BCG: payment-volume growth is a weaker explanation of value

On 23 September 2026, BCG published a Global Payments Report chapter on the repricing of payment companies. Its analysis puts annual operating-expense growth over the preceding three years at 9%, compared with 7% revenue growth. It also describes lower valuations for many companies relative to historical levels. This is industry research, not an assessment of an individual PSP's solvency.

Why the revenue model matters to merchants

A provider can process more payments while earning less per unit of volume or spending more to serve customers. In that situation, growing throughput does not necessarily create more capacity to improve the product. A commercial discussion becomes more useful when it moves beyond one large volume figure to how the service earns revenue and what it costs to deliver.

Consider an illustrative comparison: two providers offer the same transaction rate. One includes support, reconciliation and certain additional functions; the other charges for them separately. The base fee alone reveals neither the merchant's full cost nor the durability of the supplier's proposition. Differences emerge across actual refunds, disputes, currency conversion and manual exceptions.

A broader product portfolio also has two sides. An additional service can solve a real customer problem and remove work. Bundling can simultaneously make prices harder to compare and switching more complex. A payments team needs to distinguish services with measurable benefits, functions available separately and data that can be retrieved on exit. These are operational implications of the research topic, not allegations about a particular provider.

Industry averages should not be turned into a shortcut list of safe and troubled companies. Providers differ in their markets, borrowing, architecture and product mix. A market valuation does not itself determine the protection of customer funds or the quality of everyday payouts.

The useful framework is to distinguish throughput, income and cost, then connect product promises to actual merchant outcomes. The report is not a trading signal. For a merchant, its practical value is a clearer understanding of what the PSP is being paid to do and how the cost of that service changes as the merchant's own business grows.

What to check in your PSP relationship

Margin pressure, where it affects a specific provider, usually shows up not in headlines but in contracts and invoices: repricing, new paid options, changes to reserve terms or payout timing. A merchant therefore benefits from knowing the full cost of service and its rights when terms change.

• Calculate the effective rate: all fees for a period, including refunds, chargebacks, currency conversion and monthly charges, divided by processed volume.
• Check how and with what notice the provider can change pricing, and whether you can terminate without a penalty.
• Clarify which functions sit in the base package and which could become separately priced services.
• Confirm that transaction data, card tokens and reports can be exported if you move to another provider.
• Keep a technically prepared fallback route, such as a second acquirer or PSP, for critical payment methods.

What to watch next

For PSPs and payment teams, this framing will probably sharpen attention on cost to serve: automation of support, reconciliation and onboarding. Merchants should watch how their provider explains product and price changes, and ask a direct question: what measurable benefit does the new option deliver, and can it be declined? That conversation is more productive than trying to infer a supplier's financial position from industry averages.

Sources: BCG Global Payments Report chapter