Hidden Costs, Lost Trust: Why Cross-Border Payments Need a Transparency Reset Now

OECD findings show that cross-border payment transparency is improving, but hidden FX costs, weak tracking and inconsistent rules still expose consumers and businesses to uncertainty. Governments and development partners need stronger disclosure, monitoring and consumer protection, while payment providers can turn transparent pricing and real-time tracking into a competitive advantage.

Cross-border payments have become critical to an economy increasingly connected through migration, digital commerce, tourism and international business. Yet sending money abroad can still leave consumers and small businesses uncertain about what they are actually paying, how much the recipient will receive and when the money will arrive. An OECD assessment, undertaken in collaboration with the Financial Stability Board (FSB) under the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-border Payments, shows that governments have made progress on transparency, but important gaps remain.

The scale makes these weaknesses economically important. Global retail cross-border payment flows were around USD 40 trillion in 2024. The OECD's assessment of 41 jurisdictions finds that regulation is becoming stronger, particularly around fees and foreign-exchange rates, but payment tracking and consistent treatment of different providers remain unfinished parts of the reform agenda.

Hidden Costs Remain the Biggest Transparency Challenge

Around 90% of surveyed jurisdictions have introduced or are developing cost-transparency requirements for retail cross-border payments, while 88% have done so for remittances. But having rules does not necessarily mean consumers can easily understand the full price.

Only 78% of jurisdictions require disclosure of total fees charged to the payer for retail cross-border payments, falling to 71% for remittances. Just 41% require disclosure of total fees charged to recipients.

Foreign-exchange costs present another problem. About 76% require disclosure of the exchange rate applied to retail cross-border payments and 73% for remittances. However, only 37% require providers to disclose the mark-up over a reference exchange rate for retail payments, while the share falls to just 24% for remittances.

For policymakers, this is an important regulatory gap. Consumers may be attracted by "zero-fee" or low-fee transfers without clearly seeing how much they are effectively paying through the exchange rate. Governments therefore need disclosure rules that focus on the total cost of a transaction, not simply the headline fee.

Faster Payments Need Better Tracking and Accountability

Knowing the price is only part of the problem. Consumers also need to know where their money is when a payment is delayed.

Only 39% of jurisdictions have or are developing requirements for tracking retail cross-border payments, compared with 37% for remittances. Requirements to inform customers when funds are being held by an intermediary are even less common, at around 7% for retail payments and 10% for remittances.

This can have consequences beyond consumer inconvenience. Delayed or unpredictable transfers can affect households relying on remittances for everyday expenses and small businesses that depend on international payments to manage suppliers, inventories and cash flow.

Governments should therefore treat payment tracking as part of financial consumer protection. Providers should give customers clear delivery estimates, transaction status information and straightforward procedures for resolving delayed or failed payments.

Fintech Growth Raises the Stakes for Consistent Regulation

Competition from fintech firms and specialist payment providers is reshaping the market. In Australia, for example, banks' share of the cross-border payment market fell from 76% in 2016 to 39% in 2024, reflecting growing consumer use of non-bank payment service providers.

However, transparency requirements still differ by provider and payment channel. Cost requirements for retail cross-border payments cover banks in 85% of surveyed jurisdictions and non-bank providers in 83%, but only 54% cover cash payments. Tracking requirements are much weaker, covering 34% of banks, 32% of non-bank providers and 20% of cash transactions.

For private-sector firms, this creates an opportunity. Banks, fintech companies and remittance providers can compete by offering transparent pricing, predictable delivery, real-time tracking and simple information showing exactly how much recipients will receive.

The risk is regulatory fragmentation. Different requirements across jurisdictions can raise compliance costs and make international expansion more difficult. Policymakers should therefore work toward rules that provide similar consumer protection for similar services, regardless of whether the provider is a traditional bank or a fintech company.

Turning Transparency into a Development and Competition Tool

There are signs of progress. The share of retail cross-border payment services providing information about both cost and speed increased from 54.5% in 2023 to 62.9% in 2025. Available remittance indicators for 2023 show that 92% of jurisdictions required fee disclosure, 89% required exchange-rate disclosure and 91% required transaction receipts.

But regulation needs effective implementation. Around 60% of surveyed jurisdictions undertake market monitoring related to transparency, while roughly two-thirds reported enforcement activity. Financial-literacy initiatives exist or are being developed in 49% of jurisdictions for retail cross-border payments and 42% for remittances.

International development partners can help emerging economies strengthen regulatory capacity, consumer-protection systems, financial literacy and payment infrastructure. Cooperation between jurisdictions can also reduce inconsistent standards and make international transfers easier to compare.

The next policy priority should be simple: before customers press "send", they should clearly know the total cost, exchange-rate impact, amount the recipient will receive and expected delivery time. After sending, they should be able to track the money and know who is responsible if something goes wrong. Achieving that would make transparency more than a regulatory requirement—it could become a tool for stronger competition, greater consumer trust and more efficient cross-border economic activity.