
0/ We've highlighted FinTech infrastructure co's like BR, FIS, JKHY, MA, V, ICE, NDAQ, etc. as companies w/ a variety of moats that have led to dominant mkt share & outperformance despite being 50+ years old on avg.
$FISV had their investor day yesterday and laid out the why.


All while being #1 as a core account processor, merchant acquirer, bill pay, P2P payments, etc...


They highlight the progress on the deal & new goals post integration.
M&A is a skill & FISV has it financially; tech integration leaves something to be desired

(i) Merchant Solutions
(ii) Integrated Banking
(iii) Digital Payments
(iv) Card Payments

They conduct more than 12,000 financial tx / second & reach nearly ~100% of US households


(i) Flexible API Service Architecture
(ii) Security & Fraud Tools
(iii) Third Party Integrations
(iv) Data & Analytics
This is a slide I imagine a number of BaaS companies look to emulate in future decks.

They believe $90B was spent in '20 by Financial Institution on IT which is projected to grow at a 6.3% CAGR through '24.
For those that believe FinTech B2B infrastructure is saturated thats a portion of the pie


With talks of @Marqeta going public next year this will be an interesting comp for this business line.

This is part of the oppty co's like Marqeta & Galileo saw $FISV won't entertain the startup.


(i) Omnichannel Capabilities
(ii) Horizontal Commerce Solutions
(iii) Leading Technology
(iv) Payments Innovation
(v) Local Execution
(vi) Integration Advantages

More from Trading
You May Also Like
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d
Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.
...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.
Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.
https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d

Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.

...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.

Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?