4 Comments
Nov 3Liked by Yorrin van der Graaf

What made you go for V instead of MA. I do understand both are great quality businesses.

Expand full comment
author

Great question, and I understand the perspective you’re coming from. They’re essentially in the same business, right?

I chose Visa because it holds a larger share of the global payments market. In 2023, Visa facilitated $14.8 trillion in transactions, compared to Mastercard's $9 trillion. Additionally, Visa has higher operating and net income margins. Over the last 12 months, Visa's operating margin was 67%, with a net income margin of 50.3%, surpassing Mastercard's 56.8% and 44.7%. Overall, the “small details” currently favor Visa. If this changes, I would revisit my thesis.

Visa also has a healthier balance sheet, with a lower debt-to-equity ratio of 55.5% compared to Mastercard's 232%. This lower debt level gives Visa greater financial flexibility, especially in economic downturns. I'm also more familiar with Visa’s management than Mastercard’s, and from what I've seen and read, I prefer Visa.

Overall, there are several key metrics in this industry where Visa is performing better than Mastercard, which are important to me.

Expand full comment
Nov 4Liked by Yorrin van der Graaf

Have you considered MA valued-added services, lower market cap, and MA focus on overseas(outside of the US) has given them more of an edge over V regarding growth aspects.

Taking into account what you said I agree V is a better value business, but i get the feeling MA has a bit more growth with their strategies. MA ROIC has also an edge.

I am a MA holder so was curious. Very insightful points. Some did not consider, but i have considered adding V and making them both like as one.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! You bring up some solid points, especially regarding Mastercard’s (MA) focus on international growth and value-added services. I agree that Mastercard’s approach could position it well for higher growth potential, especially in emerging markets where digital payments are still on the rise.

The ROIC advantage for MA is also worth noting. A higher ROIC can reflect efficient capital allocation, which is always encouraging to see. While MA’s lower market cap does open the door for faster growth, Visa’s larger size and more conservative balance sheet provide it with resilience and flexibility, which aligns with my preference for value and stability.

Ultimately, both companies bring unique strengths, and having both in a portfolio could indeed balance growth with stability. I might revisit my view on MA if I see it significantly outpacing Visa in international expansion or value-added services. Thanks for adding that perspective—makes me think diversifying with MA could be a smart move if those growth drivers continue to shine!

Expand full comment