr^C4>OU 






SSiSSSS 



§^2^255 



I o:or 



3 •^s 5 -S -a 






glJ 



0> rO 00 -^ C4 o> 



;SSlc 



WOOOOrttOt. 



§is» 






ss*° 



§28-^ 



■3 8-3^ ! 



§ u2 S 
3 S o a 
^jQja — 



00 -^ t^cgi 



S8°l 



OOOili OM-o< 






S5S 



S|°l 






■* ooo> -.o 



: ^ 


ii 




j 



I i 



oSbo 



ii£ao.g,a£-S 
a^ a ^y■3 feS 

■ST(OQSomS 



hci I 



^1 

t. s 



!§ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






— c^ ■»>■ iri 2 



sii^ 



5SS 



ifS 



l-,«)Ol — 



gssg 



«s«s 



■ to rt 

15 5 



^rt"" S"S 



ill 



ill 



;sg 



iii 



sss 



jgd 



SS22 






S^ 



?'~ I 



gg I 2 



"I 



IS 



S§ 



tc"rJ-r 



•5-2 5 

« M O 



III 



3 I 



A (a-2 



ill 



lili 



8 ;-i.ti 






43 o eo S a 



§K 



s^ 



a -9 .a 



■gs 






-S £ OS •= 



q a 






1^^ 



203 



a £ 



204 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



.-<(< N 
^ 



iilt 






•>«<Ti<«o|«i|e»|rm| oo-Ht^o» 

S1§S |g||§p| 55I?S=='!2 



f;ss 



g||5 



OOMooro 



!So5i»| 



,5" 5 ' 






8SS 



--11 



gss 



giSii 



aooo'>»'t^ 



Hi; 



S3:; 












a °i3 



;R8£5g 



!§§ 



£g' 



iS8°2 






3S5^ 



^R 



ISSSSoS 



S2S 






SSo 



■M 



I S O O 

•C^22 



-<<! 






I II 

I IB 

I illl 

2 
o 



§ 3 



§.§8 

ago 



. n g-o a « 

o — 9 <='" 
.a -g ca « o o 

il III 



ill 



' c !s 9 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



8S 



iill 



•«< II •>!• to 



?8?iS 



M -^ « to -H m 



'i"§ 



^SS2 



04 »o o cSas »o 



!Sg 



JSS 






81 



^S 



S g 
« o 



3.2.2 

Pllli 
■iiiiliSl 

0.-55 
o«o 
S 



■a 
.. fl 
a S3 



E^ 15 



S5 . 

o 



ill -3 

s~ p o 
§E§5 e< 



~0 O.Q. 

♦'WOO 



B I 



205 



g-g ^. B 
1^ ? I 



ccS ; 


« 






















S2 ^ 


1 


^" i 


Q 


S« 5 


V 


se^s 


^ 


u°"-Z 


i 






.Bo. -s 

ml 


1 


g2-^ 


S' 


14- 


?:^ 


oS«5 


p^ 


^QSi 


d.g 


Pi! 


11 


aa,5£ 


^^ 


PgiP 


ll^tll 




II 

CT.O 


S^ogll 




is 



206 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



ft.8°2 






p:b°2 






-OJ-w -<«oe 









;?§fe3§feK2 



t~-»US — U50t0< 



siiiiilsi 












o 05 so CM o> ra c m c 



r oi" •*■-•" n" p" —" i^" . 

■ — •*•« ir? S r>. -»■ t 






oi r^ ^i ^ c» 



> -* "O CJ S tc Se 



co^t^oic5o»oooe5 



111 






' ^ 00 -^ ^ r^ woe ^ CO 

I to t- ■* CO »o « « -^ w 






;gS;5 ?l 



S S-O-O'o'q'q $ 

ri— — ^^^ a a a 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



207 



I- a— " 












£8°° 






Ph§' 



a°2a 

S® 2 1=' 



•OOiN I -H 






ScOCO-^rtSOrt? 



S"35 OOOlOiOCt 






p£i8* = 






illii 



p;8°2 






0^0005sC'-iC4C«0 



)cD»oa>OM 






g322:js= 



3 K O H 









272188 — 41— No. 30 15 



208 



.2g 



•go 

■"g e 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



IM 



«o 00 --< ^H CO o 00 r- 1-* 1-H 00 I*-* 

CO CO "^ -^ '^ •<*' C4 »0 CO cJ t^ I V 



lllll 



iPl 



1 1 



3 ■ill? 



fi.B°S 






II °l 



lliiS 









T-^OdOOCBC^t~-C^CCt^t^ 

o CD ec o .-T ^^ Ti"" o oT oT ^ 



^D-— '00»Ot^«— lOJQOOst— '^^ 



S 00 itH iC O C^ CO 



Sgf 



'S§; 






S8°2 






r^coosoiooocncoooojto 
cooi'-iioicococjioiaJcoTjI 



■^cso-^cs»(Nr'iocot-c 

ocO'OM'coicr^'^osor 



^Tt^OiCO^^CDlOCCOlC 
J ?S 2" ^ "*" S ?f cS" ^ ^ 



111 



r-iOOOS'*01(NC005-"*»000 
M t;0 ^ --H -^ ci" CO O ifC oT <N 



l2 






o O O O O + 
O o-^-"*^ ^ +^ ^ c 

(^■♦^■^ooooooc 
1 hJ « «/? ee <*?► ee «?■ ft9 de' S 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



ISBJ 



• IN 'rr t^ O cc CD c 



li°i 



fl^-oa 



5233(22 J 



11 °l 






3fcoc 



11=1 



a°s 



s§»l 



C" (^4 ^ »0 iC O O lO C^ 

W CO CC -^ CM C^J C^ 



*0"-iM--iCOO'-<CiNcO 



Os'cOCDOiCO O O 



Ssi-S 



) -i«3 05(N — 00>i 






gs 



csor^od03?ct^odoiooc 






:SSSS§SSgJS§ 



) O TT to ro OS »o c 
iiOt^Ci —tCCOiC 



sas 



209 






*^'^'^oooooo-"<a 

g-"*^COOOOOO|2 

iJ «S ai S S d S » l§ S « 



210 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOxMIC POWER 



» e '-i 












£i°l 









JiOfOiOCDt^OOOS- 



O CO 00 -H IN COiOt 



Soocolhco^oococo 



> OS -HO) as 



rtt-oSSt^iSS"Sc 



-^iSSsSsi 



C0-«***~HO5O0000MOiO>'^' 






(S8 = o 



iSa, 



>28°2 






ItOOSiOl^ — r 



r-ITTOHMONOOOOOOT) 



sisll 



a. a 



11.2 






'^Slisisi 






5 -C O CO urj 03 oo c 
1 PO CO t^ Oi t^ -^ C 



r t>^ CO 00 00 O^" 00 CD t^ c^ •d' 

)Ioi5^oco«SS?o 



'°=§«?3SSS§^S 



jiliigiisg^ 



>0')< 0-* o 



CO-HOscOt^St^^Mt 



, » g; » » * a> o 

; 5,5,5.^ 5 § ''^ 

liiilllsaai 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



11 °l 






ZM^^ 



SPSS 



feg^S 



isal 









(2S=3 









C*f CD 00 rf 00 !0 00 -^ t^ t^ c 



OS t^ "»•<>• o — OONiO—O 



to O p O Q C» to >0 ' 



iSSS 



-"«=^^^S 



o t^ oocc oa> Q »c ogo"5 os 

CSCC 00<-r^cf »0 CO 



©005 -^^DtN t>.e 



gcocO'^'-«ot^o<ocoeo 
c53-Hoo<©ot^ocoTf* 

w TjT TjT CO V lo r-' o go 






> 1^ rr c<i r- c^ cc 

)00 Ol-M lOOO o 



8 



n§Sss 



•sss: 






211 



212 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



ISas 



P^S°2 



> O 00 « -H -* p c 









<5 C =^ = <5 9; ■= = 






i^s?' 



53 ■"^ 


0-- 










• ^ 


ol 


OOC^-HM,rTh 


■ooocoo 


S3 


^i 


2S2SSiS 


?jgisj 


5S 






I 1 












»r:i.-ia>«OGoo-H(No-f '* 

00 CO lO E30 -^ CO CC O GC Tp M I lO 

■sO't-'M»£?<NC3Tr u:roc uf CO --f 

CDOOU^Cftb-O'—COCCiCOl iO 



sccJir^oico'Ccsc^cfto I (n 
«ood« I s 






tocooocnoo — Tft-ce^^ 
CO c^ -^ 00 »o o »o c^r ci" c^' •-- 

OC«CT)Cv3t»^r-CT>^OC^ 

(Mao^»oc^ooiCr-*occoco 

(N<N-r-r 



11 



?gSi 



iJSc 



«»»»«»«» «9 «4 «« ee e9 » «» 



IH 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

3 



hi 



u 






a =2 a 

3 g o a 






sH 















Sgli 


ISigiii 




-«2?--g« 


^t-CJOO 


sioa-HM^o. 




« rt -H 



!S§gSS^SS:= 



g8^=:ss 



a("iocq"-*c^"iC^~ 



^?SJ 









a°2i 

3feo 






IH 



14 






;?ss 



"5 t-T ?» M w t>.- ■«<" 23" 2{ w o 



j" oT « "o" m' o" lo o" o" -; t 



8gSS 



>^sSS5! 






12| I 



>0 Qooo in 
! r^ S =5 ?* B hr 



?ss 



S«««SSSfeS€««»S 



lis 



o o O. 
te a) » 
ftp's 



213 



214 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



khl 






a o-o 






11 






III 



OltOO 









III 



S::;s 



;§ §; 



ISS 






.S.S.2 O « o 









spsa 

2 £ o o 



^E°3 






l°2a 
3 fc o a 



^8°2 



'00.-«--j 






m 






OT3 



2S 



M" — S ooo 

S5S 









:gs 



ss 



S^oS^ 






ilo 



fete S e*S I 

o a> CJ-o a ' 

iz^zggo -a 
.a- 



■o-S-o^s 



.■£.2 .a BO 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



215 





i 


m 




95.9 

84.4 
93.2 
99.5 
95.9 
67.1 


90.7 

69.1 

93.9 
79.9 

88.8 
69.5 
82.4 
93.3 
90.2 

83.0 


igi 


1 


ill iiisi 


s e is liiig 1 


1 

•s 


1 


ri 


^ 


-''-■""-" 


«- w-,f « «o <o- 




sM 


a 


i 


» ^MOIO- 


^11^ cc .^.c-. ^^ 


1 


§ 


c 


g , 5SSS5 


S||§ SS SS.SgSS 3 


1 


i ; 


; 


sll gssis 


% i ^i ssSli g 


S) 


.c 


i 
1^ 


^•; 


= 


s gsg^s 


S S S5! S?fS!S§ S 


a 












.1 


.IH 


s 


? 


i 2S^5^ 


s ^ Sd S'^i^i § 


P 


s 


? 


- -^--i" 


ijh -§ "Ss^g s 






IH 


w : 


,. 


1 tooow-.o» 




oi <-•'-< Mio«or-oo o 




! 


^ i 


' 


" 2^ •^S 




O Og ;;jOj5<6oi r^ 


igl 


3 : 


e 


3 SS5:§3 


1 S 2| ggggg 2 


1 

s 


3 
§ 


ri 






rH- 


"1 '^' -''■ "^ -"" 


















^H 


-H 1 


»■ 


H tD00lO«O> 


» » -Mrt MCStCt-O. CO 


2 


■* : 


•< 


r «cd -c^ 


- g -S d^::;--" 2 


"S 


^ 






















8 


I 


s 


ii 


1 


5 ■* .n .«< ri IN 


s S ii ii^^i s 


■5 

.1 

•3 


a 
1 


«- : 




5 « (N TJO 


»• -f «j.- ^.-goc-^-g «- 




^i^°l 


• A ; 


- 


o>Trr-too 


^||o> woo MmOTIlN w 


W 


.1 
2 


g I 


? 


' sssss 


Ss||^. {238 ^feSSg g 


1^^ 


2 i 


s 


5 ^a^is 


























Marke 
value 
averag 
share- 
hold- 
ing 2 


Si 


^ 


ii§ss 


2 2 23 gS82| fe 

rH >o COO lo to -"f •«> 00 a> 


2 i 


c 


«lCg-rHM- 


t~' n g>o co-r-r <DO0 tC 


Market 
value of 
shares 
out- 
stand- 

omitted) 




a 




ill ii illil K 

4 ^'^' - "■= '^^ 


sIm 


i i 


1 


1 5|8|g 


n i i§ SsRis 1 


"1 


2 : 


? 


- ^-^-s.-!^- 


g ^ S-g ^-g2F=-g- S- 


Num- 
ber of 
share- 
hold- 
ings 


i \ 


i 


sssej 




|4--i 


-" i 


- 




*- 


Ii- ^ ' 










biO ' ! 




?. ! 


;i2 ! lis I 


1 




a« ; 






1 


lif 




11 
2 ' 






"3 ; 


' 


go 


•a 

II 

|l 


lass 

nil 

llliil 

|-aO;Soa 
1^ 


J 


y i 

P 


«|lil|lji 

i-riifliii 

mim 


1 

E 
£ 

1 


ft 








H 






S 

















216 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



fiS"° 



S8°o 



§g2 
2 5. -a 






tM 






w C m ' "O 

lllil^il 



s?5 



O 00' 



Sli 






<0 to S5 



2 S 



sa-3 ^ 5. 
o n £3 fe cr S 

o o o 0) ojBqM 



a -s- 



: > S S Ox; o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



217 



03 00 



g «- 



I I' 



S Sg 



00 <o 

1 '^^ 



CROC 



I 



-11 



totoio 






2 III 



IS a 



fill J 






H^^ e OS 















■li 



o * 

gs 

go 

as 

go 

O o 



iliii 

S a© o ~ 

w S 3 g-O 

^ « O >, „ 

•§5-2 t^ 

11511 



218 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






Isl 



00 o N o> »^ -H M « .-I leo 






S8°2 



)«C»00 



00 li 



,§ P 



1.2 o 



^§°2 



li^l 



•< o 






ioa)-o>.*oc 



•WOOt^OMCOOO 






IM 



5 03 >mJ5 — 



111; 



O.S 
11 



T)<OOQO>0 I 



»)." u3 -a? OT N 05 o' e 



S Oi CO ^ CO ■* O CO 

nrftoaS'cS-f'a 



) S <N S 0» N » .* 



111 



>.-<<o^r^ospow33* 



III 



di 



, 0) « «T3T3 a, 

w w^otsts a a > 
•o-a a a a 3 a o 

>- -* -^tstjxJ a a a 
agS°=°'"22a 






S5 

go 



ill 

So.* 



:3a| 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



il=l 



< i 









IN 






^§; 



f CO lo 00 g" — " o m" o" c< 



3aociosoot^3roas«ao 



ooi^csosQOC^cor^»-< 



liSI' 



^' ^" ^* iO~ 00 CS lO C^ Oi c 



ii-HOa^roosocooow 



OOCC^Q »S<D <OCO.O> O OO 

rC cv» V Tt*- 1< c^" »-r c^" c^' to CO 



OiCOtOCOOOOCOi-t-^OitO 



COCO-«1*uOtJ<0000<C><C'«5 



?£.g 



s? 



Ill 



S8 






t^'*j«coeo-v^a>Mt^a>c 

«^COO>OtO»Ot^<NO^C 






»^0>Cft'<*'CSC^Ot 



§sii"s§igi!ss 






*^ 2 S3SS2'" "^ 



•II 

^ a 






o o a 
a oj ffl 



•Sat 



219 



220 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^ § 









•S o 



« fH 






Pi 



feS-S^ 



£8°2 



ES--S 



i> ° bjc „', y> 






s.s 

S OS 






Oi00MO5t>-COC)CO 






C^OOOt-OOOOSC 



jC^St 



°^ "^ S cS ^ ^ 2 c5 
« S to 05 CC S 00 OS 



GOOOOOOiOOOJOiOO 



:22?f' 



C>0'-HiOOtXit^OI 






;§gg 






Sigi!-i 



§4= 






0.3'^ 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^B°S 






(28° = 






■S S 2 §-9 
i< c ea " 2 






I!l 



)00 t^ t^TOO> 



C^«05<0^(N 



-^jt(0C0<©tD*O05C0Q0O 






;§sg5S 






3»oeooooos 1 



OOoOoOCSOO^Cr'OaOOGO 



?5 ""'"8«>';2;" 



L OS CSI00005010>f-«C*5CO 
.^rt Ol t~ t~ "O rt -H ift 



3 g 



O CD Q <-<" '^*' 00 00 -^ O 00 



00 ofco U3 t-Tt^eoo 






222c5 



»» *» » 64 es «> «» «> 6* w» «» 






S^ 



e§2 



og"- 



^ g. S 



221 



222 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



5 ^8°3 



ri 









Tl 






S°Sgo'§ 



o.S o 



2^.i 






II; 



S 00 



I'll 



i g 



O 00 >o O 00 



IN O 0> 



O «D OS 00 t* CO 

00 00 S OJ o> a> 



?3 2 



g I i I s 

t-. a> S ■<»< N 



J «- "5 






:z;-gz.s' 



,?-^ 






■S-o 



ii 






S| 






III 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



223 



m II 00 OS to 



s:s°2 



t~ II «<NC-< 



p 



ill jii 



oi "3 o 00 r* .-I 






I5SS2 






# S^ 



'lS5o 



oooo 

5SS 



S5:? 



yo.r: 
■< o 



„-0,-gcJ=D5- 






?5 ^' 



> c5 "XJ "tf- <o 



(SS^o 



§ 8KJ 



OcittOtp^ 



fegS? 



SI m 



2&S 



^ 3 ot 33 a 



IfeSl; 



o<oc 



b 3 c3 ; 



N <0 to ^r OS t^ 









isS 



I "l 



2 3! 






'la .-f 

5,03 » * c. 






272188— 41— No. 30- 



^ III 

8 lili 

O QJ 

6- « 



224 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



■» •.« i-» 



S8°| 






JPi 






S.s°s 



fi:8°s 



§T3 

•< o 



S8°2 



P 






Il-s%" 



^S9« 



5^5^ 



Oi iX> Oi o> 



2i = S 






co't--(M o 



^to.9 



1^1= 



P°-^l 



5?S S 

;"3 2" 



3 c? c5 






o>co Oi 



si s 






8 S 



2 S 



>0 -h" 






I i 



<o ci 



I to cot- 






511 






?3^8 






^^^ 



§11 









3 o._ 

13 *^' T? --^ Jii ^^ >; iiii ro 3 en 









2c-i hJMi; o 



£ ° 






E = g 

a a o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



225 



R § 



II SS 



SS5 



f2 S 



is 



s^ 



S5 






O M 

55 g 



S.is 



is- 



s s 



S ?§8 



O lO 

55 ig 



S §S 



§ S 



0> IT 

S 00 



^■^ 



CO Tl" 

oo S 



g §5 



II §i 












Sgffl ffi 



^ a 
o <a 



T3 a 
g.-a 



am 



- o g 



Co g <B 



2fS| 

3.H-c§3g -eP 
2^§|g;§ 

<; o ^ ■ 



8 § S 



•2 -a 
..SS 



SooS 

liii 









E5' 



5E 



226 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^«^2 I 









^S°2 



<i o 



■7* O ?! S'C M 












|i^*i 



00 ■* <NO i^ 



S <o r^ S r* 



■* 00 o 



§ 55"^ ^ 






;s § 



m to-* «o 



^ a 



t* F-t, (NO ^ 



«D OOCC O 



CO -H (NrH 2J 



i Ife i 



CO O »0 O b- 

c>S CO CD CO «:> 

i" i "P i 



^ c. o.- 



!S§ 



sS oS 






??S5 



N Tro 

^^S 



^S 



§11 



li 



ss? 



oo">o I Oj" 



s^ 



-i-S'C^l oo 



3. 3" 

s3 









g 03 



•o>Si8-§8|5 8 



3 s ^ 

I 



i" ¥i^' 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 

i 

o 
u 

s 



lO (O a> o-co 



t-o>o 






ii! 



s^r^^t 



S S3? 



O eooo 



CO 00 O .-J oi 



§5?§ 



iSSe 



oo^- 



Sf33 



ssa 






5Sr 



§ i 



O 0<N 



COOM 



I Sll 



I Ii 



lis" 






;2§8 



§52 I 



Sg§ 



:§2 



f2i:;S 



«§■" 2 3 o 03.15.2 



t I 

i ^ 

„ — o 









^S. 



«S5 



II 



gs 



O 08 

febS 



l°g i 



S8 



•'^ a b n 3 

.9 a o S S 

« c » 3 3 
3 KS-Ti-B 



227 



228 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



IM 

- « :5 
-go 

8.2 o 
•«^ o 



^8' 



Sg' 



1^ 



£i°| 



02 J3 









lo lO lO >c 'rttft '^ ko edl CO 



22S^ 



S5:SSo§?5SJS 



-t--cC!CDcb»OcDScO 



ii 



ot~.-ioo--oooo> 

lO ^ CC "O ^ 00 00 
to O t^ t^ T»i -* cS 

lO" co" >r>" t>-" oo" --r b-" s" 



os^i^r^oococ^^ 

S'-HOOCT.S.-.OJCOC^ 
«Ot~>OtOOOtOIMt^ 

rt ai" tC ^"^ to" oo" -T r»<' irT 



■•irsMOiC^roco^-to 
^cnoot^oo'^t^coto 
r oT ci (m' r^ m" 00 ai" 00 



OOOMOtOl^Ot 
WtOOOOSiOO^Si 



i C> Ol C5 Ci Ol 



> C8 



.•S-a-2 









iSt^SScc 



oosr^ooos'-Hcoo 






io»03;c30»oCT>ot 



sg§l? 



i'O'OTri I 



•o-oaaa§§§ -i 

^TStJ-o a o a 

o-O B P O aa a 



Sgo. 






iS^J^SSSS 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC PdWER 



229 



§5 

£2 



¥ 



§1 



g3 

pL,0 






rtO<NOO 



gSSS: 



>f2S SS 



',22 e? 






KSS ssss^ II gs 






is t>. « ^IS 



S22SS 



l"'l -si' 



o a> 






i»s ^liij 



N^ 



III 



I I 



200 



.."3 '3 03 be'/, c !" 
•3 t? g 2 S f 2f: .' Eh 



8~ 



25|! 



a o 



joSc. 






III 

o 



I I 



i i 



1 I 



230 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



wooo 



S3 

So 
So 



05 OJ t» ^ SI te 



§ N:§ S? 



I«l! 



ggg 






^53 a 



i I 



£30| 



^89 § 









"1 S 9 .,- 
5 -o a fe » 2 



•3S 






S3 






s Sis 
§ 2 



|WOO 



O c3 

"5 



Om si 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



231 



as ' n-vftarfmoici 



'22iSli§ 



2S 

I- 
(i< o 



< O Ol t- r- M <C 00 



2-s 



§2 



8S 



3 IC <D «o Tr r^ t 



O to 

hi I bo 
o p a 



-S^iSIHIi 



Tji" CO -^ o cs ^* «r oT 



3 a a !> ?? 






;§g! 



232 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



|3 

§2 



a « 



22 

Ph O 



(L, o 






"2 



S3 

II 



¥ 
I 






?S2S|SS|gS 



IOrHlOOOC<l<»C^OS>0>00 



'gsg^imgi 












CO-H —1 



3a-^O5 00O2t-r 






tuOO 

Is. 

23 









^ o 2 

.a 3 o 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



^I 



1° 

i (So 



OiOOMt-iON-H 



ISS t^C 



So 

Ph o 



oo 2?SR2§8; 



a o tn 

1^ 












-H lO 00 t~ CO t» O 05 



SO-HC0>0>0C 



'woomoo 



i«i w-Hcotoe 



233 



SSSS'^^'^'^ootS I 
ja M->)>o> o o o*^-"-"q H 

:^255oSS|S8g' 



234 



'S w 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



8^ 



if. 



S^ 



5| 



a'3 
So 



^§ 






M -< W4( -«< -<!< C 



!§5SS;Rg 



'S5SSi5:^S 



'"pil^il 









Olrtt^OOOCt^COOCOO 



oso50»a»ooooeDco»ocs 



« Oi CO »0 rt C^ lO c^i 

"■"co-*-«rc^-aJor 



30 C^CO w5"'-{'t^cO O 



TJf/^COy^f^^^f^ O O O c3 

o225222":i:"3 

O O O O O O S5 ° '"-<= o" 



Cjr-I g 

o o^ 






lS-2 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



235 



a cs 



§2 



§2 I 

CL, o 



8o 












1 Sc 



S'-"" 8 



u? a» cs CO 






I K3h-)^^ p fa Iz; 



236 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



So 



im 



CO 03 00 ^ C^ • 



Siss 



PL, O 



Si 



ef m cici 



s « 

d, o 






iS?3? 



8| 



^Si 



Noo t~r~o -H 



1^ 



!82§^ 



:2tg8 



i 



igis 






s§s 



O5C0 O TT CD O 

CD o5 o uor^ ^ 
M o »o t^oo 
oorHOsio'coco 



2§§§ 



III 



CC O t^ CD CRCD 



op CN r>. lOCD 

CD OCDr^Oi 






1 TTOoe^ooo 



;5Sc 















sosag 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



237 



^■a<oo(M CO 
•vododeo » 



SS| 



1^5 



II 



g^^ 



;g?5 



sig 









ssss 



to CO 00 



050t 

2S' 



OOiO 






SiSS 



i^^g 



ooim" 



sles: 



iBis 



m 



I 2-9' 






.§5-3 2 



i2 

2 
9 o5 



« g 5 









S M 3 



« a g 

sis 

3 o! a 



i^oS 



^ll s 



S '3 a 



|S« 



238 



CONCENTRATION OF ECOTs^OMIC POWER 



? I 



9§ 









-2:5 



8S 



II 



11 

(£0 



gl 









MTii t^c»>n 



ii 






00s o 






««^- c- 






S S 01 S (N 

r-<(D 005 t^ 



c5 Sm^w"* 



CO to-*—"©" 



^00 t^ too 



O) CDC0-0>O)C^ 



g 5:f 



■a-coiot^c 

05 lO Tf- 






-H TtiCSOtO 



S5 ^5!J= 



o> tool 
o' i-'XJs 



to I o t^ cooo 



i s^i 



5 ^ ««s 



.a§| 

o feWoa 



•as a 

III 



I is • - fe a 3 « 



.s *i c8 <s o a 



23s; 



So5 



=« o o 3 



||g 

nil 






CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



239 












i iiS 



gj s 



-1 I oo«ts I 



o5fS "^ 2 






2! 



<^ 



M a « 
gE 3 o 



"■5 J5 J; 

■Saoo 



is 



= — P TJ 



■-3 9 



^ I 






sg'^ 






•= s 5; c 

« £ (0 3 3 

mil 



272188—41— No. 30- 



240 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



2 » 



§1 
a, o 






So- 



il 



tSe o 
•w 2 o 



«-« s 



£ ° 



11 



•^'*'' of -^ o" |C urT 












OOu5«,o»Sm§? 
— I -( § lo 00 a Si S 



"2ffS§SS22' 



t^ iS,<C W •* ■. 



"^'sss's'lidgs 






sssssgggs 












CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



!a-3 



m 

h 



P 






3h 

3R-g 






000(0-10 






8^523 



o74>ai-iff« 

gssss 



O 11 tot- 00 00 

8 '"'StSS 



oto-s- t->o 



SIO «■ X3 <o' ■> 









g 00 o 00 to o 



o<ot-iow 



8 SSSJ' 









Jgi 






ililli s lliS-SI 5 IliWI * 



o 






08 
§■§. 



II 



241 



242 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 









8 n 



OS 

•sis 

|i 
1: 



£i°l - 



■PhS' 



S' 5 



1OiO00«O 






§ s 






o — 



S|S2^ 



SS M So St^S oS * s 






iiliS i$ 



fS5S ss 



SS'^iSS 



285 



«0> 0> "5 

S2 8 §■ 



IpJ 



si 2 i sii 



te S 



e5o S S 



H 



ft;8' 






2 2^'S'L.i* 






t^ 00 ec 00 

82 ^ S 



is 



S 00 00 05 00 



)005 
'SoO 



S?SS"2S 



;r s 



2'l 2 I 

Sh'l 









1§S 



?S"2 gf 






§g « 



gs"§ 



S § 



12 
I 






:^5.g 






|g^'2;5 



gss 



85 



r 






=^sl 



S fe box! OS ; 
■- ^-o t t, - 






S£ 



IJSS 



2 ?3? 



§§ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



243 



l|S|l 



I 111 11 
i Nil 



ss: 



SBS 






III 



in CM 



g«2 






l^ll^il 



II 



III 



i2?5 



|gS 



si 

§1 



llli 



S.-a5 H 
Stfo 



I 

I II 



51 



5 ag-s 



■E|S -a 

:22 Hi i 

.a is-otdoo 



i s 



•■=£_§ 
>-2 i 



la 

is 

2S 



73 o t; 

o ^S'Z 

■flp 

£■0 "ta 

8So5 



fgll 



to- a a 
i — 

03 I* M «^ 

§11 II 

j3 3 £ ""2 
tHgamS 



li 



244 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



§8l 






IM 



IM 









^ > " 3 I 



is 



11" 



l^i 



p-=i|l 



i§ 






;ss 



o -h' « » 

t^ 00 00 1^ 



iiil 



ss'ss 



M-oT— "of 



82^a 



OOQOOM 






rfg'gs? 



CO 00 -wo 






5§SS 



isii 



« "^ I. »- k. S S ' 

-§§333^=° 

|||ggg||| 






5 a "m a- 
■2 S g.-a 

nil 

-all 

o 2 «a <B 
S 0-2 

5 ^"^ » 
ol55 

a fe lo o5 

a 2— a« 
.2 B o ° S 
g g a §•_;. 
a >,-2 t, CO 

O T-) £ tC * 

s ® 5 ft » 

g is m<bS 
ll^Sa 



Bg£-. 

<9 « » 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



S 



p:e°o 



:?•« 



Ill- 






gi.i 



S "^ i £ p 



«<ooo>o 



oo 



«DOtO too 



Kg 



S COOiM 






00 COOOS Cs( 

to N ni -<|i «■ 



8S 



<o-a.co p»o 



S S 



<o"o"«o"— "pj 



Si 



S 8 



<oo SO Or* 



2 i 



»oo «of> 



§ g 






TCO-* -s-o 



§si si i s 



S 25 



CI -"ro— 100 



^to->r ooo 

55^5 5355 



:s^: 



?ss 



i 2 
2 i 



0«OCO"CO 
CT OS oo 05 OS 



8SS SS 



si ^ 



18 E= 

>o" 00 



>Oo8 OCR 



eg 






r^ « OS i-HOOO ^ CD -«< Oi 






<pS >oi^-o« «00 



vo^O ^00 



OS « 



-HMCJ^C* 



245 



o' s§i«. 









2 i*2» 




o o " o 3 



O S 



w S 



246 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





1 


«|ol 


dS? 




f2S, 


5 IIS 


VX 5 

57.5 
70.2 
55.0 


S 


^ 5 






gg^Sf: 


R 


f25 


-II- 


:5!| gis 


s 


« s 






S 


3SI 








'Hr 


■" 




i 

« 

8 

> 


S3 


M 


S"'^ 


3^ 


^ 


sji 


pll lis 


5 


"Is 

IcO- 


5 


il°| 


ggiS 


S 


siig 


S| 


^ 


IS 


sss 


to 


II . 
^||s 


1 


isi 


1 


^U 


S 


i 


i 


im 


s 


2 


1 


o 


i 


g^S 


i 


gs 


i 


1 


i 


5Sg 


g 


g 


1 


a 
2 


M 


^ 




■^ 


«r 


^' 






^-oco- 


?[ 




s 




1 *j — 


«5iOtO 


o 








o> 


oco-w 


W 


r. 


K 


1 


l§°o 


WM-H 


00 


00 00 


00 


" 


o 


... 





^ 


li« 


i 


i" 


£5 


•|S 


m^ 


g s 


i 




« 








t-T 


f- 


1 


-"j^M 


« 


So 




z 
















'ml 1 *j '" 


<oo^ 


M 


^o 


'a' 


m 




CO 1 

^ls 


a> 




•i 


li=l 


g-?3 


e5 


^!S 


^ 


5:^:5 


s? 


■s 


Ig'S 


ooS« 


§ 


IS 


i 




11 


ass 


i i 


i 


1 
1 

■s 


1 


M 


^-co 


^ 


S 


s 




r 


§=!' 


5 " 


tg- 


1 


ll-l 


c^oJgJ 


CO 


s:? 


^ 


d 


ki 


^U^ 


CO 


f? 


1 

B 

3 


ill 


Fi 


11 


s 


I 


^ 


nm 


ili 


? 


c 


2;"«otC 


i 


i^- 


i 


rj" 


i 


im 


i\s 





a 

1 




2 








■^' 






tCcvfof 


21 


J? 


a 


ir»l 


sss 


s 


ss 


s. 


s 


\i 




S.||i 


§ 


1 


ill 


i 


.^i 


1 


^^ 




l|S 


3 




C 


B 

3 


«5^-^- 


o 


s 


s 


CO ^- 


i-2 


+■ 


! 


fe^i^lis- 


Sig 


S 


gs 


1 


^iii 


1 Sii 


1 s 


3 


s-g^fe|-5-s 


«|Ob-- 


>-" 


« 


« 


s-||-- 


1 (N"Tf--(N- 


c< V 


CO 


Market 
value of 
shares 
out- 
stand- 

omitted) 


iis 


g 


gi 


S 


§111 


1 ili 


i 


8 


i 


gSS5 


s 


i 


i 


S|" 


§1^- 


1 


S 


g 

.- 


.i 


§ss 


?s 






2 ^, 


§5§ 


fS 


1 


CO 


















°3 


^•l§ 


i 


§s 


« 


i 1 


SS5 


1 


i 


g 


w" 




'■' 


"^ 


"^ 




c^-.-o- 


^■ 




s 


III 


ilD^ 


§ 


§1 


i 


s i 


SB! 


SIS 


\n 


p-'o 


t>Jcf« 


^f 


s 




- S 


§S22 


g- .- 


2 




















Zo^ 










11 


1 






■ 11.1 








8 


\J 


l^"= 


J2 


r 


s 


■ ao^sS 




« 


s- 


t^ 


nr 


1 S-" 


^ 


■^ 


SJ 


||S|-B 










■ 1 


1 


















« 






ca ; 


















s 






fe M [ 














j ti ' ; a i 










§.■0 ! 








Industries 




1 


1 yi 

nil 11 


1 
1 


=11 
W 


1 

I 

c 


'i 

1 



Ifi 


J 


1 

C 




1 














^ 




o 


s 








p 










-in 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



247 



a 

■a 
I 5 



^S°S 












11 



5-"^° I a: 



2s 



SSSiS 



irato ■«<oo 



SSJ 






OOOOtl 






05<3iO>0> 



fgsf 



S3S5 



!5S§S 



Si = 






>S55 






9'2 ^ 






fee -2 

If I 



afe o 

•a £ "^ 

as ^ 

•2S « 



3^. 

9.9 



gs.s> 



r§a2 

"5.2 mSaQ 

.sS.Sp| 

sSogg 
g-c-SftS 



248 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 






K<6 \ ri W 












2o 

80 



ili! §§i-Miisi'^gii§ii 



; CO O I (O Ij Oi C 

i II 






oa o ■<l^«'^o>o*o»o•^MOw^oo^^■<^OiO^F^ 



>n CO(M-iMCMSiMM(N?5c 



§s s^s 



-C^w^^-^iOfMSOCOClOS 



gSS^Jt 



) w o> 05 >o m t^ £ 



I I gliii 



PO CO 1 C0»0r^C^^0^M'i<J«40i-Hi0O»Cc0'«J'C0 

oi o li tv^odc^^oih^oc^cd»cooo-^?ocoi^ 



^ MI^M 



a§ 



00 "OOO 



§ lis i| 






ss 



g 



..t^ 0"^?iooe-3f0'^»o---oor^co 

• oc>'J*^edC'i"odc^^"TCCr>rC«OcO 
) r-i ,-H M cc — ' o CO re OS -^ -^ c^J M 



J L 



(v 6 a 



!SSSS3g8SSC:^§8; 



• ^ l« I 

Kl 



SSg 



zS.^ 






HOI^-^-r-TjiOSOOOJC 



I li 



^3; 



-« 



iJS-s 



£-5 

" p o 9 = M 3 b= ° S 






a .s 



I .. ;a I 



I 












.Si^g-5 = 






ail ^ 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



249 



i g 






m 



s§? 



gg'S 



n^' 



J8 



«-8 

•£'3 



S 6i.S.2 
to o-gtj 

~ .3! o a o, 
C aUoO 



H P ° 



.2 3-H 

III 



t5Bs 






lag 



o P -, 

■§1". 



III 






250 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



Is 

Oh o 



2o 
80 



0*3 

dn 






§SS: 



8Sf3S 



SSS 



n 10 00 10 
ci ■* OS -H 

to •* CO 10 









^g3!S 



as-2 



!S95! 



sii 



■'S'O'O a a a 
gaaSSS 

S8S§il 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



251 






■on e<i<c-Hoot^oo<oa»rt>' 









•o od«o>i-!-»<NOi^.-r^ot~;'«<'H'«< 



I SB e» rt te « <o <o o di m 



»ll 



i°'3 

£§2 



iooo>«cor-<-if-««o>-«<-HMO> 






III iiillsfesgiisig^ 



r-l-HM « 






^11 

PngS 



«o 00 or 



50> -HO00»(Nh-00t 



;82^; 



S3S2 



0-«'l>tDMOtOO>000>C<lQt~C»-' 



to «CQ>00ir~000Jtt>t^t~M"O-ic0 



SS' 



e5 « -< •* -H 



fo rr" ocf GO -^ ^ ^ » 5 



zS.^ 






■iCSN.-ic<coooTC«r--«'<0' 



TSS 






.S-o 

5g 



te'i 






PI I I 



ESSas 






1-11= = ilS .° 



252 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 





fi?. 


00 


^ s^^ 




° '^ 


¥ i 














«'. a 












Or^ O 


si 


1 


1 2ii 


i 


U n 






«^s 




;*-tCco 


s 






. o_ 


oo 


« r-*o 


.^1 


N •» 


i:§ 1 




^«s 




«< ^odtC 


o 








^P 






1 


















s. 


-s 


1 


li iis 


^1 


sii 


^1 S 


1 


li 




8-" 


s 


|. 


^1 i 


o — 


^ 


«5 <Ne^o> 


Tf 


-c O 


■f » ta 


I 

.1 


Sfi 


s 


Ji gjss 


gJ 


?S 8 


111 


5g 


i^ 


1^ Sil 


i 


1 s 




1 




« 


sss 


i 


" S 


jU 


"^-a 


«« 




^ 1 


Ol o 


II ^ 


1 

2 




rj 


12 c3r=?3 


^ 


2 2 


1 - 


So 


t- 

s 


Is eiB 


g| 


g||s 


55 ! 




isi 




-^ sfs 


S 


g 


ll g 
£-.§ 1 


0-, 


n 


1 o ^«^ 


00 


O US 




^ii 


n 


s sssis; 


9 


s s 


lli 




1 


n 


h isi 


g 


lis 


III 




s 

a. 




|«- ^-^-5 


i 


i 




& 










1^ s 


2. a 


s||i SHi 


s 


= g 


^§^•5 




- 2 |S?2 




* 2 




a°i 


C ^ gcc- 


R 


"" 2 


i^&5. 


III 








ii^P 


s°ai 


«||« gc.=< 


U 


11^ 


|t|o^ 


II 8l 


1 




II 


8|<g8Q. 






1 11 






I-I--! 






i s i ; 


: S? ; 










I 8 1 1 


i i i 
III 




M g S o a 






i E i! 

i 1 ii 




g g « C S 


2 




i 1 ii 


i 1 ; 




.1111 

till! 

iliii 




1 

s 




illi 

1 1 iif 

1 1 IP- 

) 03 U 


111 

i -ci 

ill 

IP 


1 1 



CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER 



253 



So 
ai o 



go 

aio 



■Zo 



".^.«* 



cooNte 



Sill 






ssss 



list- CO 



S3SS 



a^if 



'"' t- t. »- » o ^; 



be'" 

•2 2 






S3 

as 



a oli 

a E o 
io.| 

III 

ti-: 

las 

11° 



S5 



INDEX 



AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY. See Machinery and Tools. Page 

AGRICULTURE ;. 60, 72. 84, 86, 95, 104, 109, 

123, 128, 142, 151, 163, 171, 180, 184, 197, 202, 223, 236, 242, 248 

AIRCRAFT 24, 63, 84, 88, 107, 111, 144, 154, 164, 173, 182, 185, 199, 204 

AIR TRANSPORTATION. See Transportation. 

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. Mentioned. 9-16, 22, 53 

AMUSEMENTS. See Service. 

APPAREL. See Textiles and Textile Products. 

ASSETS 2-4, 34, 59, 65, 70, 82-85, 90, 114, 115, 132, 133, 146, 156, 

166. 175, 188, 189. 206, 207, 218, 228, 231, 240, 244, 247, 250, 253 
AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES. See Automobiles. 
AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS 2, 

9, 14, 15, 57, 58, 62, 74, 84, 88, 97, 106, 111, 125, 130, 144, 153, 

164, 173, 182, 185, 199, 204, 216, 225, 229, 237, 242, 245, 248, 251 
BAKING. See Food and Related Products. 
BEVERAGES 24, 57, 58, 60, 72, 84, 86, 95, 104, 109, 123, 128, 142, 151, 

163, 171, 180, 184, 197, 202, 215, 223, 229, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251 
BREWERIES. See Beverages. 

BROKERAGE HOUSES. See Wholesale, Commission, and Brokerage 

Houses. 
BUILDING EQUIPMENT. See Building Materials and Equipment. 
BUILDING MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT 16, 

24, 25, 57, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 110, 125, 129. 143, 153, 164, 172, 

181, 185, 199, 203, 225. 237, 242, 245, 248, 251. 
BUSINESS SERVICE. See Service. 

CANNING AND PRESERVING. See Food and Related Products. 
CHAIN STORES. See Merchandising. 
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 2, 9, 

14-16, 24, 25, 57, 58, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 109, 124, 129, 143, 152, 

164, 172, 181, 185, 198, 203, 215, 223, 229, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251 
COAL MINING. See Extractive Industries. 

COMMERCIAL CREDIT AND FINANCE COMPANIES. See Fi- 
nance and Investment. 

COMMISSION HOUSES. See Wholesale, Commission, and Brokerage 
Houses. 

COMMUNICATION 2, 

8-10, 14, 22-24, 33, 34, 37-41, 45, 51-58, 62, 64, 71, 76, 85, 89, 
98, 108, 112, 127, 131, 145, 155, 165, 174, 183, 187, 201, 205, 
217, 227, 230, 238, 243, 246, 249, 251. 

CONSTRUCTION . 24, 63, 75, 84, 

89, 97, 107, 112, 126, 131, 155, 173, 183, 200, 205, 217, 226, 230, 238 

CORPORATION ASSETS. See Assets. 

CORPORATIONS, NUMBER OF 60-253 

COTTON. See Textiles and Textile Products. 

DAIRY PRODUCTS. See Food and Related Products. 

DEPARTMENT STORES. See Merchandising. 

DISTILLERIES. See Beverages. 

DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL SERVICE. See Service. 

DRUGS. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. See Electrical Machinery and Radio 
Equipment. 

ELECTRICAL MACHINERY AND RADIO EQUIPMENT 9, 

24, 57, 58, 62, 74, 85, 87, 97, 106, 111, 125, 129, 144, 153, 164, 
173, 181, 185, 199, 203, 225, 237, 242, 245, 248, 251. 

255 

272188 — 41— No. 30 18 



256 INDEX 

ELECTRIC UTILITIES. See Utilities. Page 

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES . 3, 

6, 24, 60, 72, 84, 86, 95, 104, 109, 123, 128, 142, 151, 163, 171, 
180, 184, 197, 202, 215, 223, 229, 236, 242, 245, 248, 251. 
FERTILIZERS. See Chemicals and' Allied Products. 

FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS 3,6,8,10,14, 

15, 22-25, 33, 37, 39, 40, 44, 51-56, 63, 71, 75, 84, 88, 97, 107, 111 
126, 130, 144, 154, 164, 173, 182, 186, 200, 204, 216, 226, 230, 238 

FOOD AND RELATED PRODUCTS 2,9,14-16, 

24, 25, 57, 58, 60, 72, 84, 86, 95, 104, 109, 123, 128, 142, 151, 
163, 171, 180, 184, 197, 202, 215, 223, 229, 236, 242, 245, 248, 251 
FRIEND, IRWIN, joint author. See Goldsmith, R. W. 
GAS UTILITIES. See Utilities. 
GAB WELLS. See Extractive Industries. 

GOLDSMITH, RAYMOND W. Mentioned in 

GOLDSMITH, . RAYMOND W.; FRIEND, IRWIN; GORHAM, 
JAMES; GRANBY, HELENE; and PARMELEE, REXFORD C: 
Distribution of 0\vnership in the 200 Largest Nonfinancial Corporations 

(1940);cited v,xvii, 5, 6, 47 

GORHAM, JAMES, joint author. See Goldsmilih, R. W. 
GRAIN, MILLING. See Food and Related Products. 

GRANBY, HELENE. Mentioned iii.vu 

GRANBY, HELENE, joint author. See Goldsmith, R. W ' 

HEAT. See Utilities. 

INDUSTRIAL AND PERSONAL LOAN COMPANIES. See Finance 

and Investments. 
INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY.- See Machinery and Tools. 
INSURANCE COMPANIES. See Finance and Investments. 
INTERURBAN RAILWAYS. See Transportation. 

INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANIES. See'Finance and In- 
vestments. 
INVESTMENTS. See Finance. 

IRON AND STEEL 2, 

9, 14, 16, 24, 57, 58, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 110, 125, 129, 143, 153, 
164, 172, rSl, 185, 199, 203, 215, 225, 229, 237, 242, 245, 248, 251 
ISSUES. See Stock. 

LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS 3, 

57, 58, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 110, 124, 129, 143, 153, 164, 172, 181, 
185, 198, 203, 224, 237, 242, 248 
LIGHT. See Utihties. 

LORENZ CURVES : - 48-59 

LUMBER AND LUMBER PRODUCTS 61,73,84,87,96,105, 

109, 124, 129, 143, 152, 163, 172, 181, 185, 198, 203, 223, 238 

'MACHINERY AND TOOLS 24, 

■ 57, 58, 62, 74, 85, 87, 96, 105-106, 111, 125, 129, 143, 153, 164, 

172, 181, 185, 199, 203, 215, 225, 229, 237, 242, 245, 248, 251 
MACHINERY, ELECTRICAL. See Electrical Machinery and Radio 

Equipment. 

MAIL ORDER HOUSES. See Merchandising. 

MANUFACTURING 2,3, 6, 8, 10, 14-16, 22-24, 33, 37-41, 51-56, 60-63, 

' 71-75,84-88, 95-97, 104-107, 109-111, 123-126, 128-130, 142-144, 
151-154, 163-164, 171-173, 180-182, 184, 185, 197-200, 202-204, 
215, 216, 223-226, 229, 236-238, 242, 245, 248, 251 

MARKET VALUE. See Shares. 

MEAT PACKING. See Food and Related Products. 

MEDICINES. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

MERCHANDISING - 3,8-10,14-16,22-25,33,37- 

41, 51-58, 63, 71, 75, 84, 88, 97, 107, 111, 126, 131, 145, 154, 165; 

173, 182, 186, 200, 204, 205, 217, 226, 230, 238, 243, 246, 248,251 
METAL MINING. See Extractive Industries. 

METALS, NONFERROUS 2,9, 

14, 16, 24, 25, 57, 58, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 110. 125, 129, 143, 153, 
164. 172, 181, 185, 199, 203, 215, 225, 229, 237, 242, 245. 248, 261 

MONOGRAPH NO. 29. See Goldsmith st al. 

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION. See Transportation. 

MOTOR VEHICLES. See Automobiles and Parts. 

NONFERROUS METALS. See Metals, nonferrous. 

OFFICE MACHINERY. See Machinery and Tools. 



INDEX 257 

OIL AND GAS WELLS. See Extractive Industries. 

OIL, VEGETABLE. See Paints. Page 

O'MAHONEY, JOSEPH C. Mentioned ---.::-^ iv 

PAINTS. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS : 3,61. 

73, 84, 87, 96, 105, 109, 124, 129, 143, 152, 163, 172, 181, 185$ 
198, 203, 215, 223, 229, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251. 

PARMELEE, REXFORD C. Mentioned iii 

PARMELEE, REXFORD C, joint author. See Goldsmith, R. W. 

PERSONAL LOAN COMPANIES. See Industrial and Personal Loan 
Companies. 

PERSONAL SERVICE. See Domestic and Personal Service. 

PETROLEUM REFINING 2, 9, 14, 

16, 24, 45, 57, 58, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 109, 124, 129, 143, 152, 
164, 172, 185, 198, 203, 215, 223, 229, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251. 

PIKE, SUMNER T. Mentioned vii 

POWER. See Utilities. 

PRESERVING. See Food and Related Products. 

PRINTING, PUBLISHING, AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES.. 3, 61, 73, 84, 87, 
96, 105, 109, 124, 129, 143, 152, 163, 172, 181, 185, 198, 203, 223, 238 

PUBLISHING. See Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries. 

RADIO. See Communication. 

RADIO EQUIPMENT. See Electrical Machinery- and Radio Equip- 
ment. 

RAILROAD EQUIPMENT 62, 75, 84, 88, 97, 

107, 111, 125, 130, 154, 173, 199, 204, 216, 225, 229, 238 

RAILROADS ... 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 14-17, 22, 23, 33, 34, 37-41, 44, 45, 51-56, 
63, 71, 75, 85, 89, 98, 107, 112, 127, 131, 145, 155, 165, 173, 183, 
186, 201, 205, 217, 227, 230, 238, 243, 246, 248, 251. 

RAYON. See Textiles and Textile Products. 

REAL ESTATE . 24,^3,75,84,89,97, 

107, 112, 126, 131, 145, 155, 165, 173, 183, 186, 200, 205, 226, 238 

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE: 

1. Goldsmith, R. W., Friend, I., Gorham, J., Granby, H., and Parme- 

lee, R. C.: Distribution of Ownership in the 200 Largest Non- 
financial Corporations (1940); cited y, xvii, 5, 6, 47 

2. Securities and Exchange Commission, Research and Statistics Sec- 

tion: Selected Statistics on Securities and on Exchange Markets 
(1939); cited ■ v 

RUBBER. -See Tires and Other Rubber Products. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RESEARCH AND 
STATISTICS SECTION: Selected Statistics on Securities and on 
Exchange Markets (1939); cited v 

SERVICES 24, 25, 64, 76, 85, 89, 98, 108, 112, 127, 131, 145, 155, 165, 

174, 183, 187, 201, 205, 217, 227, 230, 238, 243, 246, 249, 251 

SHAREHOLDINGS: 

Beneficial 5,47 

Definition . 5,6 

Number 60-253 

Record . 5,47 

SHAREHOLDINGS, SURVEY OF. .See Survey of Shareholdings. 

SHARES - 60-252 

SHIPBUILDING - 63, 75. 84. 88, 97, 

107, 111, 125, 130, 154, 173, 199, 204, 216, 225, 229, 238 

SILK. See Textiles and Textile Products. 

SOAP. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

STEEL. See Iron and Steel. 

STOCK, number of issues .. 60-253 

STOCKHOLDERS. See Shareholding. 

STOCKS, COMMON AND PREFERRED . , pasHm 

STREET RAILWAYS. See Transportation. 

SUBURBAN RAILWAYS. See Transportation. 

SUGAR REFINING. See Food and Related Products. 

SURVEY OF SHAREHOLDINGS: 

Conclusions . 14-20, 24-27, 33-37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 51 

Nature of Study v, xvii, 4-6 

Scope \ 

Sources -• : v, 4-6 

Summary of Findings : v-vii 



258 INDEX 

TELEGRAPH. See Communication. 

TELEPHONE. See Communication. Page 

TEXTILES AND TEXTILE PRODUCTS 3, 

24, 57, 58, 61, 73, 84,.86, 96, 105, 110, 124, 129, 143, 152, 163, 171, 
181, 185, 198, 203, 215, 223, 229, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251. 

TIRES AND OTHER RUBBER PRODUCTS . 57, 

58, 61, 73, 85, 87, 96, 105, 109, 124, 129, 143, 153, 172, 198, 203, 
215, 223, 229, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251. 

TOBACCO PRODUCTS 2, 

14-16, 24-27, 58, 60, 72, 84, 86, 95, 104, 109, 123, 128, 142, 151, 
163, 171, 180, 184, 197, 202, 223, 238, 242, 245, 248, 251. 

TOILET PREPARATIONS. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

TOOLS. See Machinery and Tools. 

TRADING COMPANIES. See Investment and Trading Companies. 

TRANSPORTATION 24, 

25, 63, 75, 85, 89, 98, 107, 112, 127, 131, 145, 155, 165, 173, 183, 
186, 201, 205, 217, 227, 230, 238, 243, 246, 248, 251. 

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT. See Aircraft, Railroad Equip- 
ment, Shipbuilding. 

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION.- Mentioned 9,12 

UTILITIES 1-6, 

10, 14-17, 22-25, 33, 37-41, 44, 45, 51-58, 64> 71, 76, 85, 89, 98, 
108, 113, 127, 131, 145, 155, 165, 174, 183, 187, 201, 205, 217, 227, 
230, 238, 243, 246, 249, 251. 

VARNISHES. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

VEGETABLE OILS. See Chemicals and Allied Products. 

WATER TRANSPORTATION. See Transportation. 

WATER" UTILITIES. 5ee Utilities. 

WHOLESALE, COMMISSION, AND BROKERAGE- HOUSES. See 
Merchandising. 

WOOL. See Textiles and Textile Products. 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

lililillllilliiii 

3 9999 06351 926 6