It is notable that the most obvious difference in occupation is in the likelihood of being self-employed in a shop and not on the streets, since shops presumably involve more capital than street vending. At the same time, the difference in the likelihood of being described as a boss or entrepreneur is small, and much lower than what might be expected given the gap in wealth. On the whole, this table indicates that the variation in occupation within neighborhoods in which some residents have bank accounts (that is, in the BANSEFI sample of neighborhoods) is largely unrelated to having a bank account.

Next, we look at the composition of household income, asset and expenditure. Panel A in Table 4 shows that for both types of respondents, on average the biggest source of income (57% of total income) were wages, followed by rental income (20% of income) and non-agricultural business income (10% of income). There were no significant differences in the income profile of surveyed banked and unbanked households, a pattern consistent with and reinforcing the similarity in their occupational profile.

There is less similarity in their asset composition, however, as Panel B in Table 4 suggests. On average 58% of the assets of banked households consisted of their home, while only 52% of the unbanked respondents’ assets were in this form. This gap, when coupled with the wealth gap, implies that banked households own significantly more valuable property.7 This table also shows that only the banked households reported keeping a significant fraction of assets (5%) in savings accounts. It would appear that both types of households make little use of financial assets, since even for unbanked households, for which this variable is measured more precisely, only 1.4% of wealth consists of informal financial assets. Consumer durables, on the other hand, were an important asset component for both groups of respondents, but less so for banked households (32% versus 23% of assets).

Finally, Panel C gives the average expenditure breakup of the two BANSEFI subsamples, with no major differences apparent. Banked respondents reported marginally larger fractional spending on services, utilities, rent, education, durables and health insurance, and lower spending on food and medicine.

Like Table 2, Table 5 is also a summary of the basic attributes of the surveyed households, but with one addition: column 3 presents statistics for those unbanked households who did not list _“No money”_ as their primary reason for not having a savings account. These numbers are based on the responses of only 165 households, since most unbanked households said that they did not have the money to open an account. Nevertheless, comparing all unbanked household responses with those who were unbanked for reasons other than money reveals a pattern which could help in interpreting the _“No money”_ response.

First, as expected, the 165 unbanked households that did not put the blame on not having enough money did in fact earn and spend more in 2005: their mean per capita annual expenditure, at 19700 pesos (approximately 1773 USD), was 21% higher than the mean per capita expenditure of all unbanked households, although still lower than the 21100 pesos spent per capita by banked households. Second, they also appear to be more educated than the average unbanked household, with only 9% heads having no school education, which is lower than the proportion of unschooled heads in even _banked_ 7This may have some implications for the observed differences in their borrowing behavior, given that most formal loans require some form of collateral, and that property is a common form of collateral.