Digging In on Airline, Data Center, and Fintech News

In this podcast, Motley Fool contributors Tyler Crowe, Matt Frankel, and Lou Whiteman discuss:

• Delta's rosy outlook.
• The changes in the airline industry.
• Mastercard's bet to become a crypto payments company.
• The wall between fintech and traditional finance crumbling.
• Nvidia's $1 trillion projection.
• Insuring data centers.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

This podcast was recorded on March 17, 2026.

Tyler Crowe: A guidance raise in the most unexpected place. This is Motley Fool Money. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Tyler Crowe, and today I'm joined by longtime Fool contributors Matt Frankel and Lou Whiteman. On today's show, we're going to look at how the lines between the old guard of finance and fintech companies are getting blurrier by the day. We'll follow up that with some stories each of us are following as we conclude here. But first, Matt, Lou, I think it's fair to say that the market has reacted with a lot of volatility. But I think rather predictable results with every Iran Middle East news story coming out there, a ship goes through, prices go down, port gets blown up, prices go up. I'm pretty on track here. Lou?

Lou Whiteman: I mean, look, I think it's as you'd expect, but I am surprised at the micro movement that we're not seeing the big picture here. We are just really up and down with every little thing.

Matt Frankel: I would agree with that. It's been predictable. I thought that oil prices would spike a little bit quicker than they did toward the beginning of the conflict. Remember, it took a little while till it really started to go upward. But it's been pretty predictable. With that in mind and the predictability thing, Delta Airlines, issued guidance this morning. It was ahead of an industry conference, and it really stood out because it didn't follow the script of what we thought would be predictable in the place of rising fuel prices. I thought we would all say. Hey, fuel prices are going to be higher margins are going to get hit. We'd probably see some conservative guidance or maybe even an expectation of declines with, vibes and fear or whatever. But, this was like a record scratch moment. The company was guiding for higher revenue in the coming quarter, Matt, why don't you run through the numbers and give us your thoughts on what you saw? I mean, Delta announced far better guidance for the first quarter than investors had expected. When I say better guidance, it might sound a little odd when I tell you that they essentially said that EPS is going to be in the original guidance range they gave with their last earnings report. But this was surprising because that range that they gave it was 50 to $0.90 per share. A pretty wide range. It was prior to the fuel cost surge, and prior to this terrible winter storm season that we've had this year, Delta CEO Ed Bastian said that demand has been great, and revenue growth, which was previously forecast to be up 7% year over year, could be even higher. It's also worth noting you mentioned it's an industry conference. American Airlines separately said that it expects first quarter revenue growth at the high end of its guidance range. It seems industry wide.

Lou Whiteman: The funny thing about this industry, a little inside baseball, every quarter, last two weeks of the quarter, one of the big banks holds an investment conference giving everybody a chance to clear the deck, stay what's actually happened. That's why the airlines always seem to meet or beat estimates, but, neither here nor there. The interesting thing, like Matt said is that demand is holding up. Planes are full. Airlines can therefore pass on higher fuel costs, so far so good. The real interesting thing to me about Delta here is the it's the haves and have not economy and the way Delta really has positioned itself to take advantage of the people who can afford to fly, 90% of Delta revenue is now tied to either premium offerings or their loyalty programs. The top 40% of earners are driving demand. Look, there's other ways Delta can benefit from demand, too. This is a real diversified company now. Their maintenance business, MRO, they call it. Revenue is going to be up 150% year over year. That's because rivals are running their equipment just as much as they can, too. Delta does a lot of work doing tune ups and maintenance for other airlines other than Delta, so a lot of ways to win here, as long as demand holds up.

Tyler Crowe: As nice as these numbers sound and, pointing out that Delta is clearly a different company, perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I feel like the airlines are perpetually in this. This time, it's different category, they always seem to run into some catastrophic event that we see demand destruction for one reason or other. We saw 911 was a great example of this. Then we had the great recession in 2008. The 2010 through 2020 period was probably the most calm market that we've seen for the airlines, and then 2020, and then COVID hits. Then we get Boeing. They can't deliver planes on time, so they're capacity constrained. Now we're talking about extraordinarily high gas prices and, hinting at a little bit of K-shaped economy stuff. With that in mind, is there any reason to think that as investments, the airlines, and we can narrow in on Delta and American in particular, them showing strength in the face of rising fuel prices, is this a sign that the industry's actually in a better place?

Lou Whiteman: I mean, if you go back, Tyler, it used to be every downturn where some high profile bankruptcies, Eastern Branoff, so many of the, like, names that people grew up with just disappeared. It is different. I know it's dangerous to say this time it's different, but the industry post 2008 is different than it was prior to that. Why 2008, 2008 is when Delta bought Northwest, and it kicked off a wave of consolidation that has left us with more than 80% of domestic capacity, in the hands of four carriers. Those carriers are big enough and well-managed enough to survive cycles. It's still a cyclical industry. There are still haves and have nots. For me, Delta and United are running so far ahead of American and Southwest, and the smaller companies are still dangerous in the cycle. But the difference is, is that whether or not whether or not they can thrive in a downturn, they can survive a downturn, which is a very different industry than it had been.

Matt Frankel: I agree that the consolidation we've seen makes the airlines more able to survive cycles and remain profitable or at least not suffer devastating losses when cycles turn. Lou mentioned this earlier. Airlines have done a much better job just in general, across the four major airlines that Lou just mentioned of better monetizing their product. Example, with first class seats, it used to be you either paid $2,000 for a first class seat or $400 for a coach seat, and they gave the unsold first class seats away to their loyalty members. Now they're doing upsell offers throughout the industry and getting people to pay for what they used to give away for free. Delta specifically cited strength in its premium cabin as one of the reasons for its strong guidance. You'll still never find an airline stock in my portfolio. I'll never say never, but at least not in the immediate future. I know Tyler, your Mexican airports might count, but it's a more solid industry as a whole than it was a couple of decades ago, for sure.

Tyler Crowe: All I'm going to say is airports and airlines, two very different business lines. We could go down a deep rabbit hole there, perhaps for another time. After the break, we're going to talk about the blurred lines of Fintech.

ADVERTISEMENT: When Johan Rah received the letter on Christmas Day, 17 76, he put it away to read later. Maybe he thought it was a season's greeting and wanted to save it for the fireside. But what it actually was, was a warning delivered to the Hessian colonel, letting him know that General George Washington was crossing the Delaware and would soon attack his forces. The next day when Raw lost the battle of Trenton and died from two colonial boxing day musket balls, the letter was found unopened in his vest pocket. As someone with 15,000 unread emails in his inbox, I feel like there's a lesson there. Well, this is the constant, a history of getting things wrong. I'm Mark Chrysler. Every episode, we look at the bad ideas, mistakes, and accidents that misshaped our world. Find us at constant podcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Tyler Crowe: Mastercard announced earlier today that it was acquiring a UK stable coin company, BVNK. I think it's just the acronym. I hope it's not bunk or something like that. The deal is for about $1.8 billion, and this is an effort for Mastercard to bring crypto and stablecoin-based payments into the Mastercard infrastructure, of payments. Now, this is the second largest announcement that Mastercard has made in the past month in relation to Crypto and stable coin-based companies and giving them access to Mastercard payment rails and trying to, I guess you could say bring Mastercard into the fold with digital currencies, tokenization and all these other things. What are you guys thinking about when you saw this as, like, your knee jerk reactions?

Lou Whiteman: I wasn't surprised to see BVNK get scooped up. Coinbase had been pursuing an acquisition of the company last year for $2 billion, but it was called off toward the end of 2025. The company, they process over $30 billion of stable coin transactions annually already. They have an impressive clientele. For example, they're the ones who power the stable coin payments for world pay. They have a relationship with Visa through Visa Direct. It's interesting you mentioned bringing stable coins into Mastercard's payment rails BVNK is the payment rails for the stablecoin industry in a way.This gets Mastercard that established stablecoin infrastructure, not just the coins themselves, but it's the infrastructure that would take years and billions of dollars to replicate on its own. There's somewhat of a race to control the enterprise stablecoin infrastructure end of the market. Stripe acquired a major stablecoin infrastructure company for $1 billion last year, for example, I mean, this move it helps ensure that Mastercard won't get left behind.

Tyler Crowe: The deal itself, perhaps I'm again, I'm the most cynical person as a Podcast host talking about investing or skeptical, whatever word you want to use here. To me, this wasn't the most noteworthy thing, $1.8 billion. Mastercard can pull that out of its couch cushions to make that sort of acquisition. This isn't like some groundbreaking thing for a company this size. What I want to focus on here, though, because it does set the stage for a story, a narrative that's been going on in the markets that I want to explore a little bit more. That's this convergence of the old garden finance and these payments and fintech companies, and they're all starting to blend into each other into a broader ecosystem of payments, where they're much more direct competitors with each other, rather than having this very separate place of Fintech is over here and the Visa and Mastercards of the world are over there. As Fintech companies mature, they're looking more and more like the old guard. For example, Matt, I think a couple of weeks ago, you've highlighted how By now petty later companies are getting into what looks like more conventional loan products. We've also seen lending platforms like SoFi become more and more like banks, and most stable coin companies now look like narrow banks with the way that they take deposits, give you a token, which has no deposit yield or anything like that. But then all of a sudden is, paying they're getting the net interest spread from basically buying treasuries with that. This particular news story about Mastercard, I feel like flips that idea on its head where now we're taking the old guard and they are going toward the Fintech side. This leads me to an interesting question, and I don't know how to answer it, but I'd love to get your thoughts. If all these companies are converging into direct competition with each other, does it make them less attractive or more attractive? Like, Fintech are leaning into proven business models, but now it's got to carve up a pie among more competitors. Similarly, companies like Mastercard might find new legs of growth. But they'll likely have to spend a lot to make them competitive in these spaces. Lou, I'll start with you. Where do you fall in the spectrum?

Lou Whiteman: I would take a step back and say, if we're surprised we shouldn't be. As investors, we should learn a lesson here. The age old story of innovation and financial services, is that the innovation just gets swallowed up into the incumbents. We have gone from Blockchain wiping out Mastercard to now Mastercard using Blockchain to grow more efficient. This has happened over and over again. Just look at what Discover tried to be when it was launched versus what Discover was, by the time it went from disrupting credit cards to being one of the credit card companies. I think investors should keep this arc in mind as they're bidding up shares of Fintech darlings based on new paradigms and innovation. The nature of this industry is the house almost always wins. I think that yes, it's a rising tide for all boats, but I think, those that are overvalued, I think that the market might be putting too much stock into the idea that innovation can really change the rules. Inevitably, it is the Mastercards of the world that tend to benefit over time.

Matt Frankel: Going to push back a little bit, and I have a feeling there might be a follow up question coming after I do this. I agree with what Lou said, the newer Fintechs and legacy companies, they're definitely moving toward similar models with a lot of the newer tech being swallowed up by the legacy companies. I mean, it's not unique to the financial industry, by the way. That's just generally what happens with innovation. With companies like SoFi, which Tyler mentioned, yet, they're becoming more like traditional banks. In the sense that they're expanding the amount of products they offer. They want to do everything a traditional bank does. That's been by design for several years now. The difference is that the newer banks are going to have the goal is that they'll have a lower ongoing cost structure that companies like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, won't be able to match. I know that's not the case right now, but Mastercard is a bit of a different situation. They're adapting to the most efficient and modern ways of moving money around the world. When you think of what MasterCard, just how you used a Mastercard product, ten, 15 years ago is a lot different than you use a Mastercard product today. There wasn't a chip in my card. You didn't have things like that. Nearfeld payments are they embraced that. They're doing it in the most efficient way possible, which is an acquisition through instead of trying to build that themselves, which, like I said, would take billions of dollars and years of their time.

Tyler Crowe: You said that the legacy banks, the Bank of America, they'll never be able to match it. One of the things I keep thinking about when I hear this is a lot of these newer banks, SoFi Snowball of the world companies like that, they are going very hard into the consumer product. It's a lot of, personal lending and things like that. Which is fine, and you could argue that they have a slightly better cost structure there. But I look at a JPMorgan or a Bank of America. They are so much more than just consumers. It's, wealth management, it's commercial lending, a lot of much bigger things in trading and derivative option derivative trading and things like that that clearly SoFi isn't into. I'm curious if you think that SoFi, with the way that they've set up their business, would be able to translate that type of as you said, ongoing cost structure benefits that the big banks have in these other areas.

Matt Frankel: You mentioned things like investment banking and trading and things like that, and I hope they don't try to compete with, like, the Goldman Sachs of the world on trading and derivatives and things like that. When it comes to wealth management, they absolutely could I can see a future where they have a better cost structure than the incumbents. They don't have offices. They don't have, some of the top producers at, Goldman and JPMorgan Chase have multimillion dollar salaries, and there's a lot to be said about that. But no, I mean, the incumbents are going to control the business banking space, the investment banking space for for the foreseeable future. I don't see in ten years, SoFi being the next great Goldman Sachs, if that's where you're going for. But I do see them, building out their cost structure, lowering their acquisition costs, continuing to expand in the wealth management arena, and being more of a, not quite a JPMorgan Chase, but getting closer to that model.

Lou Whiteman: Tyler, to your point, and maybe I'm overstating it, but it is funny that, like, seemingly, two of these things that we believe are true can't be true together, that just that the SoFi the new generation of banks are just so much better, the strategy is so much better. Yet we think the world of Jamie Diamond and the management of everyone, JPMorgan, they're not run by idiots. Bank of America aren't run by idiots. Branch they are keeping their branches for a good reason. I think that's the point you're trying to make. Now, look, branches are down the number of nationwide branch is down 15-20% just in the last 10 years, so they are making it more efficient. But from business banking, wealth management, all of these areas where you tend to get an advantage to having someone across the table versus just on the Internet. Look, those are the things that really, really drive profitability. Consumer is a tough business, and not that these big banks are just dumping consumer. They want the consumer. They want the deposits. But we focus so much on the consumer, and it's such a small part of the industry. Again, my bet is the house wins. Let's finish up here. Is it looking across the world of payments, financial companies, this place where they're all starting to converge into one competitive space. What are some of the companies that you're looking at that seem pretty attractive today? Matt, we'll start with you.

Matt Frankel: Well, I mean, I don't want to help make Lou's point here, but, I mean, online banking has been around since the 90s, and how much bigger have the Bank of America's and JPMorgan's or the world gotten since then? I mean, there's a fair point to be made there. Now, Mastercard, since we already talked about it, it's not a cheap stock. I can never remember a time when I considered Mastercard to be a cheap stock. But I feel like the moves like this, being generally more proactive than its chief rival Visa, when it comes to embracing newer technologies makes it a little more appealing to me. After the recent turbulence from the oil and general uncertainty in the world, several major payments in financial stocks have become more attractive. SoFi is still my highest conviction name in the industry. I think even Lou might agree that SoFi is being valued more like a bank now. It trades for a lower price to book multiple than JPMorgan Chase, which isn't growing at 35% year over year. Beyond SoFi, I'd say Amex is another one that stands out to me as a way to buy an industry's best. They're the shining star of the credit card industry after more than a 20% decline.

Lou Whiteman: Definitely, SoFi has come back to reality. I don't know if I'm personally buying in on the hope that they once again separate from reality.

Matt Frankel: I guess, what should I say? But, look, I see better bargains out there today in the super regionals, not the biggest banks, but you can buy truest and regions, and even PNC, probably the gold standard of these, like, just below the biggest banks, at valuations at half of what SoFi is still trading at, you also get dividend yields into 3% to 5% as a bonus, which you don't get from Fintech. Given the macro uncertainty, I don't think that this investment's going to pay off immediately, but I think as a long-term hold, that tier of banks is where I really find value.

Tyler Crowe: Coming up after the break, we're going to go through a lightning round of stories that are on our radar we're still pretty early in the week, and there's, pulling on threads as investors and watching stories to change and shape how we think about markets investing, things like that. We wanted to do this as a quick, like, three story wrap up of what we're seeing in the markets, things that are peaking our interest. Lou, you drew the sch short straw, so you get to go first this week.

Lou Whiteman: Guys, I'm really watching this SEC proposal to make quarterly earnings reports optional. I'll be honest, I don't know what to think. In one sense, we're all better off focusing on the long-term. I'm pretty sure ssing over these quarterly numbers makes us all dumber as investors. But that said, I believe in transparency, and I'm naive enough to think that as the owner of the business, I should get regular updates on to how the business is doing. I fear it's going to be the least trustworthy customers businesses that really lean into this and disclose less. Finally, guys, the market short term mindset does create post earnings buying opportunities. I bought a company today that I think, the market overreacted to a bad report. In a perfect world, I'd like to continue to get quarterly updates, but just not dwell on them. That obviously isn't going to happen. I'm curious to see how this plays out, what the actual rule looks like if and when it happens and how we as investors and companies adapt and evolve should this all change.

Tyler Crowe: I think, a couple of months ago, we also discussed this story, and it is interesting to see how it's devolving or evolving into actual policy these days. Matt, what have you got?

Matt Frankel: No, I mean, I was going to also say that it's been done elsewhere in the world. I mean, in a lot of parts of Europe, you don't have to report quarterly. That's why one of my favorite fin techs to watch Adian they issue semi annual reports. But the story I'm watching has to do with the AI trade, and it takes some really big numbers to surprise me these days when you're talking about AI investment, when you get the Metas and Amazons of the world, saying they're going to invest $200 billion this year on infrastructure. But Jensen Huang managed to do it yesterday. At the company's annual conference, he revealed the company's new flagship, Data Center product, announced a few new partnerships, announced that they were expanding their autonomous driving chip business and a few other things. But what really, like, stopped me in my tracks was when he said, the company expects to sell $1 trillion, of its Blackwell and Ruben chips by the end of 2027. Now, NVDIA has $216 billion of trailing 12 month revenue previously guided for hitting a $500 billion milestone by the end of this year. But if it can achieve that $1 trillion figure while maintaining its margins, which is a big if, as we've discussed on other shows, they could do the unthinkable and make a $4.5 trillion company seem undervalued.

Tyler Crowe: I'm having a hard time finding the words how to react to numbers that large. It follows into the story I've been thinking about, too, which is AI infrastructure. Obviously, NVIDIA is a big part of that story, but, running into the bottlenecks that it is as we try to transition these big dollar numbers into actual physical reality, and we've talked about, circuit breakers and HR companies and things like that. But one of the interesting ones I saw on the Financial Times recently was another bottleneck is insurance. This was the thing that stood out to me in the whole thing. It's like, we're talking about Meda's Hyperion campus that it just built down in Louisiana. It cost him about $30 billion, and it took about $4 billion worth of coverage to get the insurance adequate for this particular facility. This is what I find fascinating because what the story is going is it's getting harder and harder to find insurance for these massive data center projects. It's may be less of a problem for the Amazons and the Alphabets of the world because they are self insuring to a certain degree. They've got mountains of cash, and they're like, look, it's probably better that we just self insure. For the smaller companies and lenders and private equity private capital out there trying to bootstrap their way into data centers, they're finding there isn't enough insurance companies that can carry this insurance and don't have the capacity to underwrite a premium of this size. Writing a factory for several hundred million dollars or maybe 1 billion is one thing when it comes to, like, excess and surplus insurance. But a $30 billion facility is right in the middle of prime Hurricane country for Meta, there aren't a lot of independent insurers that can incur these losses, even with, reinsurance going onto. This could be a big thing, or maybe not. My gut reaction is eventually somebody's going to figure it out because we always tend to figure these things out, and nothing the finance industry loves more than creative financial instruments to make something happen. But I think this is just going to be another one of those places where the massive dollar figures for A infrastructure are just running up against limitations, and it'll be interesting to see how this rectifies itself in the next couple of months.

As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards, and it's not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. Thanks to our producer Dan Boyd and the rest of the Motley Fool. For Matt, Lou, and myself, thanks for listening, and we'll chat again soon.

JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Lou Whiteman has positions in PNC Financial Services. Matt Frankel, CFP has positions in Amazon, Bank of America, Capital One Financial, and SoFi Technologies. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Boeing, JPMorgan Chase, Mastercard, Meta Platforms, Nvidia, and Visa. The Motley Fool recommends Capital One Financial and Delta Air Lines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.