By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists generally agreed that Ackman's bet on 'capital-light toll takers' like Visa, Mastercard, S&P Global, and ICE is defensible due to their durable moats and inflation-hedging characteristics. However, they raised significant concerns about current valuations and potential regulatory risks, particularly interchange fee caps and data access regulation.
Risk: Regulatory pressure on interchange fees and data access, which could erode revenue and compress multiples within 18-24 months.
Opportunity: Durable moats and inflation-resilient business models, offering some downside protection if inflation persists.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Star investor Bill Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management (NYSE:PS) is well known for being highly selective with his company’s investments. Pershing’s equity portfolio is always considerably smaller than those of many peer investment managers. So Ackman and his team make news whenever they buy into, or sell out of, a single stock.
Headlines were made, then, when Pershing Square revealed, concurrently with its second-quarter earnings report, that it had taken positions in six new stocks. Four of those half-dozen were top names in the financial industry. Here’s the reasoning behind the move, and a glance at the quartet.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
Image source: Getty Images.
To cut quickly to the chase, the four were payment card titans Visa (NYSE:V) and Mastercard (NYSE:MA), data and analysis specialist S&P Global (NYSE:SPGI), and securities market operator and associated services provider Intercontinental Exchange (NYSE:ICE).
(For the curious, the remaining two fresh, non-financial stock buys were Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) and pharmaceutical and medical device company Alcon (NYSE:ALC)).
One admirable thing about Ackman is that he’s eloquent and hardly mysterious about what appeals to him and his company about certain stocks. In the shareholder letter accompanying the second-quarter report, the Pershing Square founder and CEO went into admirable detail regarding what he likes about the six newcomers.
Let’s focus on the financials. With Mastercard and Visa, Ackman was drawn to what he describes as “capital-light toll takers.” That’s because both card giants are what’s known in that business as “open-loop” operators, in that they only facilitate transactions on their networks; other entities, mainly banks, are the businesses actually extending the credit (or are the source of the utilized funds, in the case of debit cards).
Mastercard and Visa, then, take on no risk themselves and instead act as middlemen, earning small fees from every transaction. Since many people around the world hold cards branded by one or both companies, their volumes are considerable.
Ackman also effectively wrote that the pair is a good hedge against inflation, should it remain an issue in the economy. Again, the two are volume-based businesses, so higher consumer prices mean they earn higher fees. Finally, he said that their value-added services, such as fraud detection and authentication solutions, are, well, adding considerable value to their operations.
Turning to S&P Global, this one’s a bit of a cheat — Pershing Square actually owned it previously, back in the good old days of 2017. Regardless, Ackman waxed enthusiastic about the company’s three dominant businesses — ratings, indexes, and Platts. Respectively, S&P Global earns revenue from credit ratings, its famous family of securities market gauges (including the benchmark S&P 500 index), and Platts’ solid position as a price reporting agency for the commodities and energy markets.
Rounding out the quartet, we have Intercontinental Exchange (Pershing Square admitted this stock was actually purchased just after the end of the second quarter). The company is dominant in futures and options exchanges, particularly with its gold-standard ICE Brent Futures contract, which is widely used for crude oil trading worldwide. The company doesn’t just rest on these laurels; it also has a pair of high-margin businesses in the smaller but important fixed income and data services, and mortgage technology segments.
Like the other three stocks, Intercontinental Exchange is inflation-resistant. Even if prices continue to rise, investors will still trade instruments like crude oil contracts and stock options. And they’ll require the data that supports such investment decisions.
It’s interesting that in the letter, Ackman took pains to write that Pershing Square has tracked each of the four stocks for quite a long time (decades, in the case of S&P Global). Every one of the quartet has posted growth, at times very robust, for years. Taking Mastercard as an example, the already-huge company managed to nearly double annual revenue (to almost $33 billion) from 2021 to 2025.
I don’t always agree with Ackman’s takes or his enthusiasm for certain stocks. In this instance, though, I believe he’s picked four long-term winners, and Pershing Square will do very well with them in its portfolio.
Before you buy stock in Pershing Square, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Pershing Square wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $400,209! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,375,393!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 964% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 215% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of August 14, 2026. *
Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Mastercard, Netflix, S&P Global, and Visa. The Motley Fool recommends Intercontinental Exchange. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Ackman's purchases validate the quality of these franchises but do not justify current premium valuations given decelerating growth and unmentioned regulatory risks."
Ackman's addition of V, MA, SPGI, and ICE to Pershing Square reinforces a bet on high-margin, capital-light financial infrastructure with durable moats and inflation-hedging characteristics. These 'toll takers' benefit from secular volume growth in payments, indexing, commodities pricing, and derivatives. However, the article glosses over current valuations: V and MA trade at 28-32x forward P/E against slowing transaction growth, SPGI at 38x with index revenue tied to equity market levels, and ICE at 25x. Missing context includes rising regulatory scrutiny on interchange fees, potential CBDC disruption to card networks, and how these names already comprise large weights in financial ETFs.
The strongest case against is that Ackman is simply chasing quality at peak multiples after these stocks have compounded for a decade; any macro slowdown or regulatory hit to interchange could trigger multiple compression that swamps the 12-15% secular growth rates.
"Ackman is trading potential growth upside for defensive, inflation-protected cash flow certainty in an increasingly uncertain macroeconomic environment."
Ackman’s pivot toward 'capital-light toll takers' like Visa, Mastercard, S&P Global, and ICE is a classic defensive rotation into wide-moat, high-margin oligopolies. By prioritizing companies that benefit from transaction volume rather than credit risk, he is insulating Pershing Square against potential stagflation or a cooling consumer credit environment. However, the valuation risk is non-trivial; these firms are already trading at premium forward P/E multiples (often 25x-30x+). Ackman is essentially paying a 'quality premium' for predictable cash flows. While these are durable compounders, they offer little 'alpha' potential if the market re-rates growth stocks higher, as they are already priced for perfection.
These stocks are currently priced as bond proxies; if long-term interest rates rise unexpectedly, their high valuation multiples will face significant contraction regardless of their underlying transaction volume growth.
"Ackman identified structurally sound businesses but the article omits the critical question: at what valuation multiples do these become value traps rather than wealth creators?"
Ackman's picks are genuinely defensive — Visa, Mastercard, S&P Global, and ICE are all toll-taker models with durable moats and inflation hedges. But the article conflates 'good long-term businesses' with 'good buys at current prices.' Visa trades at ~50x forward P/E; Mastercard at ~45x. Both have already captured most of their growth narrative. The article never mentions valuation, timing, or opportunity cost. Ackman's selectivity is admirable, but his entry timing into mega-cap financials at peak multiples — after a 40% run in payment stocks since 2022 — deserves scrutiny. The 'tracking for decades' comment suggests conviction, not necessarily that NOW is optimal.
If rates stay elevated and recession fears persist, defensive payment networks and data monopolies could re-rate higher as investors flee cyclicals — and Ackman's fortress balance sheet means he can hold through volatility that would force others to sell.
"Valuations may already price in the inflation-hedge durability, leaving limited upside if macro shocks or regulatory headwinds weigh on earnings and multiples."
On the surface, Ackman's bets on Visa, Mastercard, S&P Global, and ICE read as a high-quality, inflation-resilient core: open-loop payment networks with pricing power, a data/ratings moat, and a dominant exchange operator with diversified growth pillars. The logic of volume-based fees and value-added services is credible, offering some downside protection if inflation persists. However, the strongest case against the obvious reading is that valuations already reflect this quality and a constructive macro backdrop. A recession or tighter regulation (interchange caps, antitrust scrutiny, data/privacy rules) could compress margins and multiples. Cyclical drivers in ICE and S&P Global’s datasets may prove more exposed to credit cycles than implied.
If rates remain high and growth slows, these names could underperform as volumes shrink and multiple expansion stalls; the inflation-hedge thesis may not hold in a weak macro scenario.
"Regulatory convergence on interchange and CBDC risk is underweighted and could accelerate multiple compression beyond macro or rate effects."
Claude's 50x P/E for Visa is overstated; consensus forward is closer to 29x. The real gap nobody flagged is regulatory convergence: EU-style interchange caps now under active US DOJ review plus CBDC pilots could erode 15-20% of network revenue faster than any volume offset. Timing matters precisely because these moats are being chipped at simultaneously.
"The long-term risk is the regulatory unbundling of high-margin data analytics services, which are more vulnerable than the core payment rails."
Claude, your 50x figure is indeed a massive outlier, but Grok misses the bigger picture: these firms are not just payment rails, they are data monopolies. The real risk isn't just interchange caps—it's the 'unbundling' of their value-added services. If regulators force interoperability or open access to their proprietary datasets, the high-margin 'toll' on data analytics evaporates. Ackman is buying the moat, but the moat is currently being drained by antitrust scrutiny, not just price-per-transaction.
"Regulatory timing matters more than regulatory type; near-term interchange risk outweighs long-term data unbundling risk for entry valuation."
Gemini's unbundling thesis is sharper than Grok's interchange-cap focus. But both miss the sequencing risk: regulatory pressure on data access typically takes 3-5 years to materialize, while interchange caps could hit within 18 months. Ackman's thesis survives data regulation if volumes compound faster than margin compression—the real test is Q2-Q3 transaction growth. If that stalls before regulatory clarity, he's trapped in a multiple-compression squeeze with no catalyst.
"Near-term regulatory caps on interchange and CBDC pilots risk margin compression and a near-term multiple re-rating, even with solid volume growth."
Near-term risk hinges on sequencing, not just size. Interchange caps and CBDC pilots could shave network revenue within 18 months, while data-access changes take 3-5 years. So the more immediate overhang is cap-driven margin compression and multiple re-rating, not a gradual erosion of moat. Even with solid volume growth, a 15-25% revenue headwind could overshadow secular growth and drive sharp compression in these mega-caps.
The panelists generally agreed that Ackman's bet on 'capital-light toll takers' like Visa, Mastercard, S&P Global, and ICE is defensible due to their durable moats and inflation-hedging characteristics. However, they raised significant concerns about current valuations and potential regulatory risks, particularly interchange fee caps and data access regulation.
Durable moats and inflation-resilient business models, offering some downside protection if inflation persists.
Regulatory pressure on interchange fees and data access, which could erode revenue and compress multiples within 18-24 months.