Doomscroll News

Tag: Market

  • The Payments Duopoly: A Comparative Analysis of the Visa and Mastercard Business Models

    Executive Summary

    Visa Inc. and Mastercard Incorporated form one of the global economy’s most powerful duopolies. While their brands are ubiquitous, the mechanics of their business models are often misunderstood. This report provides a comparative analysis of how these payment technology giants generate revenue.

    At their core, both companies operate on an identical foundation. They use an “open-loop,” four-party model that connects consumers, merchants, issuing banks, and acquiring banks. They are not financial institutions. They do not issue credit or assume the risk of consumer default. Instead, they operate the vast technology platforms—VisaNet and the Mastercard Network—that serve as the digital rails for global commerce. They earn fees on immense transaction volumes. However, this shared foundation gives way to increasingly divergent strategic priorities.

    The analysis reveals Visa’s clear dominance in scale. In fiscal year 2024, Visa processed $15.7 trillion in total volume across 233.8 billion transactions. This generated $35.9 billion in net revenue.¹ Its business model is deeply rooted in monetizing this scale through transaction-centric revenue streams: Data Processing, Service, and International Transaction fees.

    Mastercard is smaller, with $9.8 trillion in gross dollar volume and 159.4 billion switched transactions in fiscal year 2024.²,³ It has strategically positioned itself as a more diversified technology partner. This is most evident in its financial reporting, which is structured around two distinct pillars: the core Payment Network and a rapidly expanding Value-Added Services and Solutions (VAS) segment. In 2024, the VAS segment generated $10.83 billion. This accounted for a remarkable 38.5% of Mastercard’s $28.2 billion in total net revenue and is growing much faster than its core payments business.²,⁴

    This report concludes that the competitive dynamic between the two companies is evolving. The fundamental mechanism of earning fees on payment volume remains the bedrock for both. However, Visa’s strategy now focuses on leveraging its scale to expand its “network of networks” into new payment flows, like business-to-business payments. Mastercard, conversely, is executing a clear strategy of differentiation through services. It embeds itself more deeply with clients through offerings in cybersecurity, data analytics, and loyalty programs. The future of this duopoly will be defined less by processing payments and more by their ability to innovate and monetize the ecosystem of services surrounding the transaction.

    (more…)

  • U.S. Company Headwinds 2025 [Web App]

    Fundamental Headwinds Impacting U.S. Companies

    An analysis of core, non-market challenges affecting a curated list of corporations as of October 3, 2025.

    About This Analysis

    This report identifies and ranks significant, fundamental business headwinds affecting a diverse group of publicly traded, U.S.-based companies. The analysis deliberately excludes security prices, market capitalization, sector, industry, employee count, tariff uncertainty, and government shutdowns to focus purely on the underlying operational and economic challenges that are independent of these factors.

    Headwind Prevalence Across Analyzed Companies

    The chart below visualizes the estimated prevalence of each fundamental headwind. A higher prevalence score indicates a more widespread challenge impacting a larger percentage of the companies in the study group. Use the category filters below the chart to narrow your focus.

    (more…)

  • Decoding the NASDAQ: Copper, Bonds, and the VC Canary

    The daily fluctuations of the NASDAQ Composite often dominate financial headlines, creating a narrow focus on immediate price movements. But what if the most important clues about the tech market’s future aren’t in the headlines at all? Some of the most potent signals hide in plain sight—in the bond market’s quiet warnings, the global demand for raw industrial metals, and the private funding decisions made far from Wall Street’s trading floors.

    This article explores four surprising indicators that can signal a potential downturn in the tech-heavy NASDAQ. By looking beyond the usual metrics, investors can gain a deeper understanding of the broader economic and psychological forces shaping the market. This journey from the widest economic outlook to the most sector-specific insights offers a crucial, alternative perspective.

    1. The Bond Market’s Ominous Whisper: An Inverted Yield Curve

    One of the most reliable predictors of economic trouble is found not in the stock market, but in the quiet corners of the bond market. The yield curve, which plots the yields of bonds with different maturity dates, provides a powerful signal. Normally, longer-term bonds have higher yields. But when the curve “inverts”—meaning the 2-year Treasury yield rises above the 10-year yield—it signals investors’ overwhelming conviction that an economic slowdown is imminent.

    This inversion has a stark Negative (Inverted) historical correlation with the market and is a classic recession predictor. The link to the NASDAQ is direct and punishing. Tech companies, particularly those valued on future growth, are punished severely when higher interest rates make their distant earnings less valuable today. More fundamentally, a recession means less corporate and consumer spending on the very software, hardware, and services that NASDAQ companies sell.

    (more…)

  • The Unholy Alliance: Are Goldman Sachs and Apple Secretly Stockpiling Gold?

    Disclaimer: The following is a speculative theory presented for discussion only. It is not based on factual research and is not intended to be a statement of fact.

    Here’s a thought: What if Goldman Sachs’s recent bold prediction of $5,000 gold is a strategic move? They have a massive financial partnership with Apple through high-yield savings accounts. At the same time, Apple’s need for physical gold for its semiconductors is ever-increasing.

    Could Goldman be creating a public narrative to sell the idea of gold to everyday investors, while in the background, they work with Apple in a kind of “unholy alliance” to use their financial machinery to build a massive, stealth stockpile of physical gold? This would secure Apple’s future supply chain for a critical mineral, potentially leaving the average investor holding the bag. It’s a sneaking suspicion that this could be a form of financial engineering hiding in plain sight.

  • Healthcare Provisions Within the “Big Beautiful Bill”: Exacerbating Failed Policies

    The comprehensive legislation, dubbed by some the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB), includes a substantial set of provisions pertaining to healthcare. These proposals aim to reform Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and other health-related sectors. However, rather than offering genuine solutions, these healthcare sections largely entrench and expand failed federal programs. Market-based and state-level solutions are the appropriate path forward; continuing with the current trajectory will only worsen our $37 trillion national debt and further degrade our healthcare system.

    Medicaid and CHIP: Entrenching a Failed System

    A significant portion of the bill addresses Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), programs that have demonstrably failed to deliver efficient, fiscally responsible healthcare.

    • Enrollment and Eligibility: Provisions imposing moratoriums on recent rules for Medicaid/CHIP enrollment (Sec. 44101, 44102), while citing concerns over states’ ability to remove ineligible enrollees, tinker at the edges of a fundamentally broken system. Robust income verification, streamlined through tax data, is essential, but this addresses symptoms, not the core disease of these programs. The argument that the delayed rules could weaken verification standards only underscores the inherent vulnerability to fraud and improper payments within these federal structures.
    • The mandate for states to improve enrollee address information and participate in a federal system to prevent multi-state enrollment by 2029 (Sec. 44103) is a minor, albeit logical, measure within a system that requires wholesale replacement.
    • Quarterly screenings against the Death Master File (Sec. 44104) and enhanced provider screening (Sec. 44105, 44106) are basic anti-fraud measures that should have been rigorously implemented decades ago, and their inclusion now highlights past failures.
    • Increasing eligibility redeterminations to every six months (Sec. 44108) will inevitably create more bureaucracy, not genuine integrity, within these failed expansion programs. Stringent initial enrollment criteria are necessary, but the programs themselves are the problem.
    • Proposed revisions to home equity limits for Medicaid long-term care (Sec. 44109) are an egregious component of a system that forces asset depletion. The link between Medicaid and long-term care services must be severed entirely.
    • Prohibiting Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for individuals without verified immigration status (Sec. 44110) is a necessary, though insufficient, step toward fiscal discipline.
    • Conversely, efforts to “streamline” enrollment for out-of-state providers (Sec. 44302) are a pathway to inefficient contracting and cronyism, typical of bloated federal programs.
    • Spending and Program Integrity:
    • The removal of the good faith waiver for certain erroneous excess Medicaid payments (Sec. 44107) is an admission of the rampant improper payments that plague the system, reinforcing the argument that Medicaid must be abolished.
    • Modifying retroactive Medicaid/CHIP coverage (Sec. 44122) is a trivial adjustment.
    • Federal intervention in pharmacy payments (Sec. 44123, 44124) is an unacceptable overreach. Free markets, not government dictates, ensure fair pharmacy pricing.
    • The prohibition of federal Medicaid/CHIP funding for gender transition procedures (Sec. 44125, Sec. 112030) is correct; such funding has no place at the federal level and should be entirely a private matter, with no exceptions for federal dollars.
    • Prohibiting federal payments to “prohibited entities” in family planning (Sec. 44126) is a sound policy; such funding decisions should be eliminated from public coffers altogether.
    • Sunsetting increased FMAP for new Medicaid expansion states (Sec. 44131) and imposing a moratorium on new provider taxes (Sec. 44132) are welcome, as no new taxes should support these failing programs.
    • Revising payments for state-directed Medicaid based on Medicare rates (Sec. 44133) perpetuates federal price-fixing. Medicaid must be dismantled, replaced by a system focused on transparently priced emergency and preventative services, potentially leveraging innovations like robotic-assisted procedures to reduce costs and liability.
    • Mandating Medicaid community engagement requirements (Sec. 44141) is a gross federal intrusion into matters that are exclusively state or local concerns.
    • Modifying cost-sharing for Medicaid expansion individuals (Sec. 44142) is merely propping up a failed expansion of a failed program using flawed metrics like the federal poverty line. The entire edifice needs to be replaced with free-market solutions.
    (more…)