Definitely. And even more so when there are obviously some (myself included) who would even pay a small fee to get one if that's what it takes for now.

From this Bankrate.com article: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/cred...-coming-1.aspx
"The cost to produce and distribute a card to a customer is under $2. The cost to make and distribute a chip card to a customer is between $15 and $20..."

Though so far I've never had an issue with acceptance of my mag stripe card overseas, I know others in my office who have...and my luck could change. I'd pay $15 or $20 for one just to not have to worry about the inconvenience while on trips.

Of course, I wonder what his $15-$20 figure is based upon? Is that what it costs for banks in countries where chip-and-PIN is rolled out in full, or what it would cost a U.S. bank to issue one today? Because if these were rolled out in full force for the U.S., one would think that economies of scale would eventually bring that unit cost down significantly.

That's right. And quite frankly I'm surprised that financial institutions HASN'T looked into this as a way to make money; by means of providing optionable cards that has everything in it (embossed numbers, mag-stripe on back, EMC chip in front, and contactless inside) for a small fee for those who want it plus allowing that high-value international travelers would be able to use their cards abroad ensuring foreign currency transactions to take place.

I wonder how much money US banks are losing from cardmembers who given up on using their cards abroad? Considering that 60 million Americans travel abroad each year and if each one of them uses $100, that's gotta be a huge amount that card companies might face losing every year as the rest of the world moves ahead.

I think you just answered your own question: about $1/customer.

1. The cost of the physical card is a small part of the picture. The issuer's card database would need to be tied into the Chip & PIN authorization networks in parallel with the existing magnetic stripe authorization system.

2. If it costs the issuer $20 to manufacture the card you can be very sure they will not sell it to you at cost. Would yoiu pay $100 per year plus 3% transaction fee?

Why would it be an annual and not a one-time charge? I'm assuming the 3% refers to the FOREX fee, which I already pay on most of my cards so I wouldn't protest.

Once the databases have been synchronized, couldn't chip+pin be distributed en masse easily?

For the same reasons that any credit card requires an annual fee. If the issuer is going to maintain an alternate authorization system for use by a small percentage of their customers the issuer will want it to generate an income stream. The issuer will realize that many cardholders will only use the Chip & PIN card as a backup, and will first try to pay with another card because of superior rewards or lower foreign transaction fee.

Upgrading their database for use everywhere is the financial institution's problem and it's their issue to tackle alone; otherwise they'll be renegading their own advertisement of "the only card you need to carry" or "accepted worldwide." They already made that statement and have been using it for years, it's their problem to deal with the situation to come up with a solution. If not, they should change their slogans to "the only card you need to carry in the US" or "theoretically accepted worldwide."

Then upgrade to a system that allows an all inclusive authorization system. Why "maintain" two systems when you can upgrade to a system that accepts different nodes of payment methods? Why does it have to be separate?

Let's say I own a business. I have to maintain a fax machine, a scanner, a copier and a printer separately. I have to buy toner/ink for the fax machine, copier, and the printer. If one of them breaks I call the maintenance guy for each of them to get it fixed. I might not use the fax machine quite as often as the copier but I still have to buy the toner for the fax machine when I receive a fax. Man what a waste of money.

So I decide to consolidate all that into one: I buy (upgrade) from my own pocket to buy a multifunction printer. Now I have one all-in-one multifunction machine that does the same job. I only have to buy one set of toner/ink which takes care of all the job and if it needs maintenance I can call just one guy to take care everything instead of calling four different guys.

It's as simple as that. The card company doesn't have to "maintain" two different authorization systems, they just have to upgrade to a system that does both. The cost to upgrade to a system like that: that's their problem not mine, just like upgrading my equipments to a multifunction printer is not my customer's problem. Heck they already have that inclusive system in place: the current system allows accepting payments from imprint carbon-copies and the swipe 'n sign.

Well, then in response to your original question, no, I would not pay $100 a year. $100 is exorbitant for a chip alone, considering it is free in Europe. If it came with worthwhile benefits, then, yes, I would pay $100+ per year.

You keep saying this like it's something they aren't doing. It took them a while to get EMV established as "the one true way" but you didn't think that they were just going to blindly take whatever the UK government came up with, did you? The main partners in EMV are, surprise-surprise, Visa, MC, Amex and JCB. Ok, it's not here today. And you want it yesterday. Point taken.

But saying that you've got some obvious answer that they must be too stupid to do is kind of silly.

To me, it (=supporting a chip on a US-account card today) seems like a small market and thus both a distraction and a money-loser. If you must have it, you can have it today from an offshore bank; if you'd just like to have it ... well, I'd like a pony, too.

Considering that many of the "financial experts" keep on using that lame excuse of "the biggest cost is to the retailers and merchants to convert all the POS terminals" when clearly not one of the US retailers or merchants have to, maybe they are stupid :D

Why do these bozos keep on saying that when NOT ONE of the US retailers would have to change until they decide to do so on their own CHOICE? Just issue an all-inclusive card that has embossed numbers (for imprinting), a mag-stripe on the back (for swipe and sign), EMV chip (for Chip+PIN), and contactless inside so it can accept every form of technology old and new all in one single card. The responsibility of issuing said cards or upgrading their systems to handle that lies in the credit card companies which already advertise "the only card you need to carry" or "accepted worldwide." So long as they made that statement, the solution for this problem and the burden of the cost to implement those lies in their hands, not its customers, retailers or merchants.

Otherwise, they will be renegading in their own statements and is liable for a class-action lawsuit for false advertisement. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there isn't one right now.

No card issuer claims that your card will be accepted by every merchant for every transaction.

You very well know what I mean. :rolleyes:

I don't know who these experts are, but maybe you should stop reading and believing press releases? They'll roll out their solution when they are good and ready, full stop. They aren't ready yet, and they don't see the urgent need you apparently do. And they certainly don't want to roll out one solution and then another.

http://www.americanbanker.com/btn_is...1018371-1.html
"Javelin Strategy & Research estimates the basic cost of deployment for EMV in the U.S. at $8.6 billion, broken down as follows: POS terminal deployment estimated at $6.75 billion, with merchants bearing the brunt; card issuance estimated at $1.4 billion, with card issuers bearing most of the burden; retrofitting or replacing bank-owned ATMs estimated at $500 million, with financial institutions bearing the majority of the cost."

Mass POS terminal deployment not needed because EMV cards already come with mag-stripes on the back; woops instantaneously cuts costs down to 1.85b! Same with ATMs, if it can read the mag-stripe on the back, no need to upgrade the ATM machines.

Or maybe this dude from the ABA?
http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/podc...?podcastID=551

"Would at this time be too expensive for U.S. card issuers, retailers, banks and credit unions"

Again, the only burden is the issuers not the retailers. Retailers do not have to upgrade their terminals because it'll be a choice, not forced to make the change. They'll upgrade when they see fit, just like how everyone GRADUALLY upgraded from imprinters to swipe machines instead of an all out conversion.

Let's say you own a gift shop in a touristy section of your city which brings in people from all over the world. Some British couple comes in and buys $300 worth of goods and whips out their Barclay's issued EMV-chipped VISA card. What do you? Swipe and sign just like an US issued card because it has the magstripe on the back!

Sheesh, is this thing so hard to understand? Merchants and retailers in the US have zero need to upgrade their terminals. Various "experts" say that this is the largest hinderance and cost to deploy in the US. It is not. It's zero, zilch, nada. Otherwise we'd already be hearing issues from Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, and Asians for not being able to use their cards when the visit the US. We never hear complaints from them, gee I wonder why?

There's no reason to roll out a new standard if no one is going to upgrade: that's just dumb. If my provider started giving me cards with chips, I'd push retailers to upgrade -- and they would too. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. We get it: you wish you had a chip on your card. Go get one, no one is stopping you.