Connect with us

Finance

Visa & Mastercard execs grilled by senators on high swipe fees

Published

on

The Senate Judiciary Committee convened on Tuesday for a hearing on the alleged VisaMastercard “duopoly,” which committee members from both sides of the aisle say has left retailers and other small businesses with no ability to negotiate interchange fees on credit card transactions.

“This is an odd grouping. The most conservative and the most liberal members happen to agree that we have to do something about this situation,” committee chair and Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said.

Interchange fees, also known as swipe fees, are paid from a merchant’s bank account to the cardholder’s bank, whenever a customer uses a credit card in a retail purchase. Visa and Mastercard have a combined market cap of more than $1 trillion, and control 80% of the market.

“In 2023 alone, Visa and Mastercard charged merchants more than $100 billion in credit card fees, mostly in the form of interchange fees,” Durbin told the committee.

Durbin, along with Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, have co-sponsored the bipartisan Credit Card Competition Act, which takes aim at Visa and Mastercard’s market dominance by requiring banks with more than $100 billion in assets to offer at least one other payment network on their cards, besides Visa and Mastercard.

“This way, small businesses would finally have a real choice: they can route credit card transactions on the Visa or Mastercard network and continue to pay interchange fees that often rank as their second or biggest expense, or they could select a lower cost alternative,” Durbin told the committee.

Visa and Mastercard, however, stand by their swipe fees.

“We consider them incentives, some people might consider them penalties. But if you can adopt new technology that reduces the risk and takes fraud out of the system and improves streamlined processing, then you would qualify for lower interchange rates,” said Bill Sheedy, senior advisor to Visa CEO Ryan McInerney. “It’s very expensive to issue a product and to provide payment guarantee and online customer service, zero liability. All of those things, and many more, senator, get factored into interchange [fees].”

The executives also warned against the Credit Card Competition Act, with Sheedy claiming that it “would remove consumer control over their own payment decisions, reduce competition, impose technology sharing mandates and pick winners and losers by favoring certain competitors over others.”

“Why do we know this? Because we’ve seen it before,” Mastercard President of Americas Linda Kirkpatrick said, in reference to the Durbin amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which required the Fed to limit fees on retailers for transactions using debit cards. “Since debit regulation took hold, debit rewards were eliminated, fees went up, access to capital diminished, and competition was stifled.”

But the current high credit card swipe fees for retailers translate to higher prices for consumers, the National Retail Federation told the committee in a letter ahead of the hearing. The Credit Card Competition Act, the retail industry’s largest trade association wrote, will deliver “fairness and transparency to the payment system and relief to American business and consumers.”

“When we think of consumer spending, credit card swipe fees are not the first thing that comes to mind, yet those fees are a surprisingly large part of consumer spending,” Notre Dame University law professor Roger Alford said. “Last year, the average American spent $1,100 in swipe fees, more than they spent on pets, coffee or alcohol.”

Visa and Mastercard agreed to a $30 billion settlement in March meant to reduce their swipe fees by four basis points for three years, but a federal judge rejected the settlement in June, saying they could afford to pay more.

Visa is also battling a Justice Department lawsuit filed in September. The payment network is accused of maintaining an illegal monopoly over debit card payment networks, which has affected “the price of nearly everything,” according to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Finance

Gen X can’t retire on time as inflation outpaces wages, survey finds

Published

on

For the generation that should be in its “peak savings years,” the prospect of retiring on time has shifted from a plan to a prayer.

A newly released Employee Financial Wellness Survey by PwC found that nearly 50% of Gen X employees are pushing back their retirement dates, citing stagnant wages, rising everyday costs, and a lack of liquid savings.

Additionally, only 38% of Gen Xers believe they can retire when they originally planned, and more than half of this demographic expect to withdraw funds from their retirement accounts early to cover short-term costs.

“For employers, this isn’t a future problem. Financial anxiety during peak career years can affect focus and engagement,” PwC researchers write. “If the risks are clear, the question is why more employees aren’t taking action. It’s not a lack of desire. Most employees want stability, confidence and to feel in control. But many don’t feel equipped to get there.”

TEEN INVESTOR BOOM: WHY WALL STREET IS CHASING YOUNGEST GENERATIONS EARLIER THAN EVER

The primary driver of this retirement delay is the inability to save as inflation eats away at monthly expenses, the report notes. Twenty-five percent of the total workforce is living without a buffer, and nearly half cannot meet basic household expenses.

Man looks stressed by office window

Nearly half of Gen X workers are delaying retirement, PwC reports. (Getty Images)

“[Forty-nine percent] say their compensation isn’t keeping up with costs. As expenses rise faster than income, day-to-day trade-offs are becoming routine. Employees aren’t just feeling squeezed. They’re making difficult financial decisions to stay afloat,” the PwC report continues..

As a result, when Gen Xers cannot afford to leave their current jobs, the entire corporate ladder stalls, creating business risks, with companies facing higher costs as older talent remains on payroll longer than expected.

“When employees dip into retirement funds early or delay retirement altogether, it affects more than personal finances and retirement plan leakage,” the report says. “It may also influence workforce planning, healthcare costs, succession timing and overall organizational stability.”

The findings also show that a significant portion – 41% – of the workforce feel they were never given the tools to manage a crisis of this magnitude, leading to a sense of being “overwhelmed” by financial choices.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

PwC provided a call to action for employees and their employers, encouraging them to reduce the stigma around financial education, foster trust through human coaches, emphasize skill building and focus on day-to-day finances before long-term goals.

“Employees define financial wellness simply: less stress, fewer surprises and the freedom to make financial choices with confidence. For employers, that’s the opportunity.”

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

Continue Reading

Finance

Why software stocks, 2026’s market dogs, have joined the rally

Published

on

ETF shelters from the Middle East War

Cybersecurity and enterprise software stocks have been market dogs in 2026, with fears that AI will wipe out a wide range of companies in the enterprise space dominating the narrative. But they snapped a brutal losing streak this past week, joining in the broader market rally that saw all losses from the U.S.-Iran war regained by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500.

Cybersecurity has been “a victim of some of the AI-related headlines,” Christian Magoon, Amplify ETFs CEO, said on this week’s “ETF Edge.”

It wasn’t just niche cybersecurity names. Take Microsoft, for example, which was recently down close to 20% for the year. Its shares surged last week by 13%.

A big driver of the pummeling in software stocks was a rotation within tech by investors to AI infrastructure and semiconductors and some other names in large-cap tech, Magoon said, and since cybersecurity stocks and ETFs are heavily weighted towards software companies, they were left behind even as those businesses continue to grow on a fundamental basis.

But Wall Street now has become more bullish with the stocks at lower levels. Brent Thill, Jefferies tech analyst, said last week that the worst may be over for software stocks. “I think that this concept that software is dead, and then Anthropic and OpenAI are going to kill the entire industry, is just over-exaggerated,” he said on CNBC’s “Money Movers” on Wednesday.

Big Short” investor Michael Burry wrote in a Substack post on Wednesday that he is becoming bullish about software stocks after the recent selloff. “Software stocks remain interesting because of accelerated extreme declines last week arising from a reflexive positive feedback loop between falling software stocks and changes in the market for their bank debt,” he wrote.

The Global X Cybersecurity ETF (BUG), is down about 12% since the beginning of the year, with top holdings including Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, Akamai Technologies and CrowdStrike. But BUG was up 12% last week. The First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) is down 6% for the year, but up 9% in the past week.

Piper Sandler analyst Rob Owens reiterated an “overweight” rating on Palo Alto Networks which helped the stock pop 7% — it is now down roughly 6% on the year. Its peers saw similar moves, including CrowdStrike.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Performance of Global X cybersecurity ETF versus S&P 500 over past one-year period.

Magoon said expectations may have become too high in cybersecurity, and with a crowding effect among investors, solid results were not enough to to push stocks higher. But the down-and-then-back-up 2026 for the sector is also a reminder that when stocks fall sharply in a short period of time, opportunity may knock.

“Once you’re down over 10% in some of these subsectors, you start to see the contrarians start to say, ‘well, maybe I’ll take a look at this,'” Magoon said.

He said AI does add both opportunity and uncertainty to the cybersecurity equation, increasing demand but also introducing new competition. But he added, “I think the dip is good to buy in an AI-driven world,” specifically because the risks to companies may lead to more M&A in cyber names that benefits the stocks.

For now, investors may look for opportunity on the margins rather than rush back into beaten-up tech names. “I think investors are still going to remain underweight software,” Thill said.

But Magoon advises investors to at least take the reminder to keep an eye on niches in the market during pronounced downturns. “The best-performing are often the least bought and do the best over the next 12 months versus late-in-the-game piling on,” he said.

While that may have been a mindset that worked against the last investors into cybersecurity and enterprise software in mid-2025 when the negative sentiment started building, at least for now, it’s started working for the stocks in the sector again.

Meanwhile, this year’s biggest winner is also a good example of what can be an extended trade in either a bullish or bearish direction. Last year, institutional ownership of energy was at multi-year lows, Magoon said, referencing Bank of America data. “Reverse sentiment can be a great indicator,” he said. 

But he cautioned that any selective buying of stocks that have dipped does have to contend with the risk that there is a potentially bigger drawdown in the market yet to come in 2026. That is because midterm election years historically have been marked by large drawdowns. “If you think it is bad right now, it could get a lot worse,” Magoon said. But he added that there’s a silver-lining in that data, too, for the patient investor. The market has posted very strong 12-month returns after midterm election drawdowns end. So, for investors with a longer-term time horizon and no need for short-term liquidity, Magoon said, “stick in there.” 

Sign up for our weekly newsletter that goes beyond the livestream, offering a closer look at the trends and figures shaping the ETF market.

Disclaimer

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Continue Reading

Finance

Violent downturns could test new ETF strategies, warns MFS Investment

Published

on

ETF Stress Tests: How funds are showing resilience in the face of uncertainty

New innovation in the exchange-traded fund industry could come at a cost to investors during extreme conditions.

According to MFS Investment Management’s Jamie Harrison, ETFs involved in increasingly complex derivatives and less transparent markets may be in uncharted territory when it comes to violent downturns.

“Those would be something that you’d want to keep an eye on as volatility ramps up,” the firm’s head of ETF capital markets told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “As innovation continues to increase at a rapid pace within the ETF wrapper, [it’s] definitely something that we advise our clients to be really front-footed about… Lack of transparency could absolutely be an issue if we’re going to start seeing some deep sell-offs.”

His firm has been around since 1924 and is known for inventing the open-end mutual fund. Last year, ETF.com named MFS Investment Management as the best new ETF issuer.

“It’s important to do due diligence on the portfolio,” he said. “Having a firm that has deep partnerships, deep bench of subject matter experts that plays with the A-team in terms of the Street and liquidity providers available [are] super important.”

Liquidity as the real issue?

Harrison suggested the real issue is liquidity, particularly during a steep sell-off.

“We’ve all seen the news and the headlines around potential private credit ETFs. That picture becomes much more murky,” he added. “It’s up to advisors, to investors [and] to clients to really dig in and look under the hood and engage with their issuers.”

He noted investors will have to ask some tough questions.

“What does this look like in a 20% drawdown? How does this liquidity facility work? Am I going to be able to get in? Am I going to be able to get out? And if I’m able to get out, am I able to get out at a price that’s tight to NAV [net asset value], and what’s the infrastructure at your shop in terms of managing that consideration for me,” said Harrison.

Amplify ETFs’ Christian Magoon is also concerned about these newer ETF strategies could weather a monster drawdown. He listed private credit as a red flag.

“If your ETF owns private credit, I think it’s worth taking a look at, kind of what the standards are around liquidity and how that ETF is trading, because that should be a bit of a mismatch between the trading pace of ETFs and the underlying asset,” the firm’s CEO said in the same interview.

Magoon also highlighted potential issues surrounding equity-linked notes. The notes provide fixed income security while offering potentially higher returns linked to stocks or equity indexes.

“Those could potentially be in stress due to redemptions and the underlying credit risk. That’s another kind of unique derivative,” Magoon said. “I would very closely look at any ETF that has equity-linked notes should we get into a major drawdown or there be a contagion in private credit or something related to the banking system.”

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Continue Reading

Trending