I often get this question – are new (or not new) entrants to the person-to-person payments scene (such as Paypal or the emerging mobile phone payment schemes) a threat to the banks?
My opinion is yes – they are. And I was looking for a way illustrate easily and clearly why I think it is so.
That’s why I imagined the following experiment.
I have a bank account in the USA. Recently I wired some money to an account in a bank here in Belgium. The sending bank (which shall remain un-named for the rest of this story) charged me $40 for this. It’s a flat fee, not dependent on the wired amount. I know what SWIFT charges for a message (a tiny fraction of this amount), so you can understand I find this amount … outrageous. BTW, the whole process takes 3-4 business days and there’s no information at all as to its status and progress. Also, the FX rate that was used was far from the best.
There must be a better way. So the experiment is: use alternative payment options to reduce the transfer fees, and find the best FX rate.
The goals of the experiment are – prove my point that new payment entrants are disruptive to the banks, and also more practically to find a better solution for transferring my hard earned cash
Chapter 1 – Paypal
I have a paypal account in the USA, linked to the above mentioned bank account in the USA. I have just created another BE based Paypal account.
Here’s how I imagined this -
Step 1 – I’ll transfer money from my USA bank account to my US Paypal account. There’s no information on paypal.com as to the charges for this. The worst case is that this be considered by my USA bank as a domestic transfer, for which they charge $20 (yeah, yeah, another outrageous fee). Paypal says this process should take 3 business days.
Step 2 – I’ll send the money from my USA Paypal to my BE Paypal account. This should be instantaneous. Reading the Paypal site it is not clear at all as to what the charges will be.
Step 3 – I’ll then transfer the money from my BE Paypal to my BE bank account. Paypal says there are no charges for this, and it should take 3 business days.
Net effect – it may take longer (up to 6 business days) but I hope to save 50% of the charges or more.
Here’s what happened -
Step 1 – I figured very quickly step 1 is not required. I can just go ahead and send money directly from paypal.com, as my US bank account is linked to the Paypal one – so Paypal directly debits my bank.
Step 2 – I login to my US Paypal account, and use the “Send Money” option. I enter my BE Paypal email as the recipient, enter the amount, choose the “Personal” option, click in the “payment owed”. Then there is the question of whether I want to send US dollars or Euros. Paypal helpfully provides a currency converter. I compare this to the exchange rate on my bank’s US site – the Paypal rate is marginally better so I tell to Paypal to convert and send Euros.
Fees pertaining to this step:
- from my US bank to Paypal US: 0
- from my Paypal US to my Paypal BE: 0.5% of the amount transferred. I simulated several amounts, and it seems this fee applies to amounts below $5,000. Above that, they apply other much higher fees, I don’t really understand how they are computed. But I rarely transfer above $5,000, so fine for now. And I’m really happy with the 0,5% fee, much lower from the flat bank fee of $40 (as long of course as I transfer below $8,000 or, more precisely $5,000 where another fee structure kicks in)
Time elapsed so far: minutes. The amount appears in my BE Paypal immediately.
Step 3 – I login to my BE Paypal account. As it is linked to my BE bank account, I can select “Whitdraw” tab, “Transfer to bank account” option. Enter the amount, click a couple times, easy enough.
Fee for this step: 0
Time elapsed for this step: 3 business days.
Interesting post experiment note -
Two days after I started this experiment, I got a call from Paypal on my BE mobile phone (which I have entered when I created my BE Paypal account). They were calling because they have noticed the unusual international transfer activity, and were curious if this would be a repeating pattern in the future. I told them yes. Was impressed by the very pro-active support call.
Conclusions and questions of chapter 1
For transferring money, Paypal is better than an international bank wire as long as you transfer under $5,000. The FX rate is very similar.
I wonder -
- where does the “magical” $40 bank flat fee come from? Is it something the bank uses to incentivize their customers to use it only for larger amount transfers? If so, why?
BTW, domestic wires in that same US bank are charged $20 flat. - what is the fee structure of Paypal for larger transfers ($5,000) – their site is not clear about it.
Conclusions on the experiment so far
The point of this experiment is to show that -
a. banks charge outrageous fees for international transfers, in a very opaque process.
b. the new entrants are sort of not attacking (yet) on this business, but you can use them, with a little creativity, to improve it.
c. imagine what’s going to happen when the new entrants start to actually focus on international transfers……..
But – you know the eternal optimist that I am
– I think that there’s a way for banks to embrace this rather than fight it. This was one of the conclusions of the Innotribe@Mumbai event. But before that, banks and all of us need to understand exactly what’s happening.
Next steps
I want to use some mobile payments schemes – suggestions welcome. Also at Sibos I got to know some other interesting possibilities and companies (such as Tranferwise), that would perhaps get me a better FX rate.
Stay tuned.
Sorry for the long post, hope it was good reading
Anony Mouse
September 26, 2011 at 07:47
Normally you don’t have the same party on both sides of a transfer. The problem with the use of PayPal is the possibility of getting a chargeback — hours, days or weeks after you’ve received funds and shipped the product.
Tom Rundle (@tumbletom)
September 27, 2011 at 16:36
… the new entrants are sort of not attacking (yet) on this business …
This is true in the US, but not elsewhere. There are many online international payments services in the UK (where Transferwise operates) and my company OzForex (being transparent: I head up the Canadian arm) was founded in 1998 to do exactly this in 1998.
We operate exactly the model you outline above but with a minimum transaction size of $2000. Our fees are lower than PayPal and exchange rate is much better. Below $2000 the difference is marginal which is why we don’t target that space, above $5,000 is not PayPal’s target space and you would be considerably better off using a service like ours.
Similar to your comments about PayPal’s service we use the online space to keep costs low and scalable but believe outstanding customer service is critical to our success – I invite you to try it out for Chapter 2. You will need to be contracted to UKForex as Belgium is in the EEA and falls under the regulatory framework of the UK’s FSA but the model is all the same…
Thanks, Tom
Kosta
September 27, 2011 at 17:56
Thanks Tom for the information and for a suggested Chapter 2 of my experiment
Looks good. Will try it when the time comes for a >$2,000 transfer.
neil burton
December 21, 2011 at 13:00
Kosta, your ‘experiment’ actually happened, or at least a variation on it, earlier this year. At the NACHA conference, the CEO of Bridge Community Bank in Iowa was looking for a service to enable him to make a transfer of $300 to Scotland. He was offered a service much as you describe – $45 fee, 3 to 5 days not sure, and the UK bank may also take a fee, we don’t know whether they will nor how much. Oh and the FX rate will be poor. Unable to find a better service, he resorted to using his personal Paypal account.
The CEO in question is also a NACHA board member and spoke about this experience at the conference; and has separately given me permission to use it openly.
Glenbrook Partners published research this year, phase 1 at NACHA and phase 2 at Sibos, which confirms the gap in the market to which Tom is pointing. at http://www.earthport.com/what-we-think/research/
and to the wider question of threat or opportunity – it depends what business banks are in. If they are in the business of providing a broad range of financial services, then sourcing some of those services from a third party if doing so enables them to serve a wider market – such as midcaps, SMEs and banked overseas workers – makes sense. If they are in the business of building and running everything themselves, then maybe not. But the latter model is, I think, last century.
yobie (@yobie)
March 22, 2012 at 16:04
The more interesting model is SQUARE. Have you tried square? As soon as I get mine, I will post my experience.