What podcasters are saying about Payments & fintech

Summary

In the past 30 days, 4 speakers on 3 finance podcasts discussed Payments & fintech in 9 views. Chorus has followed Payments & fintech since October 13, 2026.

Who talks about it most

• Patrick Harker · 3
• Max Neukirchen · 3
• David Vélez · 2
• Umar Farooq · 1

The latest views

Newest first. Every quote is checked against the episode's transcript.

• Patrick Harker · The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

  The Fed should have skipped FedNow and gone straight to tokenized money; private RTP could serve.

  Harker was against starting FedNow. He thought the private clearinghouse's RTP network could already provide the service. He conceded there was a real case for FedNow anyway, because small banks may lack access to the private network. His preference was to leapfrog to the next technology, a tokenized dollar, tokenized deposit or central bank digital currency. He lost that internal argument, and as an institution the Fed then committed to building FedNow. He says he was then fully behind the decision, and he still has design quibbles.

  “I was, by the way, not a fan. I'd be completely honest. I was not a fan of starting FedNow... I thought that the private sector, the clearinghouse had the private sector RTP. That could provide that service... But I thought we should just leapfrog to what the new technology is gonna be”at 20:45

  Macro Musings: Patrick Harker on Real-Time Payments and the Future of the Federal Reserve · October 26, 2026

• Patrick Harker · The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

  Real-time payments should allow a short delay; 16 seconds cuts fraud, 30 seconds cuts bank liquidity needs.

  Fraud moves quickly on fast payment rails, and it is under-reported, so the true scale is unknown but large. Harker argues that a short hold gives systems time to screen payments. In a calibrated model he ran with a Wharton finance colleague, adding 16 seconds lets the system better detect fraud. Doubling the delay to 30 seconds allows more payments to be netted, which lowers the liquidity banks must hold in the network. Harker argues that tying up less liquidity matters because banks that must hold more liquidity for a given return take more risk on what is left. He acknowledges the counterargument that card-style checkout needs milliseconds, but says the system can be engineered around that, and that for most payments a little delay has real benefits.

  “If you just add sixteen seconds into the payment, you can reduce fraud because now you can better look for that fraud. Right? ... if you add just another... Say double that to thirty seconds, you can now start netting more payments, and the banks can have lower liquidity”at 24:38

  Macro Musings: Patrick Harker on Real-Time Payments and the Future of the Federal Reserve · October 26, 2026

• Patrick Harker · The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

  Uniform ~3% card fees make cash users, often lower-income, subsidize credit card users.

  Card swipes still carry about a 3% merchant fee in the US. If there is no separate cash and credit price, cash payers are subsidizing credit users. Harker says cash payers are usually lower-income and card users are usually higher-income, so the transfer runs from poorer to richer households. Other jurisdictions, such as Europe, cap these rates at around 50 basis points. He acknowledges that caps have costs and trade-offs. He says the fee is a major frustration for merchants and for customers, especially when the surcharge appears explicitly on the bill.

  “the people who pay cash, if there's not a separate price for cash or credit, the people who are paying cash are subsidizing the people who are paying for credit.”at 29:56

  Macro Musings: Patrick Harker on Real-Time Payments and the Future of the Federal Reserve · October 26, 2026

• Max Neukirchen · J.P. Morgan

  Payments is becoming a revenue driver for merchants, not just a cost, because checkout friction changes revenue.

  Max argues payments has shifted from an expense item to a revenue enabler. His example is e-commerce checkout: a one-click checkout versus a five-click checkout materially changes revenue, because the higher-conversion flow raises revenue lines. He ties this to clients building ecosystems in which embedded payments drive revenue and customer engagement. The argument is illustrated with a concrete example but no quantified uplift.

  “it matters big time if it's a one click checkout as you described or a five click checkout. Because with the one click checkout, their revenue lines are just so much higher. So payments is no longer just an expense item, but a true revenue enabler.”at 2:28

  J.P. Morgan Making Sense: How modern payments drive growth and resilience · October 23, 2026

• Umar Farooq · J.P. Morgan

  Rapid digitisation of cash-heavy economies is a major tailwind for payments providers.

  Umar notes that several countries have moved from cash-heavy to highly digital money systems, citing China as an early pioneer and India, Brazil and Mexico as later examples. He argues this shift is a major tailwind for payments providers because the business is not a coin-and-cash operator in these markets, so digitisation expands its addressable flows.

  “We see increasing digitization that's been one of the huge tailwinds for our business because we are not a sort of coin and cash operator in many of these countries.”at 3:52

  J.P. Morgan Making Sense: How modern payments drive growth and resilience · October 23, 2026

• Max Neukirchen · J.P. Morgan

  Cross-border payment flows are growing strongly despite talk of the end of globalisation.

  Max says that although there has been a lot of discussion about the end of globalisation over the last decade, the business sees tremendous growth in cross-border flows and new trade flows developing. He presents this as a key foundation for JPMorgan's investment to broaden its footprint into more countries.

  “we see tremendous growth even in cross border flows, in, you know, new trade flows developing, which is exciting and is also a key foundation for some of the investments we are making”at 6:15

  J.P. Morgan Making Sense: How modern payments drive growth and resilience · October 23, 2026

• Max Neukirchen · J.P. Morgan

  Real-time payment schemes now exist in almost every economy and are reshaping global payments.

  Max argues real-time and instant money movement has been a key global payments trend over the last decade, with instant money schemes now in almost every economy. He cites Brazil's PIX, which pioneered QR-code payments and grew strongly, and India's UPI, which spawned a wave of adjacent industries. He describes this as a global trend that has reshaped the payments industry.

  “Real time payments and instant money movement has definitely been a key trend in payments around the world for the last ten years. We now have instant money schemes basically in almost every economy”at 11:42

  J.P. Morgan Making Sense: How modern payments drive growth and resilience · October 23, 2026

• David Vélez · Nubank

  Digital banks have under 10% of consumer financial services, so incumbent share loss has barely started.

  About $10 trillion of global consumer financial services still runs through bank branches owned by incumbents. Neobanks and fintechs together hold less than 10% of that market. He compares this to Blockbuster, which held about 90% of video rental when Netflix held about 10%. He argues the migration from incumbents to digitally native firms is early in financial services. He expects a significant shift of share from incumbents to digital companies over the next 10 to 20 years, with market size also growing as billions of people enter the banking system.

  “still something like 90% of that industry goes through banking branches and is owned by incumbent banks... that migration from incumbents to digitally native companies is still very, very early in financial services.”at 2:27

  Invest Like The Best: David Vélez - Building Nubank and the Future of Global Banking · October 13, 2026

• David Vélez · Nubank

  Remittance fees of 5% to 10% will trend to zero because moving money is just moving bits.

  About $100 billion leaves the US in remittances, and senders pay 5% to 10% per transaction. He says moving money is simply moving bits. In a more competitive environment, that fee should trend to zero. He includes this in a wider list of cost pools, including monthly account fees of about $5 to $10 in the US, that digital competitors will compete away.

  “People pay 5% to 10% per transaction. Will go to zero. Remittances, moving money is you're moving bits. That will trend towards zero in a more competitive environment.”at 7:59

  Invest Like The Best: David Vélez - Building Nubank and the Future of Global Banking · October 13, 2026