株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
TEL: 044-952-0102
市場調査レポート

決済手段の変動:EMV・NFC・非接触式決済手段の米国での導入

Moving Parts: EMV, NFC and Contactless Deployment in the US

発行 Mercator Advisory Group, Inc. 商品コード 226464
出版日 ページ情報 英文 23 pages
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=115.18円で換算しております。
Back to Top
決済手段の変動:EMV・NFC・非接触式決済手段の米国での導入 Moving Parts: EMV, NFC and Contactless Deployment in the US
出版日: 2011年12月16日 ページ情報: 英文 23 pages
概要

デビットカードによる決済手法に関する米国内部の議論(手数料の問題、ダービン修正条項など)が混乱する中で、EMV(ICカード国際規格)を用いたカードセキュリティ技術標準の普及は困難な状況に直面しています。その一方で、NFC(短距離無線通信)を用いたスマートフォン活用型のモバイル・ペイメントに対する関心が急速に高まっています。この2つの技術が急速に普及する中で、関係者は新たな決済手段に関するリスクを見積もり、受け入れ、処理しなければなりません。

当レポートでは、米国内におけるEMVやNFC、非接触式決済手段といった新たな決済用技術に関する包括的および個々の問題点について分析し、全世界と米国でのEMVの普及状況、PIN(個人識別番号)などによる認証・決済に関わる諸問題、新技術規格どおしの競合などの事項について調査・考察して、その結果を概略以下の構成でお届けします。

エグゼクティブ・サマリー

イントロダクション

EMVと米国での導入

デビットカードとEMV:PINの付与か否かの選択

非接触式決済手段:様々な技術の競合

結論

付録:用語集

図表一覧

目次

Boston, MA -- If Visa's view of the world comes to pass, merchants, acquirers, and issuers will be embarking on the most complex update to their payments infrastructure in 20 years. The EMV card security standard, designed to eliminate counterfeit cards, is now an issue for U.S. organizations. At the same time, interest in smartphone-based mobile payments based on NFC is ramping up. Both technology waves will come to U.S. shores simultaneously, and entities that accept, process, route, or assume the risk for payments must prepare.

Mercator Advisory Group's new report “Moving Parts: EMV, NFC and Contactless Deployment in the U.S.” examines the larger issues as well as specific instances of EMV and contactless payment acceptance. The report details the state of global EMV deployment, dissects the nuanced deployment options for EMV authorization and authentication, and (given the Durbin Amendment's impact on debit processing fees)examines the likely role of the PIN code in debit card issuance based on the EMV standard.

Highlights of this report include:

  • The fundamental shifts in payment transaction origination and acceptance the United States will soon see, and the impact they will have on how merchants will make acquisition decisions.
  • The ramifications of Visa's support for EMV contact and contactless payments in the United States and the choices that now abound for issuers.
  • The nuances affecting successful contactless payment acceptance, and the reasons PayPass and PayWave cards may behave differently.
  • The long-term outlook for the personal identification number, or PIN, chip-and-pin, and chip-and-signature.

“The expected EMV rollout in the US will require no little choreography on the part of merchants, acquirers and issuers because it will touch every payment device.” states George Peabody, director of Mercator Advisory Group's Emerging Technologies Advisory Service. “Given the coincident timing of the EMV announcement and the arrival of NFC, merchants have to carefully plan their POS infrastructure investments over the next five years and more. Timing is everything.”

One of four exhibits in this report:

Partial List of EMV Deployments by Country

Chipn-and-Offline PIN CountriesCinp-and-Signature/Online PIN Countries
EuropeNorwaySpainAustralia
BelgiumPolandPortugalNew Zealand
EstoniaSlovakiaMexicoChina
FranceSwedenItalyIndia
FinlandUKTurkeyMalaysia
(until 2015)
FranceJapanGermanyRussia
IrelandMalaysia
(after 2015)
 Rest of Asia is
predominantly signature
NetherlandsCanada  
Rest of Europe is
Signature
Brazil  
 Chile  

This report is 23 pages long, with four figures and three tables. A valuable glossary of contactless terms is included.

Companies mentioned in this report include: Visa, MasterCard, Michael's, Maestro, U.K. Card Association, VELO, Silicon Valley Bank, and Bank of America.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

EMV and Deployment in the United States

Debit and EMV: To PIN or Not to PIN

Contactless: Where Contactless, Continents and EMV Collide

Conclusion

Appendix: Glossary

Table of Figures

  • Figure 1: The United States is the Last Major Market to Adopt EMV
  • Table 1: Partial List of Chip-and-Offline PIN v. Chip-and-Signature Countries
  • Figure 2: U.S. Debit Card Fraud 2009
  • Figure 3: Eliminating Counterfeit Increases Other Fraud Vectors, Especially Stolen and CNP
  • Figure 4: Modeling the Comparative Impact of EMV and PIN on Debit Fraud Loss Types
  • Table 2: PIN Debit Decreases Fraud Losses Further
  • Table 3: Transaction Flows for Magstripe and EMV Cards and Terminals
Back to Top