Inefficiencies in Traditional Foreign Exchange Systems and the Emergence of Innovative Solutions

Abstract

The traditional foreign exchange (FX) system, deeply rooted in a network of correspondent banking relationships, has long been a nexus of operational inefficiencies. Characterized by sluggish transaction speeds, prohibitive costs, and a pronounced lack of global interoperability, this established infrastructure presents substantial hurdles for both individuals and businesses engaging in cross-border financial activities. This comprehensive research paper undertakes an in-depth analysis of the constituent elements of international money transfers, meticulously examining the foundational role of intermediary banks and intricate correspondent networks. It rigorously explores the multifaceted typical fee structures, the profound impact of inherent currency volatility, and the myriad operational and financial challenges routinely encountered by various economic actors. Through this detailed exposition of systemic inefficiencies, the paper aims to elucidate the compelling value proposition presented by innovative technological paradigms and nascent financial solutions, exemplified by platforms such as Kardden Pay. These emerging entities are specifically engineered to systematically dismantle and resolve the entrenched issues that plague the conventional FX ecosystem, paving the way for a more efficient, transparent, and globally accessible financial landscape.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction: The Global Nexus of Foreign Exchange

The foreign exchange market stands as the undisputed leviathan of global finance, a colossal and exquisitely liquid marketplace where one national currency is exchanged for another. Its sheer scale is staggering, routinely facilitating daily turnovers measured in trillions of U.S. dollars, eclipsing all other financial markets combined (Bank for International Settlements, 2022). The imperative for currency conversion is ubiquitous, driven by an expansive array of economic activities including international trade in goods and services, foreign direct investment, portfolio investments, cross-border remittances, tourism, and intricate risk management strategies. Despite its monumental size and pivotal role in lubricating the wheels of global commerce, the traditional FX system remains encumbered by a legacy of inefficiencies. These systemic shortcomings manifest concretely in protracted transaction settlement times, the imposition of burdensome fees, and a disconcerting paucity of true interoperability across diverse national borders and financial infrastructures. A profound understanding of these inherent challenges is not merely academic; it is unequivocally crucial for appreciating the transformative potential of innovative solutions designed to fundamentally streamline, enhance, and democratise the foreign exchange process. This paper argues that these inefficiencies are not mere inconveniences but represent significant economic drag, hindering global trade, investment, and financial inclusion (International Monetary Fund, 2025).

Historically, the FX market evolved from ancient bartering systems and medieval money changers to the sophisticated electronic networks of today. However, the underlying settlement mechanisms for cross-border payments have remained remarkably resistant to fundamental change, largely relying on the correspondent banking model established centuries ago. This inertia, driven by regulatory complexities, incumbent interests, and the sheer scale of the existing infrastructure, has created a fertile ground for disruption. The advent of modern financial technology, often referred to as fintech, coupled with advancements in distributed ledger technologies (DLT), now offers pathways to address these deeply entrenched problems.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2. The Intricacies of Traditional International Money Transfers

International money transfers are far from simple bilateral exchanges; they are complex, multi-stage processes often traversing several financial institutions and jurisdictional boundaries. The conventional framework typically involves a series of sequential operations, each contributing to the overall time and cost of the transaction:

2.1 Initiation and Information Gathering

The process commences when a sender, an individual or a business, instructs their originating bank to transfer a specified sum of money to a recipient located in a different country. This initial instruction requires a meticulous collection of data, which includes: the precise amount to be transferred, the desired target currency, comprehensive details of the beneficiary (full name, address), and critically, the beneficiary’s banking information (such. as the International Bank Account Number, IBAN, or account number, and the unique Bank Identifier Code, BIC, commonly known as a SWIFT code). Furthermore, many jurisdictions and financial institutions mandate the declaration of the purpose of the payment (e.g., invoice payment, family support, gift) to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regulations (Financial Action Task Force, 2021). Any discrepancy or omission in this initial data can lead to significant delays or even outright rejection of the transfer, necessitating costly investigations.

2.2 Processing, Conversion, and Bank Position Management

Upon initiation, the sender’s bank processes the request. This involves debiting the sender’s account in the domestic currency. Subsequently, the bank’s foreign exchange desk undertakes the conversion of these domestic funds into the desired foreign currency. This conversion is rarely performed at the precise interbank market rate, which is the rate at which large financial institutions trade currencies amongst themselves. Instead, the sender is typically offered a retail exchange rate that incorporates a ‘spread’ or ‘mark-up’ on the interbank rate, representing a profit margin for the bank. Banks actively manage their own FX positions, meaning they balance their holdings of various currencies. If a bank has a surplus of the foreign currency required for the transfer, it might use its own holdings. If not, it will acquire the currency from the interbank market or from a correspondent bank (SmartForex, 2023). This internal processing and currency acquisition adds to the overall operational cost and can introduce micro-delays.

2.3 Settlement through the Correspondent Banking Network

This stage represents the core of the traditional system’s complexity and inefficiency. Once the sender’s bank has processed the funds and converted them, the foreign currency needs to be moved to the recipient’s bank. This transfer rarely occurs directly, especially if the sender’s and recipient’s banks do not maintain direct bilateral relationships, such as holding ‘nostro’ (our account with you) and ‘vostro’ (your account with us) accounts with each other in the respective currencies. Instead, the funds are routed through a network of intermediary banks, known as correspondent banks. These banks act as agents, holding accounts for other banks and facilitating transactions on their behalf (Carnegie Mellon University, 2007).

The communication for these transfers is predominantly facilitated by the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network. SWIFT is a global messaging system that allows banks to send standardized, secure messages and payment instructions to each other. It is critical to understand that SWIFT is a messaging system, not a funds transfer or settlement system. The actual movement of money occurs over various national and international payment rails. A typical cross-border payment might involve a ‘daisy chain’ of several correspondent banks, each receiving the SWIFT instruction, verifying details, updating its own nostro/vostro accounts, and then sending a new instruction to the next correspondent bank in the chain. Each link in this chain adds time, potential for error, and crucially, its own processing fees. The final settlement of the transfer occurs through large-value national payment systems (e.g., Fedwire in the US, TARGET2 in Europe, CHAPS in the UK) or multilateral netting systems like CLS Group (Continuous Linked Settlement), which significantly reduces settlement risk by settling FX transactions on a payment-versus-payment basis (CLS Group, n.d.). However, CLS primarily serves large financial institutions and market makers, and its benefits do not directly translate to the retail cross-border payment experience.

2.4 Receipt and Final Crediting

Finally, the recipient’s bank receives the incoming funds through its correspondent banking relationship. After conducting its own internal compliance checks (again, AML/CTF), it credits the corresponding amount to the beneficiary’s account. This final step may also involve another currency conversion if the recipient’s account is in a different currency than the one received by their bank, leading to additional fees or less favorable exchange rates applied by the recipient’s bank. The entire process, from initiation to receipt, can range from a few hours for intra-region transfers to several business days or even longer for more complex routes, particularly those involving less common currency pairs or less developed financial infrastructures.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3. The Foundational Role and Systemic Challenges of Intermediary Banks and Correspondent Networks

Intermediary banks and the correspondent banking model form the bedrock of the existing global financial architecture for cross-border payments. While historically indispensable, their very structure generates significant systemic challenges that impede the efficiency and equity of international money transfers.

3.1 Historical Necessity and Evolution

The correspondent banking system emerged out of necessity. In a world where direct banking relationships across all possible country pairs were impractical and costly to establish and maintain, banks relied on trusted partners in foreign jurisdictions to process payments, settle transactions, and provide local banking services. This ‘bank-to-bank’ relationship facilitated global trade and finance by extending the reach of domestic banks into international markets. Over time, SWIFT standardized the communication, further enabling this network (Wikipedia, Foreign exchange market, n.d.). However, the model has largely remained unchanged in its fundamental mechanics, despite the rapid advancements in digital communication and payment technologies.

3.2 Economic Implications: Costs and Spreads

The most tangible impact of the correspondent banking network is on transaction costs. Each intermediary bank in the payment chain charges a fee for its services. These charges are multifaceted:

• Direct Transaction Fees: Each correspondent bank may levy a flat fee or a percentage-based fee for processing the instruction and routing the funds.
• Implicit Fees through Spreads: Banks derive significant revenue from the bid-ask spread on currency conversions. When funds pass through multiple banks, each institution may apply its own spread, effectively widening the margin taken from the original interbank rate. This means the beneficiary receives less than what would be expected based on a single market conversion.
• Operational Costs: Maintaining nostro/vostro accounts, managing liquidity in multiple currencies, and complying with diverse regulatory requirements across jurisdictions all incur significant operational costs for correspondent banks, which are ultimately passed on to the end-user (Carnegie Mellon University, 2007).

For small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and individuals, these accumulating costs can be particularly burdensome, eroding profit margins for businesses and reducing the effective value of remittances for migrant workers (Omega, n.d.). The complexity of the fee structure also makes it difficult for senders to accurately predict the final amount a recipient will receive.

3.3 Operational Bottlenecks: Speed and Reliability

The sequential nature of correspondent banking inherently introduces delays. A payment instruction must be processed by one bank before it can be forwarded to the next. This multi-hop process is compounded by several factors:

• Different Operating Hours and Cut-off Times: Banks in different time zones operate at different hours, meaning a payment instruction might sit dormant until the next bank in the chain opens for business.
• Manual Interventions: Despite automation, complex payments, those flagged for compliance checks, or those with incorrect information often require manual review, further extending processing times.
• Reconciliation Challenges: Tracing funds through multiple intermediaries can be complex and time-consuming, especially when discrepancies arise, leading to ‘lost’ or delayed payments that require costly investigations.
• Lack of Real-time Visibility: Senders typically have limited visibility into the real-time status of their international transfers once they leave their originating bank (IMF, 2025).

These delays can disrupt critical business operations, impact supply chains, and create cash flow management challenges for companies reliant on timely international payments.

3.4 Transparency Deficits and Information Asymmetry

A pervasive issue within the traditional FX system is the profound lack of transparency, particularly concerning the true cost of a transaction. Senders are often quoted an initial exchange rate and a direct transaction fee, but they remain largely unaware of the additional fees levied by intermediary banks or the precise exchange rates applied at each conversion point along the chain (Finchtrade, n.d.). This information asymmetry creates a ‘black box’ effect where the end-user cannot fully ascertain the total cost of their transaction until the funds have already reached the beneficiary, often with an amount less than anticipated. This opacity hinders informed decision-making and fosters distrust.

3.5 Compliance Burden and De-risking

The global imperative to combat financial crime, including money laundering and terrorist financing, places significant compliance burdens on all financial institutions. Correspondent banks, being conduits for international funds, face heightened scrutiny and stringent ‘Know Your Customer’ (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) obligations (FATF, 2021). Each correspondent bank in the chain is responsible for performing its due diligence on both the sending and receiving institutions, and in many cases, on the ultimate beneficial owners. The escalating costs and risks associated with this compliance burden have led to a phenomenon known as ‘de-risking,’ where large banks selectively terminate correspondent banking relationships with smaller banks, financial institutions in certain jurisdictions (particularly those deemed high-risk), or entire sectors perceived to carry high compliance risk. While intended to mitigate risk, de-risking can inadvertently lead to financial exclusion, making it exceedingly difficult for legitimate businesses and individuals in certain regions to access vital international payment services, thereby hindering economic development and humanitarian aid efforts (World Bank, 2018).

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Dissecting Traditional FX Fee Structures and Hidden Costs

The total cost of an international money transfer in the traditional system is a complex mosaic of various fees, many of which are not immediately apparent to the sender. Understanding these components is crucial for appreciating the true expense:

4.1 Overt Transaction Fees

These are the most direct and visible charges imposed by the originating bank for initiating the transfer. They can take several forms:

• Fixed Fees: A flat charge applied regardless of the transfer amount, making small transfers disproportionately expensive.
• Percentage-Based Fees: A fee calculated as a percentage of the transfer amount, which can become substantial for larger transactions.
• Tiered Fees: A combination of the above, where fees vary based on specific ranges of the transfer amount.
• SWIFT Message Fees: Some banks itemize a separate charge for sending the SWIFT instruction, reflecting the operational cost of using the global messaging network.

4.2 Implicit Currency Conversion Spreads

Beyond direct transaction fees, a significant portion of the cost is embedded in the currency conversion rate. Banks do not offer the ‘interbank rate’ (the wholesale rate at which banks trade with each other) to retail customers or SMEs. Instead, they apply a retail exchange rate that includes a ‘spread’ – the difference between the ‘bid’ price (what the bank is willing to buy a currency for) and the ‘ask’ price (what the bank is willing to sell it for). This spread is wider for retail customers than for large institutional clients and represents a substantial profit margin for the bank. When multiple intermediary banks are involved, each might apply its own spread during subsequent conversions, compounding this implicit cost (ThePaypers, 2023). This practice effectively means that the amount converted at each stage is slightly less favorable than the market would suggest, leading to a smaller final payout for the recipient.

4.3 Intermediary Bank Charges

These are perhaps the most opaque and frustrating fees for the end-user. As funds traverse the correspondent banking network, each intermediary bank involved in the routing process can deduct its own service fee. The sender often has no prior knowledge of how many intermediary banks will be involved or what their specific charges will be. This means the amount that ultimately reaches the recipient can be significantly less than the amount sent, a discrepancy that is difficult for the sender to predict or dispute. Banks often offer three options for handling these fees, designated by SWIFT message fields:

• ‘OUR’: The sender pays all charges, including those of the sending, intermediary, and recipient banks. This aims to ensure the beneficiary receives the full amount, but the sender’s total cost is higher.
• ‘BEN’: The beneficiary pays all charges. This means all fees are deducted from the principal amount, and the beneficiary receives a net amount.
• ‘SHA’ (Shared): The sender pays their bank’s charges, and the beneficiary pays the intermediary and recipient bank charges. This is a common default option, leading to uncertainty for the beneficiary (SmartForex, 2023).

4.4 Other Potential Charges

In addition to the primary fees, several other charges can arise:

• Recipient Bank Charges: Many recipient banks levy a fee for simply receiving an international wire transfer, further reducing the amount received.
• Investigation and Recall Fees: If a transfer needs to be investigated due to errors, or if a sender requests a recall, banks typically charge substantial fees for these services.
• Amendment Fees: Minor errors in beneficiary details that require an amendment to the payment instruction can also incur charges.
• Inactivity Fees: If a recipient account is dormant, some banks might charge fees before releasing funds.

The cumulative effect of these various, often hidden, charges significantly inflates the actual cost of international money transfers, diminishing the value for both senders and recipients.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5. The Pervasive Influence of Currency Volatility on International Transactions

Currency volatility, defined as the degree of variation in an exchange rate over a period, is an inherent characteristic of floating exchange rate regimes. This volatility introduces a layer of significant unpredictability and risk into international transactions, impacting financial planning, profitability, and investment decisions.

5.1 Definition and Drivers of Volatility

Exchange rates are influenced by a complex interplay of macroeconomic, geopolitical, and market-specific factors (IMF, Economic Issue No. 38, n.d.):

• Interest Rate Differentials: Higher interest rates in a country can attract foreign capital, increasing demand for its currency.
• Inflation Differentials: Countries with persistently higher inflation rates tend to see their currencies depreciate relative to those with lower inflation.
• Economic Performance: Strong GDP growth, low unemployment, and a stable political environment typically support a country’s currency.
• Balance of Payments: A country’s current account balance (trade in goods and services) and capital account balance (investment flows) directly impact currency demand and supply.
• Government Debt and Fiscal Policy: High government debt or unsustainable fiscal policies can erode investor confidence, leading to currency depreciation.
• Geopolitical Events: Wars, political instability, trade disputes, or natural disasters can trigger rapid and significant currency movements as investors react to perceived risk.
• Central Bank Interventions: Central banks may buy or sell their own currency in the open market to influence its value, often to stabilize the economy or manage inflation (Wikipedia, Currency intervention, n.d.).
• Market Sentiment and Speculation: Investor expectations, herd behavior, and speculative trading can amplify currency movements, sometimes detached from economic fundamentals in the short term.

5.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Impacts

The fluctuations in exchange rates can have profound and often detrimental effects on various economic actors:

5.2.1 For Businesses

• Unpredictable Revenue and Cost Streams: Companies engaged in international trade face uncertainty regarding the local currency value of their foreign revenues or the foreign currency cost of their imports. A sudden adverse exchange rate movement can erode profit margins or even turn a profitable transaction into a loss.
• Erosion of Profitability: Businesses operating on thin margins, such as importers or exporters, are particularly vulnerable. A strengthening domestic currency can make exports more expensive and less competitive, while a weakening domestic currency increases the cost of imported raw materials or components.
• Inventory Valuation Issues: For companies holding inventory purchased in foreign currencies, exchange rate changes can impact the reported value of these assets on their balance sheets.
• Budgeting and Financial Forecasting Challenges: Volatility complicates accurate financial planning and forecasting, making it difficult for companies to set prices, manage cash flow, and allocate resources effectively.
• Competitive Disadvantage: Firms exposed to adverse FX movements may find themselves at a disadvantage compared to competitors operating purely domestically or those with superior hedging strategies.

5.2.2 For Individuals

• Reduced Purchasing Power for Remittances: Migrant workers sending money home often see the value of their remittances fluctuate, making financial planning difficult for their families. A weakening recipient currency means less local purchasing power, while a strengthening one provides a temporary boost.
• Higher Travel Costs: Tourists planning international trips face uncertainty regarding the cost of their foreign expenditures if the exchange rate moves unfavorably between booking and travel.
• Uncertainty for International Investments: Individuals investing in foreign stocks, bonds, or real estate face currency risk in addition to market risk. The return on their investment in their home currency can be significantly impacted by FX movements.

5.3 Hedging Strategies and Their Limitations

To mitigate the risks associated with currency volatility, businesses and sophisticated individuals often employ hedging strategies. These aim to lock in an exchange rate for future transactions, thereby eliminating uncertainty:

• Forward Contracts: These are customized agreements between two parties to exchange a specified amount of currency at a predetermined exchange rate on a future date. They offer flexibility but carry counterparty risk (the risk that the other party defaults) (Wikipedia, Foreign exchange risk, n.d.).
• Futures Contracts: Similar to forwards but standardized, exchange-traded contracts for a specific amount of currency at a set price on a future date. They offer liquidity but less customization.
• Currency Options: These contracts give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a currency at a specified rate (the ‘strike price’) on or before a certain date. They provide flexibility and protection against adverse movements while allowing participation in favorable movements, but they come with a premium cost.
• Currency Swaps: Agreements to exchange principal and/or interest payments in one currency for equivalent payments in another currency, often used for longer-term debt management.
• Natural Hedging: Operational strategies that naturally offset currency exposures, such as matching revenues and expenses in the same currency, or establishing production facilities in markets where sales occur.

Despite their utility, hedging strategies come with their own set of limitations and costs:

• Complexity and Cost: Implementing and managing hedging strategies requires expertise, and the instruments themselves incur costs (e.g., option premiums, brokerage fees, collateral requirements).
• Inflexibility: Forward contracts, while customized, can be inflexible if the underlying transaction changes or is cancelled.
• Basis Risk: The risk that the hedging instrument does not perfectly correlate with the underlying exposure.
• Accessibility: Small businesses and individuals often lack the financial sophistication, access to derivatives markets, or the volume of transactions necessary to effectively implement hedging strategies, leaving them fully exposed to FX volatility (IMF, Dominant Currencies, 2020).

Consequently, currency volatility remains a significant and often unmanaged risk for a large segment of global economic actors, contributing to the overall inefficiency and unpredictability of the traditional FX system.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Multifaceted Challenges for Global Economic Actors

The cumulative inefficiencies inherent in the traditional foreign exchange system translate into a range of significant and pervasive challenges for businesses, individuals, and indeed, the broader global economy. These challenges extend beyond mere financial costs, impacting operational efficacy, strategic planning, and fostering financial exclusion.

6.1 Operational Friction and Cash Flow Disruption

One of the most immediate and tangible challenges is the operational friction caused by slow transaction times. In an increasingly fast-paced global economy, delays of several business days for international payments can have severe repercussions:

• Supply Chain Disruptions: Businesses relying on timely payments to international suppliers may face delays in receiving critical raw materials or components, leading to production bottlenecks and missed delivery deadlines.
• Vendor Relationships: Protracted payment cycles can strain relationships with international vendors, potentially leading to less favorable terms or a loss of preferred supplier status.
• Payroll Issues: Companies with international workforces may struggle to ensure timely payment of salaries and wages, impacting employee morale and regulatory compliance.
• Working Capital Strain: Slow incoming payments tie up working capital, forcing businesses to maintain larger cash reserves or seek short-term financing, increasing their cost of operations.
• Forecasting Difficulties: Unpredictable settlement times make accurate cash flow forecasting challenging, hindering a company’s ability to plan investments, manage debt, and optimize liquidity.

6.2 Exorbitant Cost Burden

The accumulation of various fees—transaction fees, implicit conversion spreads, and intermediary charges—creates an exorbitant cost burden that disproportionately affects certain segments of the market:

• Erosion of Profit Margins: For businesses operating on thin margins in international trade, the high cost of FX transactions can significantly erode profitability, making certain cross-border ventures financially unviable.
• Deterrent for Small-Value Transactions (Micropayments): The fixed component of many transaction fees makes sending small amounts of money internationally prohibitively expensive, effectively discouraging micropayments which could otherwise stimulate e-commerce and digital services across borders.
• Impact on Remittances for Migrant Workers: Migrant workers, often sending vital funds to support families in their home countries, bear a significant portion of this cost. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10.c calls for reducing the cost of migrant remittances to less than 3% by 2030, a target that traditional systems struggle to meet due to their inherent cost structure (United Nations, n.d.). High fees mean less money reaching vulnerable households.

6.3 Inequitable Access to Favorable Exchange Rates and Financial Services

The traditional FX system exhibits a clear disparity in access to favorable terms based on transaction volume and institutional size:

• Volume-Based Disadvantage: Large multinational corporations with significant FX volumes can negotiate preferential exchange rates and lower fees directly with banks. Conversely, SMEs and individual consumers, dealing with smaller volumes, are typically offered less competitive rates and higher per-transaction costs (Omega, n.d.). This creates an uneven playing field.
• Limited Choice and ‘Last Mile’ Problem: In many developing economies, access to diverse FX service providers is limited, and the correspondent banking network itself may be sparse due to de-risking. This creates a ‘last mile’ problem where funds may arrive in the destination country but struggle to reach remote or underserved populations without incurring additional local fees or delays.
• Financial Exclusion: The high costs and complexity can act as barriers to entry for individuals and small businesses seeking to participate in the global economy, contributing to financial exclusion, particularly in emerging markets.

6.4 Risk Management Complexities

Beyond currency volatility, the traditional system introduces several other layers of risk:

• Settlement Risk (Herstatt Risk): The risk that one party to a currency transaction pays the currency it sold but does not receive the currency it bought, typically due to the failure of the counterparty during the settlement period. While CLS Group has mitigated this for major institutions, it remains a concern in less sophisticated bilateral arrangements.
• Operational Risk: The risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems, or from external events. The multi-hop nature of correspondent banking, with multiple manual touchpoints, increases exposure to operational errors, fraud, and cyber threats.
• Counterparty Risk: The risk that any of the intermediary banks in the payment chain may default on their obligations.
• Regulatory Arbitrage and Compliance Risk: Navigating the patchwork of differing regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions creates compliance risk for banks and can lead to situations where transactions are routed through less regulated channels, increasing systemic vulnerabilities.

These multifaceted challenges underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift in how international money transfers are executed, highlighting the critical role that innovative solutions must play in fostering a more robust, equitable, and efficient global financial system.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7. The Transformative Landscape of Innovative FX Solutions

In direct response to the deeply entrenched inefficiencies and challenges presented by the traditional foreign exchange system, a vibrant ecosystem of innovative solutions has emerged. These solutions, often spearheaded by fintech companies, leverage cutting-edge technologies and novel operational paradigms to fundamentally re-engineer the cross-border payment process.

7.1 Underlying Technologies and Paradigms Driving Innovation

The revolution in cross-border payments is underpinned by several key technological advancements and shifts in operational philosophy:

• Fintech Disruption and Specialisation: Non-bank FX providers and digital payment platforms have capitalized on the gaps left by traditional banks. By focusing solely on cross-border payments, they can achieve greater operational efficiency, leverage technology more effectively, and offer more competitive pricing and user experiences. Companies like Wise (formerly TransferWise), Revolut, and others have demonstrated the viability of challenger models.
• Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT): DLT, the technology underpinning cryptocurrencies, holds immense promise for transforming cross-border payments. By enabling direct, peer-to-peer value transfer without the need for multiple intermediaries, DLT can potentially:
  • Reduce Intermediation: Transactions can be settled directly between sender and recipient, or their immediate banking partners, bypassing the daisy chain of correspondent banks.
  • Enhance Speed and Finality: DLT platforms can offer near-instantaneous or real-time gross settlement (RTGS) of transactions, overcoming traditional settlement delays.
  • Increase Transparency and Immutability: All transactions recorded on a distributed ledger are immutable and auditable, providing a clear, tamper-proof record.
  • Lower Costs: By cutting out intermediaries, DLT-based solutions can significantly reduce transaction fees and implicit spreads. Examples include RippleNet (utilizing XRP for On-Demand Liquidity) and various blockchain-based remittance platforms (Ripple, n.d.).
• API-First Architectures: Modern fintech solutions often adopt Application Programming Interface (API)-first approaches, allowing businesses to seamlessly integrate FX and payment functionalities directly into their own platforms, enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, or e-commerce sites. This embedded finance approach streamlines treasury operations, automates payment processing, and provides real-time access to FX rates.
• Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (AI): These technologies are being deployed for:
  • Predictive Analytics: Forecasting currency movements and optimizing hedging strategies.
  • Personalized Rates: Offering dynamic pricing based on user behavior and market conditions.
  • Fraud Detection and AML Compliance: Automating and enhancing real-time risk assessment and transaction monitoring, making compliance more efficient and effective than manual processes.

7.2 Key Value Propositions of Modern Solutions (e.g., Kardden Pay as an Archetype)

Innovative platforms like Kardden Pay embody the shift towards a more efficient and user-centric FX environment. Their value proposition typically revolves around several core pillars:

7.2.1 Reduced Intermediation and Direct Paths

These platforms actively seek to minimize the number of parties involved in a cross-border transaction. They achieve this through various mechanisms:

• Proprietary Global Networks: Establishing direct relationships with local banks and payment providers in multiple countries, forming their own streamlined networks that bypass traditional correspondent banks.
• Pre-funded Accounts: Holding balances in various currencies in destination countries, allowing for rapid local disbursements once the initial FX conversion is complete.
• DLT-based Settlement: Utilizing blockchain or other DLTs to facilitate direct value transfer between participants, effectively eliminating intermediaries altogether for the settlement leg of the transaction.

By cutting out the ‘middlemen’, these solutions inherently shorten transaction times and significantly reduce the cumulative fees imposed by multiple banks.

7.2.2 Enhanced Transparency and Predictability

Transparency is a cornerstone of these new solutions. They aim to provide users with a complete and unambiguous understanding of transaction costs:

• Real-time, Locked-in Exchange Rates: Users are often shown the exact exchange rate they will receive at the moment of initiating the transaction, with no hidden mark-ups or changes before settlement.
• Clear, Upfront Fee Disclosure: All fees, including any applicable conversion charges or network fees, are explicitly stated upfront, allowing senders to know the exact amount the recipient will receive (after recipient bank fees, if any).
• Transaction Tracking: Many platforms offer real-time tracking of payments, similar to package tracking, providing peace of mind and reducing the need for costly inquiries.

This level of transparency empowers users to make informed decisions and reduces the frustration associated with unpredictable costs.

7.2.3 Speed and Efficiency

Leveraging streamlined processes and advanced technology, innovative solutions dramatically improve the speed of international transfers:

• Near-instantaneous Settlement: For certain corridors and currency pairs, DLT-based solutions can achieve settlement in seconds or minutes.
• Same-Day or Next-Day Settlement: Even without DLT, by optimizing routing and directly integrating with local payment systems, many platforms consistently achieve same-day or next-day delivery, a significant improvement over the multi-day delays of traditional wires.
• Automated Processing: High levels of automation reduce manual intervention, accelerating transaction flows and minimizing errors.

Such efficiency is critical for modern businesses that require rapid settlement to manage cash flow and optimize supply chains.

7.2.4 Cost Savings

By dismantling the multi-layered fee structure of traditional systems, innovative solutions offer substantial cost savings:

• Lower Overheads: Operating with leaner digital infrastructures, these companies have lower fixed costs compared to incumbent banks with extensive physical branch networks and legacy systems.
• Tighter Spreads: They often offer exchange rates much closer to the interbank rate, with significantly reduced mark-ups, passing on the savings to customers.
• Reduced/Eliminated Intermediary Fees: By bypassing correspondent banks, they eliminate the associated charges, leading to a much lower overall cost for the end-user.

These cost efficiencies benefit individuals sending remittances, SMEs paying international suppliers, and even larger corporations seeking to optimize their treasury operations.

7.2.5 Increased Accessibility and Inclusivity

Innovative platforms are fundamentally democratizing access to international financial services:

• Broader Reach: They serve a wider demographic, including individuals and SMEs who might be underserved by traditional banks due to low transaction volumes or perceived risk.
• Lower Minimum Transfer Amounts: Many platforms cater to small-value transfers, making cross-border payments viable for micro-businesses and individuals.
• User-Friendly Interfaces: Intuitive web and mobile applications make the process simpler and more accessible, even for those with limited financial literacy.
• Financial Inclusion: By providing affordable and accessible remittance channels, these solutions play a vital role in connecting financially underserved populations to the global economy, reducing the impact of de-risking on legitimate financial flows.

7.2.6 Enhanced Compliance and Security

Far from being unregulated, many innovative platforms are heavily regulated and leverage technology to enhance compliance and security:

• Automated AML/KYC: Advanced algorithms and AI tools are used for automated identity verification, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity detection, making compliance more robust and scalable.
• Robust Encryption and Fraud Prevention: Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption and security protocols to protect user data and funds from cyber threats.
• Regulatory Oversight: Many fintech companies are licensed as Electronic Money Institutions (EMIs) or Payment Institutions (PIs) in various jurisdictions, subject to rigorous regulatory oversight, similar to traditional banks.

7.3 Regulatory Environment and Future Outlook

The emergence of these innovative solutions has naturally prompted a re-evaluation of the regulatory landscape. Regulators worldwide are grappling with how to effectively supervise new business models and technologies while fostering innovation and consumer protection. Challenges include harmonizing regulations across borders, ensuring consistent AML/CTF standards for non-bank entities, and addressing new forms of systemic risk. The future of cross-border payments is likely to be a hybrid model, characterized by:

• Collaboration: Increased partnerships between traditional banks and fintech companies, leveraging the strengths of both.
• Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): The development of wholesale and retail CBDCs by central banks, particularly those designed for cross-border use, could further revolutionize international payments by offering instant, final, and low-cost settlement (BIS, 2021).
• Global Harmonization: A push towards more standardized international payment rules and data protocols to facilitate interoperability and reduce friction.

In essence, innovative solutions like Kardden Pay are not just offering incremental improvements; they are spearheading a fundamental transformation of the foreign exchange landscape, aiming to build a more connected, equitable, and efficient global financial system for the 21st century.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

The traditional foreign exchange system, while foundational to global commerce, is beset by inherent inefficiencies that manifest as delays, exorbitant costs, and a fundamental lack of transparency. Our detailed analysis has revealed how the reliance on multi-layered correspondent banking networks, coupled with opaque fee structures and the pervasive impact of currency volatility, creates significant operational friction and financial burdens for businesses and individuals alike. These challenges include protracted settlement times, the erosion of profit margins through cumulative fees and unfavorable exchange rates, limited access to competitive financial services, and complex risk management requirements. The enduring impact of these systemic flaws hinders efficient global trade, stifles financial inclusion, and adds unnecessary friction to the international movement of capital.

However, the landscape of global finance is undergoing a profound transformation. The emergence of innovative solutions, exemplified by platforms such as Kardden Pay, represents a critical paradigm shift. These forward-thinking entities leverage advanced technologies, including streamlined digital networks and, increasingly, distributed ledger technology, to directly address the core pain points of the legacy system. By actively reducing the number of intermediaries, enhancing cost and exchange rate transparency, significantly accelerating transaction speeds, and offering more accessible and equitable services, these innovators are setting a new standard for cross-border payments. Their value proposition extends beyond mere convenience, offering tangible economic benefits such as reduced operational costs for businesses, increased real value for remittances, and greater participation in the global economy for previously underserved segments.

The journey towards a universally efficient, transparent, and accessible FX environment is ongoing, yet the trajectory is clear. As regulatory frameworks adapt and technological capabilities mature, the collaboration between traditional financial institutions and agile fintech innovators will likely define the future of international money transfers. Understanding these systemic challenges is not merely an academic exercise; it is an imperative for all stakeholders seeking to navigate, optimize, and ultimately shape a more interconnected and financially inclusive global economy.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Bank for International Settlements. (2022). Triennial Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and Over-the-Counter (OTC) Derivatives Markets in 2022. Basel, Switzerland: BIS.
• Bank for International Settlements. (2021). Central bank digital currencies: foundational principles and core features. Basel, Switzerland: BIS.
• Carnegie Mellon University. (2007). The Inefficiencies of (Traditional) Foreign Exchange Systems. Available at: euro.ecom.cmu.edu
• CLS Group. (n.d.). Reducing risk and increasing efficiency in FX. Available at: cls-group.com
• Financial Action Task Force. (2021). FATF Recommendations. Available at: fatf-gafi.org
• Finchtrade. (n.d.). Optimizing Foreign Exchange (FX) Transactions Through OTC Liquidity Services. Available at: finchtrade.com
• International Monetary Fund. (n.d.). Economic Issue No. 38: The Case for a Common Currency. Available at: imf.org
• International Monetary Fund. (2020). Dominant Currencies and the Limits of Exchange Rate Flexibility. Available at: meetings.imf.org
• International Monetary Fund. (2025). A Birds-Eye View to the Rewiring of the Global System of Money. Available at: imf.org
• Omega. (n.d.). The 6 Biggest Foreign Exchange Payments Challenges. Available at: omg.one
• Ripple. (n.d.). RippleNet. Available at: ripple.com
• SMARTFOREX. (2023). Conventional Foreign Exchange Rate Boards and Their Limitations. Available at: smartforex.com.au
• ThePaypers. (2023). Strategies to overcome foreign exchange challenges and boost merchant revenue. Available at: thepaypers.com
• United Nations. (n.d.). Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries. Available at: sdgs.un.org
• Wikipedia. (n.d.). Currency intervention. Available at: en.wikipedia.org
• Wikipedia. (n.d.). Foreign exchange market. Available at: en.wikipedia.org
• Wikipedia. (n.d.). Foreign exchange risk. Available at: en.wikipedia.org
• World Bank. (2018). De-risking in Financial Sector: A Global Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.