In “Changes in the Use of Electronic Means of Payment: 1995-2004,” Loretta Mester has compiled information from the recently released 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. She updates statistics indicating how the usages of various means of electronic payment have changed between 1995 and 2004. ; Also issued as Payment Cards Center Discussion Paper No. 06-06Electronic commerce

Loretta J. Mester

English

Research Papers in Economics

T
B Y  L O R E T T AJ .M E S T E R
Changes in the Use of Electronic
Means of Payment: 1995-2004
Loretta J. Mester
is a senior vice 
president and 
director of
research at the 
Federal Reserve 
Bank of
Philadelphia. This 
article is  avail-
able free of charge at www.philadelphiafed.
org/econ/br/index.html.
26 Q2 2006Business Review www.philadelphiafed.org
In “The Changing Nature of the 
Payments System: Should New Players 
Mean New Rules?” (Business Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 
March/April 2000), I presented some 
data from the 1995 Federal Reserve 
Survey of Consumer Finances on the 
use of electronic banking.  This survey 
of more than 4,000 households, which 
is designed to be representative of all 
households in the U.S., is redone every 
three years.  The following exhibits up-
date the statistics indicating how the 
usages of various means of electronic 
payment have changed between 1995 
and 2004.
his article updates the tables published in
the Third Quarter 2003 Business Review.
These tables, which were first published as
part of an article in the March/April 2000 
Business Review, presented data from the Federal Reserve’s 
Survey of Consumer Finances. Loretta Mester, author
of the original article, has compiled information from
the recently released 2004 survey to keep our readers
up to date.
As seen in Exhibit 1, usage of 
electronic forms of payment, includ-
ing ATMs, debit cards, automatic bill 
paying, and smart cards, has risen from 
about 78 percent of households in 1995 
to about 90 percent of households in 
2004.  Debit card use, which doubled 
between 1995 and 1998, continued 
to increase rapidly and now stands at 
nearly 60 percent of all households.  
Increases were seen in all categories by 
age, income, and education.  Use of di-
rect deposit and automatic bill paying 
showed somewhat smaller increases, 
with the percentage of households 
now using automatic bill paying over 
double what it was in 1995.  Nearly 75 
percent of households have an ATM 
card.  The question on smart cards 
was dropped from the survey in 2004; 
usage remained low in 2001, with less 
than 3 percent of households hav-
ing a smart card they could use for 
purchases. There was a small increase 
in the percentage of households that 
use some type of computer software to 
manage their money: from 18 percent 
in 2001 (the first year this question 
was asked) to about 19 percent in 
2004.  Respondents under 60 years old, 
those with higher income, and those 
with college degrees are more likely 
to use a computer for money manage-
ment.  
As seen in Exhibit 2, households 
that do business with at least one 
financial institution have continued 
to shift from paper-based methods 
of conducting this business to auto-
mated methods.  A sizable fraction 
of households, over 75 percent, still 
report that one of the main ways they 
deal with at least one of their financial 
institutions is in person; this percent-
age held steady between 2001 and 
2004 but is down from 1995.  Overall 
use of electronic means of doing busi-
ness – either ATM, phone, fax, direct 
deposit and payment, other electronic 
transfer, and/or computer – contin-
ued to increase between 2001 and 
2004, but not as sharply as the sizable 
rise seen between 1995 and 1998. In
2004, 89 percent of households used 
an electronic method as one of their 
main ways of conducting business, and 
differences by income and education 
have become less pronounced.  There 
remains, however, a large difference 
in the popularity of ATMs across age 
groups: over 79 percent of those under 
30 years old use ATMs as one of their 
main ways of conducting business, 
while less than 40 percent of those 
over 60 years old use them.  Still, the 
usage by those over 60 has more than 
doubled since 1995.
The largest increase was seen in 
the percentage of households that use 
a computer, the Internet, or an online 
service to do business.  In 2004, over All Households
ATMb Debit Card Smart Cardb
1995 1998 2001 2004 1995 1998 2001 2004 1995 1998 2001
62.5% 67.4% 69.8% 74.4% 17.6% 33.8% 47.0% 59.3% 1.2% 1.9% 2.9%
By Age:
  Under 30 years old 72.3% 75.6% 78.1% 83.0% 24.4% 45.0% 60.6% 74.4% 1.8% 2.6% 2.6%
Between 30 and 60 years old 68.6% 76.1% 76.8% 82.3% 19.7% 38.6% 53.4% 67.6% 1.5% 2.3% 3.3%
Over 60 years old 44.2% 41.9% 48.9% 51.6% 9.6% 16.0% 24.6% 32.5% 0.3% 0.5% 2.1%
By Income:c
Low income 38.5% 45.9% 46.8% 53.0% 7.0% 19.7% 29.2% 41.2% 0.7% 1.5% 1.9%
Moderate income 61.5% 64.4% 67.4% 73.4% 16.0% 31.6% 46.3% 57.4% 0.6% 3.1% 3.0%
Middle income 70.9% 72.0% 75.2% 78.3% 20.5% 36.6% 50.0% 64.3% 1.3% 2.0% 2.4%
 Upper  income 77.2% 82.3% 83.7% 86.5% 25.1% 43.8% 57.8% 69.3% 1.8% 1.7% 3.7%
By Education:
  No college degree 54.7% 60.1% 63.7% 67.4% 14.3% 29.2% 42.3% 54.9% 0.8% 1.8% 2.4%
College degree 80.4% 82.1% 81.6% 86.4% 25.2% 43.1% 56.2% 67.0% 2.1% 2.0% 3.8%
Business Review Q2 2006 27 www.philadelphiafed.org
33 percent of households used these 
methods, up from less than 4 percent 
in 1995.  Youth, high income, and a 
college degree continue to be associat-
ed with a higher incidence of computer 
banking, but the computer remains a 
less popular means of doing business 
with financial institutions compared 
with other methods.
EXHIBIT 1, PART 1
Percent of U.S. Households That Use Each Instrument:
1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004a
aThe percentages reported are based on the population-weighted figures using the revised Kennickell-Woodburn consistent weights for each year. 
(For further discussion see the Survey of Consumer Finances codebooks at www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.)  This exhibit reports 
percentages for all households.
bThe questions on ATMs and smart cards asked whether any member of the household had an ATM card or a smart card, not whether the member 
used it.  The other questions asked about usage.  The question on smart cards was dropped from the 2004 survey.
cLow income is defined as less than 50 percent of the median household income; moderate income is 50 to 80 percent of the median; middle income 
is 80 to 120 percent of the median; and upper income is greater than 120 percent of the median.  Each survey refers to income in the previous year.  
Median income was $32,264 in 1994; $37,005 in 1997; $41,990 in 2000; and $43,318 in 2003.
Source: 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances data as of March 31, 2006, Federal Reserve System, and author’s calculations.A
l
l
 
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
D
i
r
e
c
t
 
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
A
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
 
B
i
l
l
 
P
a
y
i
n
g
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
b
A
n
y
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
s
:
 
A
T
M
,
 
D
e
b
i
t
 
C
a
r
d
,
 
S
m
a
r
t
 
C
a
r
d
,
D
i
r
e
c
t
 
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
,
 
A
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
 
B
i
l
l
P
a
y
i
n
g
,
 
o
r
 
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
4
6
.
7
%
6
0
.
5
%
6
7
.
3
%
7
1
.
2
%
2
1
.
8
%
3
6
.
0
%
4
0
.
3
%
4
7
.
4
%
1
8
.
0
%
1
9
.
3
%
7
7
.
7
%
8
5
.
5
%
8
8
.
4
%
9
0
.
4
%
B
y
 
A
g
e
:
 
U
n
d
e
r
 
3
0
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
l
d
3
1
.
0
%
4
5
.
2
%
4
8
.
8
%
5
4
.
0
%
1
7
.
7
%
3
0
.
5
%
3
2
.
1
%
3
6
.
5
%
1
7
.
0
%
2
0
.
4
%
7
6
.
3
%
8
0
.
2
%
8
3
.
0
%
8
7
.
3
%
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
 
3
0
 
a
n
d
 
6
0
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
l
d
4
2
.
8
%
5
8
.
0
%
6
4
.
8
%
6
8
.
2
%
2
4
.
4
%
3
8
.
6
%
4
4
.
1
%
5
0
.
3
%
2
2
.
0
%
2
1
.
9
%
7
8
.
7
%
8
7
.
5
%
8
9
.
3
%
9
0
.
3
%
O
v
e
r
 
6
0
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
l
d
6
3
.
3
%
7
4
.
8
%
8
3
.
2
%
8
7
.
0
%
1
8
.
2
%
3
3
.
0
%
3
5
.
9
%
4
6
.
5
%
 
 
9
.
0
%
1
2
.
8
%
7
6
.
1
%
8
3
.
7
%
8
9
.
2
%
9
1
.
9
%
B
y
 
I
n
c
o
m
e
:
c
L
o
w
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
3
2
.
5
%
4
4
.
3
%
5
1
.
9
%
5
4
.
8
%
 
 
9
.
7
%
1
7
.
1
%
1
8
.
2
%
2
4
.
6
%
 
 
6
.
1
%
6
.
8
%
5
6
.
7
%
6
9
.
3
%
7
3
.
6
%
7
7
.
4
%
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
4
2
.
9
%
5
8
.
8
%
6
3
.
1
%
6
4
.
0
%
1
7
.
5
%
3
0
.
5
%
3
5
.
1
%
4
0
.
5
%
1
0
.
7
%
1
1
.
1
%
7
8
.
4
%
8
7
.
2
%
8
8
.
5
%
8
8
.
6
%
M
i
d
d
l
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
4
8
.
3
%
6
6
.
1
%
6
5
.
7
%
7
3
.
2
%
2
3
.
4
%
4
2
.
8
%
4
5
.
1
%
5
2
.
8
%
1
6
.
3
%
1
7
.
8
%
8
5
.
1
%
8
9
.
4
%
9
2
.
3
%
9
5
.
1
%
 
U
p
p
e
r
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
5
8
.
3
%
7
0
.
4
%
8
0
.
2
%
8
3
.
6
%
3
2
.
1
%
4
9
.
3
%
5
5
.
2
%
6
2
.
4
%
2
9
.
9
%
3
1
.
4
%
8
9
.
6
%
9
4
.
9
%
9
6
.
5
%
9
7
.
1
%
B
y
 
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
N
o
 
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
 
d
e
g
r
e
e
4
0
.
3
%
5
4
.
4
%
6
1
.
8
%
6
4
.
3
%
1
8
.
1
%
3
0
.
2
%
3
3
.
7
%
3
9
.
5
%
1
0
.
9
%
1
2
.
4
%
7
1
.
4
%
8
0
.
7
%
8
4
.
7
%
8
6
.
2
%
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
 
d
e
g
r
e
e
6
1
.
0
%
7
2
.
6
%
7
8
.
0
%
8
3
.
2
%
3
0
.
1
%
4
7
.
7
%
5
3
.
2
%
6
1
.
1
%
3
1
.
8
%
3
1
.
3
%
9
1
.
8
%
9
5
.
1
%
9
5
.
6
%
9
7
.
5
%
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
 
1
,
 
P
A
R
T
 
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
U
.
S
.
 
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
 
T
h
a
t
 
U
s
e
 
E
a
c
h
 
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
:
 
1
9
9
5
,
 
1
9
9
8
,
 
2
0
0
1
,
 
a
n
d
 
2
0
0
4
a
a
T
h
e
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
 
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
 
a
r
e
 
b
a
s
e
d
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
 
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
 
u
s
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
 
K
e
n
n
i
c
k
e
l
l
-
W
o
o
d
b
u
r
n
 
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
 
w
e
i
g
h
t
s
 
f
o
r
 
e
a
c
h
 
y
e
a
r
.
 
(
F
o
r
 
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
 
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
 
s
e
e
 
t
h
e
 
S
u
r
v
e
y
 
o
f
 
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
 
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
 
c
o
d
e
b
o
o
k
s
 
a
t
 
w
w
w
.
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
.
g
o
v
/
p
u
b
s
/
o
s
s
/
o
s
s
2
/
s
c
f
i
n
d
e
x
.
h
t
m
l
.
)
 
 
T
h
i
s
 
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
 
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
 
f
o
r
 
a
l
l
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.
b
T
h
e
 
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
 
o
n
 
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
 
a
s
k
e
d
 
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
 
o
r
 
s
p
o
u
s
e
/
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
 
u
s
e
s
 
a
n
y
 
t
y
p
e
 
o
f
 
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
 
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
 
t
o
 
h
e
l
p
 
i
n
 
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
m
o
n
e
y
.
c
L
o
w
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
 
a
s
 
l
e
s
s
 
t
h
a
n
 
5
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
;
 
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
5
0
 
t
o
 
8
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
;
 
m
i
d
d
l
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
8
0
 
t
o
 
1
2
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
;
 
a
n
d
 
u
p
p
e
r
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
 
t
h
a
n
 
1
2
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
.
 
 
E
a
c
h
 
s
u
r
v
e
y
 
r
e
f
e
r
s
 
t
o
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
 
y
e
a
r
.
 
 
M
e
d
i
a
n
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
w
a
s
 
$
3
2
,
2
6
4
 
i
n
 
1
9
9
4
;
 
$
3
7
,
0
0
5
 
i
n
 
1
9
9
7
;
 
$
4
1
,
9
9
0
 
i
n
 
2
0
0
0
;
 
a
n
d
 
$
4
3
,
3
1
8
 
i
n
 
2
0
0
3
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
 
1
9
9
5
,
 
1
9
9
8
,
 
2
0
0
1
,
 
a
n
d
 
2
0
0
4
 
S
u
r
v
e
y
 
o
f
 
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
 
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
 
d
a
t
a
 
a
s
 
o
f
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
3
1
,
 
2
0
0
6
,
 
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
 
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
 
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
 
a
n
d
 
a
u
t
h
o
r
’
s
 
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
28 Q2 2006Business Review www.philadelphiafed.orgAll Households
In Person Mail ATM
1995 1998 2001 2004 1995 1998 2001 2004 1995 1998 2001 2004
85.5% 79.5% 77.2% 77.3% 56.5% 54.1% 50.4% 50.2% 33.8% 52.6% 56.7% 64.4%
By Age:
Under 30 years old 77.0% 73.7% 71.5% 72.9% 58.2% 51.9% 50.5% 44.2% 53.0% 68.8% 72.6% 79.3%
Between 30 and 60 years old 86.8% 81.8% 78.6% 77.3% 62.1% 60.4% 56.6% 56.3% 37.7% 61.5% 65.0% 72.0%
Over 60 years old 86.7% 77.2% 76.8% 79.5% 44.0% 39.9% 36.0% 39.1% 16.2% 22.3% 29.8% 39.8%
By Income:b
Low income 81.2% 70.3% 68.2% 71.2% 32.8% 33.4% 24.7% 28.9% 19.6% 34.7% 35.6% 46.6%
Moderate income 85.9% 80.4% 76.9% 75.0% 48.5% 46.9% 42.0% 42.6% 29.6% 47.8% 50.5% 62.3%
Middle income 85.7% 81.4% 78.6% 77.7% 56.9% 56.4% 58.4% 56.0% 37.7% 54.1% 60.7% 65.7%
 Upper  income 87.7% 84.1% 81.8% 81.4% 74.3% 69.1% 64.9% 62.4% 42.3% 65.2% 69.6% 74.4%
By Education:
  No college degree 85.8% 79.2% 75.1% 76.9% 49.4% 48.2% 43.5% 44.1% 27.4% 45.1% 50.1% 59.1%
College degree 84.8% 80.2% 81.1% 78.0% 71.2% 65.2% 63.0% 60.1% 46.7% 66.7% 68.8% 72.9%
Business Review Q2 2006 29 www.philadelphiafed.org
aThe percentages reported are based on the population-weighted figures using the revised Kennickell-Woodburn consistent weights for each year. 
(For further discussion see the Survey of Consumer Finances codebooks at www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.)  Referring to each 
financial institution with which the household does business, the survey asked: “How do you mainly do business with this institution?”  Respondents 
could list multiple methods, with the main method listed first.  This exhibit reports for all households with at least one financial institution all the 
methods a respondent listed for each of the household’s financial institutions.  Note, the percentages do not add up to 100 percent across columns, 
since households could list more than one method and more than one financial institution.  Previous versions of this chart reported for 1998 and 2001 
on the main ways respondents did business with their depository financial institutions (i.e., commercial banks, trust companies, thrifts, and credit 
unions) rather than with any of their financial institutions.
bLow income is defined as less than 50 percent of the median household income; moderate income is 50 to 80 percent of the median; middle income 
is 80 to 120 percent of the median; and upper income is greater than 120 percent of the median.  Each survey refers to income in the previous year.  
Median income was $32,264 in 1994; $37,005 in 1997; $41,990 in 2000; and $43,318 in 2003.
Source: 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances data as of March 31, 2006, Federal Reserve System, and author’s calculations.
EXHIBIT 2, PART 1
Percent of U.S. Households with at Least One Financial Institution Using Each 
Method Among the Main Ways of Conducting Business with at Least One of  
Their Financial InstitutionsaA
l
l
 
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
P
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
b
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
2
5
.
7
%
4
9
.
7
%
4
8
.
9
%
4
8
.
8
%
3
.
7
%
6
.
2
%
1
9
.
6
%
3
3
.
6
%
5
6
.
2
%
8
1
.
7
%
8
7
.
0
%
8
9
.
2
%
B
y
 
A
g
e
:
 
U
n
d
e
r
 
3
0
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
l
d
2
0
.
8
%
4
5
.
4
%
4
5
.
9
%
4
3
.
2
%
5
.
2
%
8
.
3
%
2
2
.
9
%
4
2
.
2
%
6
6
.
7
%
8
1
.
0
%
8
5
.
2
%
8
9
.
2
%
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
 
3
0
 
a
n
d
 
6
0
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
l
d
2
8
.
1
%
5
4
.
3
%
5
2
.
4
%
5
1
.
4
%
4
.
5
%
7
.
6
%
2
4
.
2
%
3
9
.
8
%
5
9
.
9
%
8
5
.
1
%
8
9
.
4
%
9
0
.
9
%
O
v
e
r
 
6
0
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
l
d
2
3
.
0
%
4
0
.
6
%
4
2
.
4
%
4
5
.
7
%
1
.
2
%
1
.
6
%
7
.
3
%
1
5
.
4
%
4
3
.
4
%
7
3
.
9
%
8
2
.
4
%
8
5
.
4
%
B
y
 
I
n
c
o
m
e
:
c
L
o
w
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
1
3
.
5
%
2
8
.
8
%
2
9
.
2
%
3
0
.
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
5
%
4
.
8
%
1
4
.
0
%
3
5
.
3
%
6
5
.
4
%
7
3
.
8
%
7
8
.
7
%
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
1
8
.
6
%
4
2
.
5
%
4
2
.
8
%
4
4
.
8
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
7
%
1
1
.
2
%
2
2
.
5
%
4
8
.
5
%
8
0
.
1
%
8
4
.
2
%
8
4
.
8
%
M
i
d
d
l
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
2
.
6
%
5
1
.
7
%
5
1
.
7
%
5
0
.
7
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
3
%
1
7
.
8
%
3
2
.
4
%
5
9
.
2
%
8
5
.
2
%
8
9
.
7
%
9
2
.
1
%
 
U
p
p
e
r
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
3
7
.
9
%
6
4
.
9
%
6
1
.
4
%
6
0
.
0
%
5
.
9
%
1
1
.
5
%
3
2
.
5
%
4
9
.
4
%
7
0
.
8
%
9
1
.
0
%
9
4
.
5
%
9
5
.
6
%
B
y
 
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
N
o
 
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
 
d
e
g
r
e
e
1
9
.
7
%
4
1
.
9
%
4
1
.
7
%
4
3
.
4
%
2
.
8
%
2
.
7
%
1
1
.
3
%
2
3
.
9
%
4
7
.
8
%
7
6
.
5
%
8
3
.
2
%
8
5
.
7
%
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
 
d
e
g
r
e
e
3
8
.
1
%
6
4
.
3
%
6
1
.
9
%
5
7
.
7
%
5
.
6
%
1
2
.
8
%
3
4
.
8
%
4
9
.
3
%
7
3
.
5
%
9
1
.
4
%
9
4
.
0
%
9
4
.
9
%
a
T
h
e
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
 
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
 
a
r
e
 
b
a
s
e
d
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
 
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
 
u
s
i
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
 
K
e
n
n
i
c
k
e
l
l
-
W
o
o
d
b
u
r
n
 
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
 
w
e
i
g
h
t
s
 
f
o
r
 
e
a
c
h
 
y
e
a
r
.
 
(
F
o
r
 
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
 
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
 
s
e
e
 
t
h
e
 
S
u
r
v
e
y
 
o
f
 
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
 
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
 
c
o
d
e
b
o
o
k
s
 
a
t
 
w
w
w
.
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
.
g
o
v
/
p
u
b
s
/
o
s
s
/
o
s
s
2
/
s
c
f
i
n
d
e
x
.
h
t
m
l
.
)
 
 
R
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
 
t
o
 
e
a
c
h
 
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
 
w
i
t
h
 
w
h
i
c
h
 
t
h
e
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
 
d
o
e
s
 
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,
 
t
h
e
 
s
u
r
v
e
y
 
a
s
k
e
d
:
 
“
H
o
w
 
d
o
 
y
o
u
 
m
a
i
n
l
y
 
d
o
 
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
i
s
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
?
”
 
 
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
l
i
s
t
 
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
,
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
 
m
a
i
n
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
 
l
i
s
t
e
d
 
f
i
r
s
t
.
 
 
T
h
i
s
 
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
 
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
 
f
o
r
 
a
l
l
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
t
 
l
e
a
s
t
 
o
n
e
 
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
 
a
l
l
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
 
a
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
 
l
i
s
t
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
e
a
c
h
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
’
s
 
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
 
 
N
o
t
e
,
 
t
h
e
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
 
d
o
 
n
o
t
 
a
d
d
 
u
p
 
t
o
 
1
0
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
a
c
r
o
s
s
 
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
,
 
s
i
n
c
e
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
 
c
o
u
l
d
 
l
i
s
t
 
m
o
r
e
 
t
h
a
n
 
o
n
e
 
m
e
t
h
o
d
 
a
n
d
 
m
o
r
e
 
t
h
a
n
 
o
n
e
 
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
 
 
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
 
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
t
h
i
s
 
c
h
a
r
t
 
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
1
9
9
8
 
a
n
d
 
2
0
0
1
 
o
n
 
t
h
e
 
m
a
i
n
 
w
a
y
s
 
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
 
d
i
d
 
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
o
r
y
 
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
 
(
i
.
e
.
,
 
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
 
b
a
n
k
s
,
 
t
r
u
s
t
 
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
,
 
t
h
r
i
f
t
s
,
 
a
n
d
 
c
r
e
d
i
t
 
u
n
i
o
n
s
)
 
r
a
t
h
e
r
 
t
h
a
n
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
n
y
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
i
r
 
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
b
I
n
 
1
9
9
5
,
 
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
 
r
e
f
e
r
s
 
t
o
 
A
T
M
,
 
p
h
o
n
e
,
 
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
 
d
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
d
i
r
e
c
t
 
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
,
 
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
 
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
,
 
o
r
 
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
.
 
 
I
n
 
1
9
9
8
,
 
2
0
0
1
,
 
a
n
d
 
2
0
0
4
,
 
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
 
r
e
f
e
r
s
 
t
o
 
A
T
M
,
 
p
h
o
n
e
 
(
v
i
a
 
v
o
i
c
e
 
o
r
 
t
o
u
c
h
t
o
n
e
)
,
 
d
i
r
e
c
t
 
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
,
 
d
i
r
e
c
t
 
w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
/
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
,
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
 
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
,
 
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
/
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
/
o
n
l
i
n
e
 
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
 
o
r
 
f
a
x
 
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
.
c
L
o
w
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
 
a
s
 
l
e
s
s
 
t
h
a
n
 
5
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
;
 
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
5
0
 
t
o
 
8
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
;
 
m
i
d
d
l
e
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
8
0
 
t
o
 
1
2
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
;
 
a
n
d
 
u
p
p
e
r
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
s
 
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
 
t
h
a
n
 
1
2
0
 
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
e
d
i
a
n
.
 
 
E
a
c
h
 
s
u
r
v
e
y
 
r
e
f
e
r
s
 
t
o
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
 
y
e
a
r
.
 
 
M
e
d
i
a
n
 
i
n
c
o
m
e
 
w
a
s
 
$
3
2
,
2
6
4
 
i
n
 
1
9
9
4
;
 
$
3
7
,
0
0
5
 
i
n
 
1
9
9
7
;
 
$
4
1
,
9
9
0
 
i
n
 
2
0
0
0
;
 
a
n
d
 
$
4
3
,
3
1
8
 
i
n
 
2
0
0
3
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
 
1
9
9
5
,
 
1
9
9
8
,
 
2
0
0
1
,
 
a
n
d
 
2
0
0
4
 
S
u
r
v
e
y
 
o
f
 
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
 
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
 
d
a
t
a
 
a
s
 
o
f
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
3
1
,
 
2
0
0
6
,
 
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
 
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
 
S
y
s
t
e
m
,
 
a
n
d
 
a
u
t
h
o
r
’
s
 
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
 
2
,
 
P
A
R
T
 
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
U
.
S
.
 
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
t
 
L
e
a
s
t
 
O
n
e
 
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
 
U
s
i
n
g
 
E
a
c
h
 
M
e
t
h
o
d
 
A
m
o
n
g
 
t
h
e
 
M
a
i
n
 
W
a
y
s
 
o
f
 
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
 
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
 
w
i
t
h
 
a
t
 
L
e
a
s
t
 
O
n
e
 
o
f
 
T
h
e
i
r
 
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
 
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
30 Q2 2006Business Review www.philadelphiafed.org

Changes in the use of electronic means of payment: 1995-2004

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2006/q2/br_q2-2006-4_changes-electronic-means.pdf

Changes in the use of electronic means of payment: 1995-2004

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics