The Senate Judiciary Committee convened on Tuesday for a hearing on the alleged Visa–Mastercard “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.
A turbulent week in the U.S. Treasury market prompted the Treasury Department to sharply increase the size of its long-term debt buyback program, as bond prices fell even while equity markets pushed toward record highs. The divergence has drawn attention from fixed-income strategists who see it as a signal of underlying investor unease about federal borrowing levels.
What Happened This Week
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Thursday, August 20, 2026, that the Treasury had doubled the size of its long-term debt buyback operations, moving from roughly $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation. Bessent indicated the figure could climb further, saying “we’re going to increase the size of the buyback,” and noted the accelerated pace could exceed the announced $4 billion threshold per issue.
Buybacks allow the Treasury to repurchase outstanding government bonds directly from the market, which can help support prices and dampen yield volatility during periods of stress. The expanded program came as stocks staged a late-week recovery: the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 both advanced on Friday, August 21, even as Treasuries logged mild losses, according to Bloomberg market data.
Why Bond and Equity Markets Are Diverging
Capital.com senior market analyst Daniela Hathorn described the week’s dynamic as markets “ending the week on a softer tone after the relative calm of early August was disrupted by renewed pressure in global bond markets, another rise in oil prices, and growing uncertainty around the Federal Reserve’s next move.” She noted that higher long-term borrowing costs are increasingly challenging elevated equity valuations, even as U.S. equities pull back modestly from record highs.
This divergence — equities near record levels while bonds sell off is unusual and reflects two different sets of investor concerns. Equity investors have remained focused on corporate earnings strength, particularly from large technology companies ahead of Nvidia’s closely watched August 26 earnings report. Bond investors, by contrast, are more directly exposed to concerns about the scale of federal borrowing, highlighted this week by the national debt crossing the $40 trillion threshold for the first time.
The Fed and Treasury “Working in Opposite Directions”
Wilmington Trust senior bond portfolio manager Wil Stith told Yahoo Finance that current conditions reflect “the Fed and the Treasury basically working in sort of opposite directions,” adding that the imbalance will likely require the Federal Reserve which he described as having “the larger sandbox” to adjust the federal funds rate rather than relying on Treasury market interventions alone to manage yields.
Notably, the bond market’s reaction to the Treasury’s buyback expansion was relatively muted; strategists described the move as being largely absorbed without a major rally, suggesting the underlying pressure on yields stems from factors, such as inflation persistence and debt sustainability concerns, that a buyback program alone cannot resolve.
What Comes Next
Markets are now looking to two major events in the days ahead: Nvidia’s earnings report on Wednesday, August 26, and the Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, running August 27-29. This will be the first Jackson Hole gathering under new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, whose public communication style and policy signals remain less established than his predecessors’, according to market commentary from Regards of Wall Street.
For investors, the key metrics to watch are the size and frequency of future Treasury buyback operations, movements in the 10-year Treasury yield, and any policy signals from Warsh’s keynote address. Continued yield volatility alongside record equity valuations would suggest the market imbalance identified this week has not yet been resolved.
The global banking system is undergoing a comprehensive modernization of cross-border payment infrastructure. Driven by real-time settlement networks, open banking APIs, and interoperable messaging standards, financial institutions and multinational corporations are eliminating multi-day delays and reducing transaction costs associated with legacy international wire transfers.
Transition to Real-Time Gross Settlement Networks
Historically, international business-to-business (B2B) payments relied on complex correspondent banking relationships involving intermediary fees and processing delays. In 2026, the widespread adoption of ISO 20022 messaging protocols alongside interconnected Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) systems allows direct, end-to-end processing of cross-border transfers.
Commercial banks are providing corporate clients with continuous, 24/7 payment clearing capabilities. Real-time transaction confirmation and automated FX rate locking allow international businesses to settle cross-border trade obligations within minutes, significantly reducing counterparty risk.
Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Interoperability
Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) pilot initiatives are reaching operational maturity across several key financial centers. Collaborative multi-CBDC platforms enable participating central banks and commercial institutions to settle foreign exchange and international trade transactions directly on shared distributed ledgers.
These wholesale digital currency networks eliminate traditional clearinghouse delays and minimize foreign exchange slippage. Enterprise treasury departments benefit from enhanced liquidity management, as cross-border cash balances can be deployed and repatriated instantaneously.
Corporate Treasury Transformation
For enterprise treasurers, instant cross-border settlement transforms cash management strategies:
– Working Capital Optimization: Reduced transaction float allows companies to lower precautionary cash reserves and optimize short-term liquidity investments.
– Automated Reconciliation: Enriched data formats embedded in ISO 20022 payment messages streamline automated general ledger posting and invoice matching.
– Reduced Processing Overhead: Account-to-account (A2A) real-time clearing bypasses costly intermediary correspondent banking fees.
Strategic Financial Priorities
1. Upgrade Treasury Systems: Ensure internal core enterprise software supports real-time ISO 20022 payment messaging standards.
2. Leverage Instant Clearing Rails: Utilize direct payment networks to lower cross-border transaction fees and eliminate settlement delays.
3. Evaluate Multi-Currency Liquidity: Modernize liquidity management frameworks to capitalize on 24/7 real-time settlement capabilities.
The global private credit market has solidified its role as a fundamental pillar of enterprise finance, expanding rapidly across middle-market lending, asset-backed finance, and infrastructure financing. As non-bank financial institutions capture a larger share of corporate debt origination, global regulatory bodies are increasing oversight to evaluate market transparency and systemic risk interconnections.
Growth Drivers in Direct Lending
Direct lending platforms have continued to attract substantial institutional allocations from pension funds, sovereign wealth entities, and insurance companies seeking attractive risk-adjusted yields. Private debt funds offer corporate borrowers customized financing structures, faster execution timelines, and confidentiality compared to syndicated loan markets.
In 2026, private credit managers are increasingly financing larger corporate transactions, providing multi-billion-dollar credit facilities for buyout deals and corporate restructurings. The flexibility of private debt contracts—featuring unitranche pricing and tailored covenant packages—has made direct lending the preferred capital source for middle-market enterprise sponsors.
Regulatory Scrutiny and Systemic Risk Assessment
The rapid growth of non-bank intermediation has drawn heightened scrutiny from financial regulators in North America and Europe. Because private debt agreements are negotiated privately without public exchange disclosures, central banks are evaluating potential vulnerabilities related to asset valuation consistency and fund liquidity profiles.
Regulatory agencies are introducing guidelines aimed at improving reporting standards for private investment vehicles managing institutional assets. Key focus areas include monitoring leverage ratios within private credit funds and evaluating indirect credit exposures between commercial banking institutions and private debt funds.
Navigating Elevated Refinancing Costs
With benchmark interest rates remaining elevated, private debt borrowers face higher debt service obligations on floating-rate credit facilities. Financial advisory firms report an increase in proactive liability management strategies, including payment-in-kind (PIK) interest options, equity infusions from sponsors, and covenant modifications.
Private credit managers with deep operational capabilities are actively working alongside portfolio companies to optimize working capital and maintain cash flow coverage ratios during periods of higher borrowing costs.
Key Financial Takeaways
1. Mainstream Asset Class: Private credit has expanded beyond niche alternative asset status into a core corporate finance solution.
2. Enhanced Transparency Standards: Regulatory frameworks are evolving toward greater disclosure requirements for private debt managers.
3. Proactive Risk Management: Lenders and sponsors must prioritize debt sustainability and active portfolio monitoring amid high benchmark rates.