The Real Cost of International Wires

Ask a CFO what it costs to send an international wire, and they will usually quote you a number between $25 and $50. That is the fee their bank charges to initiate the transfer. It is also, at best, about a third of the actual cost.

The rest is buried in places that do not show up on any single line item: exchange rate markups baked into the conversion, correspondent bank fees deducted from the transfer mid-flight, and the working capital locked up while the payment crawls through a multi-day settlement chain. These costs are real, they are recurring, and for companies that move money across borders regularly, they compound into something far larger than most finance teams realize.

The Fee You See: Bank Wire Charges

The visible fee is the simplest piece. When a U.S. company sends an international wire through its bank, the sending bank charges somewhere between $25 and $50, based on published fee schedules from NerdWallet and Bankrate. Some banks charge flat rates; others vary by destination country or currency.

The receiving bank typically charges its own fee as well, usually between $10 and $20. These fees are straightforward and disclosed upfront. They are also the smallest component of total cost.

Where it gets opaque is in the middle.

Correspondent Fees: The Toll Booths You Cannot See

Most international wires do not travel directly from Bank A to Bank B. They pass through intermediary banks (correspondents) that have the right relationships and accounts to route the payment to its destination. Each correspondent in the chain is entitled to deduct a fee from the transfer.

A wire from the United States to a bank in West Africa might touch three or four intermediaries: a New York money-center bank, a European correspondent, a regional African correspondent, and then the beneficiary’s bank. Each hop can deduct $10 to $30 or more. The sender does not know in advance how many correspondents the payment will pass through or what each one will charge.

This is the system’s dirty secret: the fee is variable, unpredictable, and deducted from the payment amount itself. The beneficiary receives less than what was sent, and neither party knows exactly how much will be taken until after the payment arrives.

SWIFT’s charge-bearer codes attempt to address this. Under “OUR” pricing, the sender agrees to cover all fees, but even then, the sending bank often cannot guarantee the total because it does not control what downstream correspondents will charge. Under “SHA” (shared) pricing, costs are split unpredictably between sender and receiver.

The FX Spread: Where the Real Money Is Made

For any wire that involves a currency conversion (which is most international wires), the exchange rate markup is almost always the single largest cost component. And it is the one least likely to be disclosed clearly.

When a bank converts currency for a wire transfer, it does not use the mid-market rate (the rate you see on Google or Reuters). It applies a markup, typically ranging from 0.5% to 3% depending on the currency pair, the bank, and the client relationship. On a $100,000 transfer, a 1.5% FX markup costs $1,500. That dwarfs the $40 wire fee.

The markup is embedded in the exchange rate itself, invisible as a separate line item. The bank offers a rate; the client accepts or rejects it. Most clients do not have the tools or the time to compare the offered rate against the real-time mid-market rate, so the markup goes unexamined.

For companies making dozens or hundreds of international payments per month, these markups accumulate quietly. A mid-size company sending $5 million per month across borders at a 1.5% average FX spread is paying $75,000 monthly in conversion costs alone, or $900,000 a year. That is a line item most finance teams have never isolated.

Trapped Capital: The Cost Nobody Invoices

The most under appreciated cost of cross-border wires never appears on an invoice. It is the cost of capital sitting in transit.

International wire transfers typically take two to five business days to settle, though some corridors and some circumstances push that longer. During that time, the sender’s account has been debited but the beneficiary has not been credited. The money is in the banking system, moving through correspondent chains, sitting in processing queues, waiting for cut-off times and compliance reviews.

For the sender, those funds are unavailable. They cannot be redeployed for payroll, inventory, or other obligations. For the beneficiary (particularly a supplier waiting on payment to release goods), the delay has its own cascade of costs. Port storage charges accumulate. Production timelines slip. Working capital gaps widen.

Then there are nostro balances: the pre-funded accounts that correspondent banks maintain with each other to process payments in foreign currencies. A major bank might hold billions of dollars in nostro accounts across dozens of currency pairs, just to keep the plumbing running. That capital earns minimal return and exists purely as a cost of participation in the correspondent banking system.

Individual companies do not see nostro costs directly, but they pay for them indirectly through wider FX spreads and higher service fees. The system’s liquidity overhead is passed along.

Adding It Up: A Realistic Cost Picture

Take a concrete example. A U.S. company sends a $200,000 payment to a supplier in the Philippines. Here is what the actual cost structure might look like:

• Sending bank wire fee: $45
• Receiving bank fee: $15
• Correspondent bank fees (2 intermediaries): $50
• FX markup (1.2% on USD/PHP conversion): $2,400
• Opportunity cost of capital in transit (4 days at 5% annual rate): ~$110

Total actual cost: roughly $2,620, or about 1.3% of the transfer amount. The bank’s quoted wire fee ($45) represents less than 2% of the real cost. Scale that to a company making 50 similar payments per month and the annual cost approaches $1.6 million. Most of it invisible on any single invoice or bank statement.

Why These Costs Persist

This is a structural feature of the correspondent banking model. Each bank in the chain is a separate business, operating under its own regulatory regime, maintaining its own compliance infrastructure, and pricing its services to cover its own costs and margin.

There is no single party with visibility into the total cost of a payment end-to-end. The sending bank does not know what the correspondent will charge. The correspondent does not know the receiving bank’s fee. And the FX conversion happens at whatever rate the converting institution offers, without a standardized benchmark that both parties can reference in real time.

Competition has compressed these costs at the margins. Fintech entrants like Wise have pushed for transparency on FX markups for retail and SMB transfers. But for enterprise B2B payments (particularly in less liquid currency corridors or for larger transaction sizes), the legacy cost structure remains largely intact.

What Would a Better Model Look Like?

Any approach that genuinely reduces cross-border payment costs needs to address all three components, not just the wire fee.

On fees: fewer intermediaries in the chain means fewer toll booths. A payment model that compresses the correspondent chain (or bypasses it entirely for the cross-border leg) structurally reduces the fee stack.

On FX: transparent, competitive pricing at the point of conversion matters more than the conversion mechanism. Whether the conversion happens at a bank, an exchange, or a licensed on-ramp/off-ramp provider, the question is whether the rate is competitive and visible.

On capital efficiency: faster settlement means less capital trapped in transit. A payment that settles in minutes instead of days frees up working capital for both sender and receiver. And a model that reduces reliance on pre-funded nostro accounts across dozens of currency pairs releases capital that can be deployed more productively.

Stablecoin-based settlement rails are one approach that touches all three components. By settling the cross-border leg on a blockchain network that operates around the clock, with licensed on-ramp and off-ramp providers handling fiat conversion at each end, the model compresses intermediaries, enables near-real-time FX pricing, and shortens the settlement window from days to minutes. But it introduces its own cost considerations: on-ramp and off-ramp fees, blockchain network fees, and the operational costs of managing stablecoin treasury positions.

The right comparison is total cost of ownership for the legacy model versus total cost of ownership for the alternative, across every component: explicit fees, FX conversion, capital efficiency, and operational overhead.

What Finance Teams Should Do Now

Whether or not your company is evaluating alternative payment rails, the first step is the same: understand what you are actually paying.

• Isolate your FX costs. Compare the rates you receive from your bank against the mid-market rate at the time of conversion. Track the spread over time and across currency pairs.
• Track total landed cost per payment. Include sending fees, correspondent fees (visible as deductions from the received amount), FX spread, and estimated capital cost of settlement delays.
• Benchmark by corridor. Costs vary enormously by currency pair and destination country. A payment to the UK costs a fraction of a payment to Nigeria. Know which corridors are expensive and why.
• Ask your bank for a fee breakdown. Specifically request transparency on intermediary fees and FX markup methodology. The answers (or the reluctance to provide them) are informative.

Cross-border payments will always have costs. Geography, regulation, and currency conversion are not free. But the gap between what companies think they are paying and what they are actually paying remains large. Closing that gap is the starting point for any meaningful improvement.

‍