Klarna filed for a US bank charter to end its WebBank dependence. Nubank is pushing for one too. Both are expensive, multi-year undertakings — and the Federal Reserve has just proposed something that looks like a shortcut. It is not one. The Fed’s “payment account” gives non-banks a direct line into the payment rails while withholding almost everything else a charter provides, and the comment period closes on July 27, 2026.
The Federal Reserve Board published its formal proposal in May 2026, building on the “skinny” master account concept introduced by Governor Christopher J. Waller in October 2025. A payment account is a special-purpose Reserve Bank account for clearing and settling the holder’s own payment activity — nothing more (ABA Banking Journal, May 20, 2026).
What the account grants, and what it withholds
Holders would reach the Fedwire Funds Service, the FedNow Service, the National Settlement Service (NSS), and the Fedwire Securities Service for free-of-payment transfers only. That is genuine, direct access to US settlement infrastructure without a sponsor bank in the middle.
The exclusions define the product. Services lacking automated rejection of daylight overdrafts are out: FedACH, Check Services, FedCash, and transfer-against-payment on Fedwire Securities. Holders get no intraday credit and no discount-window access, and earn no interest on Reserve Bank balances. They must supply Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering (BSA/AML) compliance and sanctions documentation (Mayer Brown).
Why this does not replace a charter
The two restrictions that matter most are commercial, not technical. A payment account cannot be used for correspondent banking, and it cannot settle transactions for respondent institutions. That removes banking-as-a-service economics entirely — a fintech cannot use a payment account to sponsor other fintechs, which is precisely the business WebBank and its peers built.
No FedACH is the second constraint. ACH remains the workhorse for payroll, direct debit and account funding in the United States. A fintech reaching FedNow and Fedwire but not ACH still needs a bank relationship for a large share of ordinary volume.
So the calculus for Klarna’s charter filing does not change. A charter brings deposit-taking, interest on balances, discount-window access and the ability to sponsor others. A payment account brings settlement access and removes a middleman’s markup on that one function. They are different products aimed at different problems, and the coverage framing this as a fintech “fast track” overstates the substitution.
The dissent, and the political exposure
The Board approved the proposal 6-1. Governor Michael Barr dissented, saying he could not support it “because it does not provide sufficiently specific and robust safeguards to protect against the accounts being used for money laundering and terrorist financing by institutions we do not supervise” (ABA Banking Journal).
That objection has proved durable. The proposal has drawn congressional criticism over surveillance and oversight risk, and industry comment has been mixed rather than celebratory (Payments Dive). The supervisory gap Barr names is structural: the Fed would be granting settlement access to entities it does not prudentially supervise, relying on documentation rather than examination.
The Fed has also encouraged Reserve Banks to pause Tier 3 access requests while the proposal is pending, which means the immediate effect has been to slow access decisions rather than accelerate them.
What to watch after July 27
The 60-day comment window closes on July 27, 2026, and the composition of the response file is the thing to read. If incumbent banks argue the account is too permissive while fintechs argue it is too narrow, the Fed lands in the usual middle and the final rule looks much like the proposal.
The more informative outcome would be fintechs declining to engage — a signal the product is too restricted to be worth the compliance overhead. Firms already deep into charter applications, including Nubank with its US charter push, have little reason to redirect. Watch too whether payment-infrastructure owners reprice: a credible direct-access route pressures the sponsor-bank margin, which is the same pressure visible in Mastercard’s exploration of a Vocalink majority sale.
Barr’s dissent is the live risk to the timetable. A final rule that adds the safeguards he wants would raise the documentation burden and narrow the eligible pool further — turning a fast track into a slower one with a smaller gate.
Rick Steves
Rick Steves has seen business and economics through many lenses. He joined the financial services industry in 2009, and has been a financial journalist since 2011. He holds a degree in Business Administration and has experience producing real-time news, from both buy-side and sell-side, as well as for retail traders, brokers and service providers. Steves' work has appeared in a variety of online publications including FX Street, NewsBTC, FinanceFeeds, and The Industry Spread. Rick has great interest in the dynamics of the trading industry. The never-ending clash between technology, economics, regulation, and more importantly, the people.
