IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Who uses electronic check products: a look at depository institutions

Listed author(s):
  • Joanna Stavins

Approximately 42 billion checks were written and collected in the United States in 2000. The vast majority of noncash transactions continue to be settled with paper checks, which despite gains in efficiency and speed, still require costly and time-consuming sorting and transportation. An alternative-electronic check presentment-could save time and money. Yet, electronic services have been slow to take off, possibly because of the way the Federal Reserve prices them. If the pricing structure were revised, there might be more demand from banks for electronic services, and a higher level of efficiency, theoretically, might be obtained. ; This paper uses data on purchases of the Federal Reserve's electronic check services by individual banks and tests whether demand for these services varies among depository institutions. We find that small and large banks use the services differently-large commercial banks are more likely to use MICR Information and Image than are small or medium banks, but the opposite is true for the other electronic check services. Demand elasticities may vary as well, although few of our estimated elasticities are statistically significant, suggesting that demand for the Federal Reserve's electronic check services does not adjust with price shifts, probably because other factors (besides the Federal Reserve's prices) can influence banks' decisions on how much to buy. We find that small and medium banks have more elastic demand for MICR Information than the large banks. However, data matching limited our sample and prevented us from drawing definite conclusions. Our results presented in this article are not conclusive enough to make policy recommendations, and should not be construed as such. Instead, this article is intended to raise the issue of differentiated pricing for electronic check products.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in its journal New England Economic Review.

Volume (Year): (2002)
Issue (Month): Q 3 ()
Pages: 3-16

in new window

Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbne:y:2002:i:q3:p:3-16
Contact details of provider: Postal:
600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210

Phone: 617-973-3397
Fax: 617-973-4221
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Email:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Joanna Stavins, 1997. "A comparison of social costs and benefits of paper check presentment and ECP with truncation," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Jul, pages 27-44.
  2. Geoffrey R. Gerdes & Jack K. Walton, 2002. "The use of checks and other noncash payment instruments in the United States," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), issue Aug, pages 360-374.
  3. Jeffrey M. Lacker & John A. Weinberg, 1998. "Can the Fed be a payment system innovator?," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Spr, pages 1-25.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedbne:y:2002:i:q3:p:3-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Catherine Spozio)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.