Summarise the article with your AI
Here you can read:
SWIFT or cross border fees may hide costs in FX spreads, correspondent bank fees and intermediary charges. The charge on a payment confirmation typically sits on top of correspondent bank fees, FX spreads, and intermediary costs that can push a cross-border transfer to a significantly higher cost compared to a domestic payment. We outline where those costs hide, what makes one corridor expensive and another efficient, and how treasury teams can calculate their real cross-border payment bill before they send the next supplier invoice.
Domestic transfers are simple, yet the second a payment crosses a border, that changes
When sending money between two UK bank accounts the mechanics are simplified like this: balance check on the account, clearing through Faster Payments or BACS and settlement via the Bank of England's Real-Time Gross Settlement system. It all happens inside one regulatory framework, one currency, and known counterparties.
The second, however, when a payment leaves the UK, there are structural problems: Banks in different countries are not directly linked and the UK's domestic payment infrastructure is not the same as the infrastructure of say Germany, Japan, Brazil or the United States and there is no global equivalent of the BoE’s RTGS that everyone uses. Also, currencies can not simply cross borders: Sterling can not physically move to settle a Euro invoice, so a currency conversion has to happen somewhere in the chain.
These two issues, connectivity and currency, are what the correspondent banking system and SWIFT exist to solve. As the industry saying goes, SWIFT isn't a payment method. It's a messaging system banks use because they don't have a direct line to each other. SWIFT stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, a cooperative in Belgium, and it operates a messaging system banks use to talk to each other. The money itself moves through accounts banks hold with one another, while SWIFT transports the message.
A cross-border payment can take several days and can cost many times more than a domestic one.
How correspondent banking moves money
Without a direct account relationship between the sending bank and the foreign beneficiary's bank, the correspondent banking system bridges the gap. Banks hold so-called nostro accounts (Latin for “our” account at your bank, in your currency) and vostro accounts (Latin for “your” account at our bank, in our currency) across jurisdictions.
These pre-funded accounts, sitting in financial institutions around the world, form the actual infrastructure of international finance.
When a UK business tells its bank to pay a supplier for example in Singapore the bank sends a SWIFT message to its correspondent telling it to debit its nostro account and credit the beneficiary's (vostro) account, or pass the instruction onwards if the vostro account sits with a different interconnected bank.
For major currency pairs such as sterling to US dollar or Sterling to Euro, direct correspondent relationships are common, so the chain across the cross-border payment is short: one (same bank) or two (two different banks) hops. The last step in the destination country is always a credit into the local payment rail using that country's own central bank settlement, which operates as the equivalent of Faster Payments for Sterling.
The FX trade nobody talks about
Banks do not always disclose the spread between the rate they quote and the rate at which they trade. When a business sends an international payment, the institution may quote and may lock a customer-facing FX rate right on the spot. However, banks usually do not execute the wholesale FX trade right then, but rather aggregate the day's customer volume into a larger block trade later, seeking the kind of institutional-scale transaction that gets the tightest spreads in the interbank market, or they offset the balance internally if they have exposure already.
The gap between the customer rate and the wholesale rate is what is called the FX spread and FX-related costs can make up more than half of the total cost paid by end users of retail cross-border payments, according to the International Monetary Fund.
For businesses paying international suppliers or running payroll abroad, it matters. A treasury team looking at a payment confirmation may see the outgoing amount and a SWIFT or other fee, but not always the embedded FX spread, or the correspondent bank's fee deducted in transit, or the receiving bank's inbound charge.
Why the same payment costs can cost substantially more on one route than another
SWIFT routing is typically utilised when no direct correspondent relationship between the sending and receiving bank exists and the network finds a routing path through whatever intermediaries do exist. Each hop may add its own processing fee, sometimes a separate FX conversion if the currency changes, a possible delay while the bank screens the payment for compliance, and a sometimes float cost because pre-funded accounts at each correspondent need liquidity. The more intermediaries involved in a cross-border transaction, the slower and more expensive it will be.
A payment from a UK bank to a smaller bank in a frontier market might pass through multiple correspondent hops. Each intermediary represents a potential point of failure. Consider a scenario where an invoice settlement gets stuck between the second and third intermediary bank; with no single party able to confirm its exact location in real-time, the corporate treasury team is left facing severe reconciliation risks and supplier friction.
The numbers illustrate this variance clearly. Data from the World Bank's Remittance Prices Worldwide database highlights that average retail and remittance transfer costs hover around 6.36 percent globally as of late 2025. In contrast, estimates from the International Monetary Fund suggest that large-scale wholesale B2B payments cost approximately 0.1 percent, with mid-market retail B2B transfers sitting somewhere in between.
What decides whether a route is fast, slow, cheap or expensive
For any international payment, cost and speed typically depend on four primary variables.
1. The number of correspondent hops needed
This depends on how many direct bilateral banking relationships exist along the corridor. High-volume corridors possess extensive capacity and short chains, whereas peripheral routes need longer chains with more intermediaries.
2. Whether a local payment rail exists in the destination currency
When a local instant payment system is available in the destination country, last-mile delivery is often fast and inexpensive once funds clear the correspondent chain.
3. FX market conditions at the time
The wholesale rate the bank achieves reflects current interbank spreads, central bank rate decisions, geopolitical sentiment, and currency demand.
4. End-to-end tracking
SWIFT's gpi initiative has vastly improved transparency. The majority of payments on the network now reach the beneficiary bank within hours. However, reaching the beneficiary bank is not identical to crediting the end account. The final mile, governed by domestic infrastructure and local operating hours, is where delays frequently occur.
A framework for reviewing your payment routes
Treasury teams trying to cut international payment execution costs can use a corridor-by-corridor review that answers four questions:
Is there a direct correspondent relationship, or a local rail available in the destination currency? If neither exists, expect multiple hops and price accordingly.
How many intermediaries does this route need? For obscure corridors, businesses should ask their bank for the typical routing path.
What is the quoted FX rate against the mid-market benchmark at the time of quoting? The spread between the locked rate and the wholesale mid-market rate is the true conversion cost.
What is the cost and speed trade-off for this payment's urgency? Some corridors offer near-instant delivery via linked fast payment systems. Others are still batched and settlement-day dependent. Structured approval workflows help treasury teams flag high-cost corridors before payment execution, not after reconciliation.
Modern treasury management platforms let finance teams see across every bank relationship and payment channel, so they can model real SWIFT payment costs by corridor before the invoice goes out, not discover them at reconciliation.
As more infrastructure moves to local-rail and API-based models, treasury teams that map their international payment routes first are the ones who can make informed, strategic switches.
