AAPLLoadingMSFTLoadingNVDALoadingGOOGLLoadingAMZNLoadingMETALoadingTSLALoadingAMDLoadingNFLXLoadingCOINLoadingPYPLLoadingSPYLoadingQQQLoadingIWMLoadingJPMLoadingVLoadingDISLoadingKOLoadingJNJLoadingNKELoadingXOMLoadingASMLLoading
FreeV4 min read

A toll road with a regulatory problem is still a toll road

The shares traded at 368.86 this morning, -0.74% on the session. I have followed this business for years and I admire it, so treat everything below as the opinion of someone who is not neutral about it.

V
Delayed

The business in one line

A network that takes a small percentage of an enormous and growing volume of transactions, with costs that do not scale anywhere near as fast as the volume does.

That is the whole thing. The elegance is that revenue is linked to nominal spending, which means inflation, normally a problem, is a mild tailwind. Very few businesses have that property honestly.

The regulatory question, taken seriously

Interchange is politically unpopular in most jurisdictions and has been for decades. Merchants have a legitimate complaint. Regulators periodically act on it. Anyone owning this and pretending otherwise is not paying attention.

What I would say is that the risk is persistent rather than acute:

  • Proposals appear regularly and implemented rules appear rarely
  • Where caps have been imposed, the volume has not moved to a different rail
  • The network effect that makes intervention attractive is the same one that makes displacement hard

How I weigh it accordingly

Not by ignoring the risk, and not by treating it as disqualifying. By asking what the business looks like after an adverse ruling rather than before one, and valuing it on that basis, which puts it well below what the business quality alone would justify.

Valuation is where you express the risks you cannot analyse away. Everything else is just having an opinion.

What would actually change the thesis

A rule implemented rather than proposed, in a major market, at a level that changes unit economics rather than trimming them. That is a different business and I would treat it as one.

The thing I would not do is trade around each round of headlines. This risk has been present for the entire time I have followed it, and reacting to the news cycle on a slow-moving structural issue is a reliable way to pay a lot of commission for no benefit.

The boring conclusion

The view stays long, with the risk priced in rather than wished away, and I am content to do nothing for another quarter. Most of the return in a business like this comes from the years when there was nothing to write about.

The author holds no position in the instruments discussed. Opinion. Not advice. Not a financial promotion approved under FSMA s.21. Quote data is delayed. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

Comments

0 comments
Sign in to comment.

No comments yet

Be the first to weigh in.