/payments

News and resources on payments systems, innovations and initiatives worldwide.

Fintechs demand end to hidden bank fees in international payments

Fifteen of London's biggest fintech companies, including Wise, Revolut and Monzo, have come together to demand an urgent review of legislation regarding hidden bank fees for international payments.

  6 4 comments

Fintechs demand end to hidden bank fees in international payments

Editorial

This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community.

In an open letter to the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, the fifteen signatories claim that consumers and SMEs in the UK lost a total of £5.6 billion in mostly hidden foreign exchange fees in 2022, and current ambiguous legislation allows major providers to keep earning profits through these hidden fees.

"There is widespread practice of firms showing currency conversion services as have ‘zero fees’ or ‘0% commission’," the letter continues. "This is highly misleading when a much larger charge is embedded in the exchange rate, ranging from 2.5% - 3.7% over the mid-market rate for a transfer to EUR or USD with a UK highstreet bank, but this is never communicated to the customer."

The letter urges the Chancellor to address the issue in its ongoing Payment Services Regulation review. The fintechs behind the appeal - which also includes Truelayer, Teya, PayPlan, Seedrs, NCFX, Fairer Finance, Startup Coalition, GoCardless, SumUp, Fire, and Plum - have made a list of five demands:
1. The total cost of currency conversions needs to be shown up front to consumers and SMEs before they make a payment.
2. The legal definition of a ‘currency conversion charge’ should include any mark-up over the mid-market rate.
3. Firms must use an aggregated mid-market rate issued by a neutral provider (e.g. Bloomberg, Refinitiv, New Change FX), which is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as an official mid-market rate provider.
4. These rules need to apply to global currency conversions to support Global Britain, and not just to EU currencies.

The letter also instructs how the Treasury can support the FCA in removing vague wording, and ensuring all companies are clear on the rules they should abide by.

Magali Van Bulck, head of Emea policy at Wise, said: “Hidden fees in foreign transactions simply shouldn’t exist in 2023. Burying additional costs in inflated exchange rates and labelling these as ‘zero fee’ is having a detrimental effect on the finances of people and businesses across the UK. In light of the Consumer Duty coming into force at the end of the month, this is completely unacceptable and a textbook example of how firms are not “providing fair value to customers.”

Sponsored [Webinar] Operational Resilience in the age of DORA

Related Company

Comments: (4)

A Finextra member 

Will the fintech card issuers commit to disclose to their cardholders interchange income per transaction for card payments?

Ketharaman Swaminathan

Ketharaman Swaminathan Founder and CEO at GTM360 Marketing Solutions

Hahaha.

To anyone who has been following fintechs since their inception, this would go down as "WTF News of the Decade".

One of the clarion calls of fintech at its inception was "Kill Bank Fees". Fintechs planned to fulfill this promise by using latest technology, among other things that I highlighted in my post Calling BS Of Bank Fintech Partnership.  

It's surreal to now see the same fintechs complaining about bank fees!!!

Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith Founding CTO at RTGS & ClearBank

The demands are long overdue, with the exception of point 3. Rates are rates, if you offer a poor rate customers wont use you - but that's only possible if rates and fees are fully transparent. That is the issue here.

The other challenge is, for many banks and the way the current outdated model of correspondent banking works, means sometimes the bank (or FinTech) cannot give an accurate price upfront, simply because of the way in which correspondents charge. Still today the result is often the beneficiary not receiving what the sender orignally sent / thought they would receive. This is one of the aspects that I've been working on to address with RTGS.global, ensuring a) correspondent banking model changes to be based around central bank funds, removing friction, risk and cost and b) that the end customer benefits from a transpareent rate and non-deducted fee structure.

Ketharaman Swaminathan

Ketharaman Swaminathan Founder and CEO at GTM360 Marketing Solutions

We've been hearing all this for years with TransferWise, Ripple et al using tech-medidated hawala, opaque cryptocurrency, etc. but, a decade later, we are where we are.

Hope RTGS.global fares better in its pursuit than the others did in theirs.

[New Impact Study] Catering to a new generation through unified card programmesFinextra Promoted[New Impact Study] Catering to a new generation through unified card programmes