I know if our bank were to do it all over again we would go chip and signature. Managing (unblocking/changing) PINs and the systems and technology involved is very expensive. This gets exponentially more difficult and expensive if the issuer doesn’t have an ATM network or branches like most of the monoline banks. PIN offers very little in the way of fraud avoidance and in fact we have seen a big spike in ATM fraud as the article states since the PINs are more frequently used and therefore more frequently compromised.

The main reason we went with PIN was because most of the other issuers had already made the switch to chip and pin and we did not want to seem like a less secure bank/product due to the lack of PIN. So it really was a PR decision more than anything.