Payments Views

B2B Payments

There Is No Such Thing As An International Wire

As globalization increases, businesses of all sizes buy goods and services from overseas suppliers and turn to new customers in overseas markets to drive growth. As a result, the demand for cross-border transactions steadily increases. The vast majority of these transactions takes place through correspondent banking relationships and collectively described as “international wires.” The reality is that there is no such thing as an international wire.

Each country has its own payment systems (with the exception of the EU, but let’s think of them as a country, for these purposes). There are typically two flavors of bank transfers: option one: an ACH or credit transfer system, generally slower and cheaper; and option two: wires, which are faster, typically irrevocable, and more expensive. These payment systems only work within their respective countries. Typically only banks that are licensed and regulated in a country have access to its payment system. Payment system transactions are denominated in the currency of their respective country.

International transactions rely on cooperation between banks in different countries that access the domestic system on either end of the transaction. This cooperation is formalized through a series of bi-lateral correspondent banking relationships. Often smaller banks rely on larger banks in their country to conduct cross-border transactions. The diagram below illustrates how banks rely on one another:


International correspondent banking is, in essence, a giant, decentralized network. Each bank makes a decision as to how it wants to handle cross-border payments for its customers. These decisions can be—and often are—different for paying and receiving funds, and for different countries/currencies, or categories of payments (e.g., B2B payments vs. person-to-person remittances).

Let’s look at a more detailed example (refer to diagram below)

Step 1. A supplier ‘Supra-Hidraulica’ sends its customer ‘Kool Industry’ an invoice for $4,800 and the details of its bank account at Banco Local in Sao Paulo, Brazil (Bank B).

Step 2. Kool Industry banks with ‘So Cal Midtier Bank’ in Los Angeles (Bank A). In order to send $4,800 USD to its supplier in Brazil, someone from Kool Industry’s finance department either goes to one of Bank A’s branch locations and fills out a form or enters payment details in the Bank A’s business version of online banking.

Step 3. So Cal Midtier Bank has chosen a domestic correspondent in New York, Bank C, to handle its payments; it makes a payment to the New York Bank through its US wire transfer system. At this point, the So Cal Midtier Bank is finished!

Step 4. The bank in New York has an arrangement with a fourth bank, Bank D which is a Multinational Bank in Brazil to handle such transactions. Bank C in New York notifies Bank D that it wants a domestic Brazilian wire transfer sent from Bank D to Bank B, to credit Bank B’s customer, Supra-Hidraulica.

Step 5. Bank D effects the transaction and Bank B receives funds—which it credits to its customer’s account.

Glenbrook Correspondent Banking Example

Click to see a larger image

All pretty straightforward—but one piece is still missing. Bank C in New York has the money and Mulitnational Bank D in Brazil has sent it out—how are these positions settled? In this example, as a part of their correspondent banking relationship, Bank C and Bank D have agreed to settle their transactions daily, on a net basis, by making funds available/withdrawing funds from a set of accounts both banks hold with one another.  But there are no rules here: it is entirely up to the business arrangement that the correspondent “pair” has negotiated.  That negotiation, by the way, covers fees, balances, and who-gets-to-do-the-FX as well.

At the end of the day, money doesn’t cross borders. There is no international wire, just a series of domestic transactions.  One bank ends up with more money in its correspondent account: the other bank ends up with less money in its correspondent account.

When considering how this works, keep in mind that each bank is making an independent decision about how to send, receive, and settle payments. The possible combinations and variations are staggering.

From an economic perspective, the bank that performs the currency conversion typically earns the most on any given transaction. In our example the Multinational Bank in Brazil earned $97.30 for performing its part. The other correspondent, Bank B in New York, compensated itself by ‘lifting’ some of the value from the transaction. This practice is called “bene deduct” referring to the fact that the transaction recipient, or beneficiary, experiences a reduction in funds. The correspondent relationship negotiation between Bank A in Los Angeles and Bank B in New York specifies that Bank B share that “bene deduct” revenue, which is does. Both the Buyer and the supplier pay fees to their banks as well.

There are great advantages to users of the current system of international correspondent banking. As virtually all banks participate in some manner, it is global by definition, broadly understood within the banking industry, and comprehensive in its reach.

Such a decentralized, non-standardized approach has inherent problems, however—problems that can cause pain for some corporate and retail customers. Challenges include:

  • No direct relationship with downstream banks. If a problem occurs (for example, a payment is not received or is delayed), the sending company—and its bank—may not be able to trace the transaction quickly or reliably.
  • Cost. With multiple banks involved, each charging a fee and/or taking some share of the foreign exchange revenue, these transactions can be expensive for end users. Often, end users do not know whether costs are also assessed to their counterparties.
  • Limited data transport capabilities. The payment initiator may wish to send information with a transaction; with multiple bank intermediaries involved, it may not be possible to reliably carry that data through to the receiving party.
  • Barriers to change. In a decentralized system, it is relatively difficult to implement change. There is no central authority to mandate or direct new processes. Of course, we should acknowledge that SWIFT does play an important role in enabling change through setting and promoting new standards. But it cannot dictate the terms of correspondent banking relationships—so that there is no uniform way, for example, for a sending bank in one country to change the ways in which payments are made by its correspondents in receiving countries. For example, attempts to migrate more transactions to ACH from wire still demand tedious and laborious point-by-point negotiations and implementation procedures.

I am writing this post on an airplane, en route to Amsterdam for Bitcoin 2014 where I will be exploring alternatives to the complicated, unpredictable and expensive correspondent banking process. If you happen to be in Amsterdam, too, and want to talk cross-border B2B pls reach out via Twitter: @erinmccune

This post was written by Glenbrook’s Erin McCune.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jonathan Lear
8 years ago

Erin – a great summary of the challenges facing correspondent banking today. Correspondent banking still has a large role to play in moving high-value transactions across borders. However, during the last 20 years the world has changed considerably (driven by things like migration; e-commerce; globalisation of trade) such that there is a much higher-volume of smaller value transactions (typically ranged from $1,000 to $20,0000).

The old paradigm of making these payments (i.e. correspondent banking) doesn’t adequately address the need to deliver these payments in a much more cost-effective, efficient and transparent manner as you argue above. Customers (be them individuals, companies, banks themselves or their downstream correspondent clients) are demanding a dramatically improved way to move payments across borders.

A new model (of which Earthport is probably the best known) connects individual low-value domestic clearing schemes (e.g. ACH) onto a single banking-grade processing platform to create a ubiquitous global ACH payments network and therefore facilitate the most efficient, cost effective and transparent way to disburse payments between 60+ countries (and growing). The global ACH network approach overcomes many of the legacy issues associated with correspondent banking: payment delivery is predictable (known value-date); transparent (no deductions because there are no correspondents in the payments chain); and highly robust (since it uses proven in-country clearing infrastructure).

Banks are increasingly seeing global ACH as the preferred method of low-value (sub-$100,000 per transaction) payments disbursement. Some of the world’s largest banks are adopting networks such as Earthport’s (despite having legacy infrastructure which they are heavily invested in) because it offers a rapid route to best meeting the growing and unmet customer need for more efficient cross-border payments.

A great article Erin!

Faisal Khan
8 years ago

Great article.

Henrik Bergström
8 years ago

Thanks for a nice article about a very interesting topic, Erin!

A few questions though:

– How do bank C and D accomplish: “making funds available/withdrawing funds from a set of accounts both banks hold with one another.”? Isn’t an “international wire” needed here or do they send crates of cash to each other? 😉

– Do bank C and D transfer money daily to each other to settle the transactions performed during the day or do they keep a certain amount at each other’s banks and just “top up” regularly?

– What currencies are used for the correspondent accounts? In a Brazil-US relationship I guess USD is used since USD is a “stronger” currency, but what is used in an Brazil-UK relationship? USD again? EUR? GBP?

– Are all/most correspondent accounts denoted in one of the “major currencies”, regardless of which countries are involved? What would be used in a Brazil-Sweden relationship for example, since Sweden has its own currency (SEK) rather than EUR?



David Desharnais
8 years ago


Great post – as usual. Thanks!

According to BCG’s Global Payments Report 2013, B2B cross-border transaction volume lags domestic volumes by nearly 600%, but cross-border is expected to grow at an overall 10% CAGR between now and 2020, with Asia ringing in at 13% and Latin America at a whopping 21%. B2C and Peer to Peer (P2P) are expected to be much higher. As you say, there is really no real “international wire” today, but clearly the demand for payment providers to handle global transactions in a way that is faster, safer, smarter…and with more overall efficiency and transparency (e.g. real-time, cost effective) will be critical factors in a country’s and business’ competitiveness. Are you seeing progress on the US same-day ACH discussions? It seems a long way off. Non-bank providers will likely need to lead the way for the overall industry.