El límite del 10% impuesto por Trump: Una estrategia táctica relacionada con las tarjetas de crédito Visa, Mastercard y American Express.

The event is a specific, immediate policy announcement. President Trump declared via social media on January 9 that he would impose a one-year cap on credit card rates as of Jan. 20. The target is a limit of 10 percent, aimed directly at the interest rates banks charge cardholders. This is a clear, one-year executive order, not a law, and its legal authority is already in question.

The immediate market impact is one of high uncertainty. The policy is a populist economic move, but its implementation hinges on an agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that the administration has actively weakened. This creates a volatile setup where the final outcome is unclear, and the threat of a sudden, significant regulatory shift is now on the table.

The core business model question it raises is fundamental for the payment networks. Visa, Mastercard, and American Express earn their revenue from transaction fees and interchange, not from the interest rates charged by the issuing banks. The cap targets the banks, not the networks. Yet, the entire credit card ecosystem is interconnected. A forced reduction in bank interest income could pressure the profitability of the card-issuing partners that Visa and Mastercard rely on, potentially leading to reduced spending, tighter credit, or lower fees. The networks themselves may be shielded from the direct rate cut, but they are not immune to the downstream financial strain it could cause.

Business Model Defense: Network vs. Issuer Exposure

The key to assessing the threat lies in understanding the stark difference between how Visa and Mastercard make money versus how American Express does. The proposed rate cap directly targets the interest income banks earn from cardholders. For Visa and Mastercard, that income is irrelevant to their own revenue streams. Their business is built on facilitating transactions, not on the credit terms extended by their issuing bank partners.

Visa and Mastercard generate nearly all of their revenue from fees paid by the financial institutions that issue the cards. In fiscal 2025, Visa's net revenue was $40.0 billion, while Mastercard's was $28.2 billion. These figures come from interchange fees and other system charges levied on banks and merchants, not from the interest rates cardholders pay. This structural insulation is the core of the "network vs. issuer" argument. The cap aims at the issuer's profit, not the network's.

American Express presents a different picture. The company is both a payment network and a major credit card issuer. It earns significant interest income directly from its cardholders, similar to a bank. This dual role makes Amex structurally more exposed to a rate cap than its pure-network peers. If the 10% limit is enforced, it would directly compress the interest income that is a meaningful part of Amex's earnings mix.

The tactical implication is clear. For Visa and Mastercard, the immediate financial risk from the cap is minimal. Their revenue models are fundamentally separate from the interest rates being targeted. The potential impact is indirect and speculative, flowing through the broader credit market. For Amex, the risk is direct and quantifiable. This divergence creates a clear split in the investment thesis: the pure networks have a stronger defensive moat, while Amex's exposure introduces a specific, material vulnerability that the other two companies lack.

The Real Risk: Indirect Effects on Transaction Volume

The immediate financial models of Visa and Mastercard offer a shield, but the real tactical risk lies downstream. The proposed cap doesn't just target bank profits; it threatens the very availability of credit. Industry groups, including the Bank Policy Institute and the American Bankers Association, have issued a joint warning that a 10% rate cap would reduce credit availability and be devastating for millions of American families and small business owners. This is the critical second-order effect.

If banks are forced to cut rates, they may respond by tightening lending standards or pulling back credit lines entirely. This would drive consumers toward less regulated, higher-cost alternatives like payday loans or pawnshops. For Visa and Mastercard, the consequence is a potential decline in overall transaction volumes. Their revenue is built on the number of transactions processed, not the interest rates on those transactions. A reduction in the number of cards in circulation or the frequency of spending would directly pressure their fee-based income, even if the per-transaction fee remains unchanged.

The risk is compounded by the fact that the cap could also dampen consumer spending. As noted in research cited by NBC, while the cap would save consumers $100 billion in interest a year, it could simultaneously curtail the credit that fuels economic activity. This creates a mixed short-term effect: lower rates might boost spending, but reduced credit availability could have the opposite impact. The net outcome for transaction volumes is uncertain, but the potential for a headwind is clear.

For American Express, the risk is twofold and more severe. Amex faces the direct compression of its interest income, as it earns that revenue directly from cardholders. At the same time, it is also vulnerable to the same volume declines that could hit the broader network. This creates a compounded financial headwind, with pressure on both the top and bottom lines. While Visa and Mastercard's exposure is primarily volume-driven, Amex's exposure is both volume and margin-driven.

The bottom line for investors is that the threat is not in the immediate revenue model, but in the operational health of the credit ecosystem. A policy that reduces credit availability introduces a new, material uncertainty for all three companies, with the pure networks facing a volume risk and Amex facing a dual threat. This is the operational catalyst that could ultimately determine the stock's path.

Catalysts and Watchpoints

The immediate tactical question is whether this executive order is a credible threat or political noise. The key near-term catalyst is the administration's legal justification. The president's authority to impose a cap without congressional approval is unclear, and the primary regulator, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has been slashed funding for by this administration. Watch for the specific enforcement mechanism. If the order is issued, its feasibility will hinge on whether it can be implemented through existing statutes or if it requires new legislation-a process that could take months and faces strong opposition from the financial industry.

The first operational sign of impact will be in bank statements and consumer credit data. The joint warning from major banking groups is stark: a 10% cap would reduce credit availability and be devastating for millions of American families. Monitor for early shifts in credit card usage, such as a decline in new account approvals or a pullback in credit limits. A move toward alternative, high-cost lending products would be a clear signal that the policy is chilling the broader credit market, which would pressure transaction volumes for Visa and Mastercard and compound the direct hit to American Express's interest income.

The one-year duration of the cap is a critical time limit. It caps the potential long-term damage to the credit card ecosystem, but its success in the first year could set a dangerous precedent. If the policy appears to work without catastrophic disruption, it could embolden future regulatory momentum, making the threat more persistent. Conversely, if it leads to visible credit crunches or economic pain, the administration may be forced to back down, validating the industry's warnings and removing the overhang.

For investors, the watchpoints are clear. First, the legal and enforcement details of the executive order. Second, the early data on credit availability and consumer behavior. Third, the political fallout and whether this policy gains traction beyond its initial term. The cap's short life limits its ultimate impact, but its execution in the coming months will determine if it creates a temporary mispricing in the stocks or a lasting fundamental change.