汇款创业公司的成本结构与. incumbents? What are the primary customer acquisition channels for money transmitters? What can explain remittance startups’ massively higher relative valuations vs. established providers? If you are interested in such questions, 这篇文章是 YOU.

We will cover the following topics:

• 市场规模
• 定价
• 供应商
• 数字趋势
• 用户
• 商业模式
• Acquisition Channels
• Valuations

市场规模

汇款是消费者对消费者最常见的类型 (C2C) 消费者之间的跨境汇款. 其中包括农民工寄钱回家养家糊口. 这代表了一小部分 跨境支付 年产量约为 $1 兆. A similar number of C2C transactions are sent between people for other use cases (例如, 不是移民, 对他们自己, 不向家庭成员).

虽然正规的汇款渠道越来越受欢迎, 非正式的, 作为。。而被知道 “hawala,” continue to hold a significant market share in specific corridors. 这是由希望隐瞒转账的消费者以及 “去冒险” 银行拒绝向高风险国家（如 索马里:

汇款与全球移民规模相关, 20世纪90年代从南到北国家以及从20世纪90年代开始从南到南国家经历了显着增加 2005:

不断增长的移民意味着每年都会有数百万新的跨境汇款消费者. 即使新进入市场的企业也无法从现有企业那里抢走客户, they could still grow significantly through the easier capture of just-arrived migrants and expats.

Migration patterns are directly correlated with changes in remittance volumes. 例如, 随着中国共产党在 20 世纪 90 年代开始允许移民, 华人成为美国第一大移民群体. 这使得中国成为 #2 最大的汇款目的地 2000, while it was not even on the radar in 1995.

由于毛利相对较低 (采取率) 公司对国际汇款收取费用, 消费者集体支付$60 billion 每年向汇款提供商提供. 这包括 C2C 和 C2B 用例, 比如教育. C2C 公司的收入大约占总收入的一半. 值得注意的是，C2C 跨境交易量的很大一部分仍然是非正式发送的, 有时被称为哈瓦拉, 并且不为合法公司创造收入.

如果是汇款的话, 产生最多移民和移民的国家明显集中, 最后, 接收他们的汇款. 仅印度的入境转账就超过 10% 全球汇款. 从美国到墨西哥的转运构成了世界上最大的单一走廊, 占比超过 5% 全球汇款额. 最后, 汇款在某些国家发挥着巨大的经济作用, 约占GDP的一半.

Not surprisingly, there is a fundamental difference in the volume of remittances per person if booming and stagnating economies are separated. Lack of domestic opportunities naturally drives higher migration and an inbound money transfer. 因此, China and India receive only $50 per national. 与此同时, 墨西哥, 菲律宾人, and Egypt get $300.

美国是, 到目前为止, 最大的移民接收者, 导致汇出汇款量占主导地位, reaching $200 在十亿 2021 或 25% 占全球出境游总量的. Unsurprisingly, among the top 10 senders of remittances are some of the world’s largest economies (见下图, 以百万美元衡量). 然而, 值得注意的是哪些顶级经济体被遗漏了: Japan, 由于其非常严格的移民政策, 以及印度和中国, 因为他们不存在促进移民的劳动力短缺.

作为一个国家越来越发达, 它往往会产生较少的移民, shifting the balance of outbound and inbound remittances. 例如, 火鸡, 曾经是汇款净接收者, 看到转变为 60/40 汇出汇款与汇入汇款的比率 2017, and by 2021, 这进一步偏向于 90/10 比率.

跨境汇款价格

过去三十年国际汇款价格大幅下降. 20世纪90年代, 平均采纳率 (费 + FX标记) 掉落自 20% to 15%. By 2010, 它已跌至低于 10%, 以及最佳可用选项 (智能指数) 现在小于 4%.

全球最大汇款走廊的平均定价大致相似, 除了南非.

世界上最昂贵的走廊中有一半是从南非来单独:

是什么导致南非的物价比其他国家贵得多? 大多数专家将其归因于两个因素: 去冒险 银行和 独家 通过西联汇款和速汇金合作的零售商:

“一个主要障碍降低汇款成本是由国际银行去冒险, 当他们收的钱转移运营商的银行账户, 为了应对高监管负担旨在减少洗钱和金融犯罪. 这构成了对提供和汇款服务成本，某些地区的一大挑战。”

“… 核心问题与吴是已经使用了几十年来成功地锁定市场的一个供应商的排他性条款, 那么谁能够提高他们的加价费，因为没有替代品。”

南非的情况也不是这样. 很容易被指责 “banks” 或 “西联汇款,” 但真正的根本原因通常在于:

1. 不透明或腐败的政府，其法规有利于银行而不是汇款运营商 (跨国运营商).
2. 现有企业满足于现有市场份额，不愿进行价格竞争.
3. 不喜欢货比三家寻找最优惠价格的消费者.

这就是为什么, 在一些国家则相反, 有利条件, 像哈萨克斯坦的金冠这样的低价老牌企业可以控制 60% 市场的.

顶级跨境汇款提供商

虽然它可能会觉得西联汇款和速汇金已经撒手人寰, 银行和邮局之外的跨境汇款服务于不到四十年前推出. 那些日子, 消费者的选择仅限于银行缓慢且昂贵的电汇服务或实体邮寄汇票. 西联汇款, 正如本文详细介绍的那样 SaveOnSend文章, 开始国际汇款在80年代末, 最初利用Visa和MasterCard网络. It proceeded with a rapid global expansion starting in 1989. 同样, 美国运通推出国内汇款服务 “速汇金” in 1988 并开始在国际扩张 1989.

目前国际汇款领域的其他全球领导者是在接下来的几年中起步的: 阿联酋交流 (被 Wizz Financial 收购 2022), 利雅ENVIA (现在 Ria 汇款, 被 Euronet 收购 2007), 和金皇冠 (总部设在俄罗斯). 即使富国银行开始单独的汇款业务中 1994. 到了90年代末, 多家供应商提供 近乎即时 (几分钟内) 在全球范围内转移. 请记住这个事实，当你读到今天的汇款一直服用几天或几周另一个误导性文章.

Today, 而银行, 作为一类, still handle the majority of C2C x-border volumes (看到这 SaveOnSend文章 详情), they can’t match cross-border specialists regarding geographic coverage. As a result, 银行不在全球前五名之列:

然而, 在特定的市场, 顶级银行通常是最大的汇款提供商之一:

除了极少数例外, 银行客户往往是转账金额较大的不频繁汇款人 (富国银行是一个独特的故事; 阅读更多在此 SaveOnSend文章):

Money transfer specialists continue to dominate for lower amounts, 典型的汇款方式. 这在数字渠道使用率较低的目的地尤其明显, 例如美国至墨西哥走廊, 世界上最大的走廊:

然而, 即使在汇款专家中也是如此, 根据用例的不同，平均传输量可能会有很大差异. 货币公平和 TransferWise (明智的) primarily target expats from developed countries and tend to have average transfer sizes of thousands of dollars. 相比之下, 针对发展中国家移民的汇款公司的平均汇款金额通常为数百美元.

明智的, 又名 TransferWise, is a particularly intriguing company among money transfer specialists. 成立于 2011, 其消费者跨境交易量在2006年超过了MoneyGram 2018, Ria汇款 2019, and Western Union in 2022. 您可以在此找到有关所有顶级汇款初创公司的更多详细信息 SaveOnSend文章.

除了这些主要供应商, thousands of other money transmitters specialize in specific corridors and send-receive methods, 主要利用现金代理. 而且, 存在许多基于比特币的汇款初创公司, but none yield a significant transfer volume. 进一步了解比特币, 块链, 和加密货币汇款趋势, 你可以参考这个 SaveOnSend文章.

跨境汇款的数字化趋势

There is some confusion when defining methods for sending and receiving remittances. 各种术语如 “数字,” “在线,” “移动,” 或 “移动支付” 经常互换使用. “Digital” 是一个涵盖一切的总称, 含 “在线” 和 “移动。” Additionally, 移民’ 对特定频道的偏好很大程度上受其种族影响, 甚至邻国之间.

总体, 数字渠道仍被现金交易所掩盖. 尽管结束了 70% 拥有银行账户的西联汇款客户, 消费者收入中的数字份额仅增长了 1-2% annually, except for a one-time increase in 2020 due to COVID-19:

The proportion of cash remittances on the receiving end is even higher. 因此, 而金融科技初创公司热衷于讨论数字化即将战胜现金, 他们继续与现任者签署协议来分配现金. 例如, Remitly partners with Ria Money Transfers, 和 50% 其汇款的现金收到.

汇款数字化渗透率达到如此高水平有几个关键原因. 对于一个, consumers are pretty content with a cash-based offering.

A significant share of consumers in some corridors also avoid strict banking compliance to evade deportation or tax payments.

Since 2016, incumbents have tried to find a middle ground between cash and digital options. They introduced mobile apps that allow cash customers to enter all transfer details online and bring cash to an agent without filling out any additional paperwork. So far, 有 没有证据 这些努力在客户中产生了显着的采用.

期限 “移动支付” 通常意味着资金是从客户在电信提供商处的帐户支付的. 尽管西联试行 2007, 移动支付仍然只占全球汇款的一小部分, 主要用于向肯尼亚、坦桑尼亚等少数非洲国家转账. 它在这些国家蓬勃发展，因为它们不像较发达国家那样拥有高质量的银行卡支付基础设施. 最著名的例子是 M-Pesa, 在推出 2007 沃达丰.

这些非洲国家之间的汇款额往往相对较小，而且, 从而, 不属于现有企业或金融科技初创公司的数字扩张重点. As a result, the mobile money method could be the most cost-effective option for these corridors compared to cash-to-cash sending.

之间没有真正的区别 “在线” 和 “移动。” 随着智能手机的到来 2007, 汇款的使用量稳步增长, 现在大多数数字交易都是通过移动设备发送的. 例如, for 速汇金, 在线渠道中移动交易的比例从 60% in 2016 to 80% in 2019 并 85% in 2020. 对于 西联汇款, 它同样从 65% in 2016 to 75+% in 2019. 这是一个图表 XOOM 在整个过程中领先 2011-2015:

几乎所有大型企业都有移动应用程序, 客户的反馈大多是积极的:

有一个广泛持有的信念, 由金融科技影响者宣传, 银行正在将业务输给像 Wise 这样的新参与者, partly due to their lagging digital maturity, resulting in a subpar mobile experience. In reality, 之间 2021 和 2023, 与钱包和汇款应用程序相比，银行移动应用程序的汇款使用量增长最快, 使其成为这三组中最常用的应用程序:

Users of International Money Transfers

移民汇款的原因因走廊及其内的细分市场而异. 例如, 早 2017, Remitly 被调查的 其客户发现分布原因如下:

• 70% send money to help their families with basic needs, including housing, 餐饮, 和公用事业
• 16% 把钱捂个人开支和投资
• 11% 寄钱帮助支付教育费用，如学习用品, 图书, 和学费
• 3% 发钱，以帮助支付医疗和紧急费用

正如我们在上一篇文章回顾 西联汇款, 针对不同的移民群体，当同一供应商可以有很大的不同的方法. The reason behind this is that each migrant group is unique. 例如, 考虑这张图表，它比较了美国不同种族的收入和教育程度, 并尝试猜测哪个群体更有可能在线汇款:

受教育程度越高的消费者更有可能在网上汇款，原因有几个: 他们往往更精明的数字, are more open to trying a new provider, and receive taxable income in their bank account. 因此, 超过 80% 从美国到印度的汇款是通过网上发送的, 而小于 40% 适用于美国-墨西哥走廊.

反过来的关系也是如此: 在线发件人往往收入较高. 即使在同一种族内, 在线发送的平均金额可能是 50-200% 不是通过现金剂更高. 高收入消费者群体寄钱回家也有不同的原因. 低收入的移民转移通常数额较小 ($200-300) 每月支付其家庭的基本需求回家或紧急情况. 反过来, higher-income people send more money ($1,000-2,000) less frequently, 要么存入他们家乡的储蓄账户, 作为礼物, 或紧急情况.

移民群体之间也存在文化差异. 例如, 作为消费者，美国的印度人通常表现出高度的价格敏感性. 他们比其他人更倾向于通过比较应用程序寻求最佳交易，并且更倾向于更换提供商以最大限度地降低费用或确保更优惠的汇率. 反过来, 墨西哥人或菲律宾人往往对价格不太敏感，并对当前的服务提供商表现出更高的忠诚度.

最后, 即使在同一移民群体和收入水平内, 有行为偏好. Some individuals may pay extra for an immediate money transfer, while others will wait a few days to secure the best exchange rate. These factors, 和许多其他人一起, 对提供商如何营销和定价其服务有直接影响, 最终影响他们的收入来源.

商业模式

大多数著名的跨境汇款提供商都迎合三类客户/客户:

1. 消费者: SaveOnSend 文章的主要焦点.
2. 企业: 通常较小的企业对数字自助服务感到满意.
3. 竞争对手 (平台): offer money transfers but prefer to use a core platform from a more digitally advanced provider.

SaveOnSend 主要关注消费者细分市场，并没有深入研究业务和平台细分市场. 值得注意的是，在汇款专家中，商业部门产生的收入通常小于消费者部门, 平台部分甚至更小. 举个例子, 就是这样 明智的 划分其消费者和商业部门, 平台业务规模太小，无法单独细分:

Providers typically generate revenue through fees and foreign exchange (外汇) markup in the Consumer segment. 外汇加价涉及客户的资金以低于提供商可用的汇率进行兑换. Depending on the send and receive methods and even on a specific transfer corridor, 同一提供商可能不收取任何费用并仅依靠外汇加价. 例如, Intermex 产生小于 20% 的收入来自外汇加价:

Some providers, such as Wise, are renowned for charging no fees and profiting solely from the FX markup.

明智的, 的确, operates with the lowest margins.

Wise could do this profitably because its average transfer amount is much higher due to the types of customers and use cases we mentioned earlier. 这就是 Wise 为何能够以较小的转账金额为每个用户带来与汇款专家相同的收入:

知名提供商均覆盖多个出境国家甚至更多入境目的地. 供应商从其原籍国获得的销量通常多于后来扩张的其他市场. 这是一个例子 Remitly, 成立于美国.

虽然费用往往很少变化, 一些提供商动态调整外汇加价，波动幅度较大:

Some providers also run temporary pricing promotions, significantly lowering FX markup for a few weeks or even not charging any markup, to grow market share in a particular corridor rapidly.

Established companies like Western Union and MoneyGram used to charge a higher average markup, 部分是由于更强大的品牌以及支持更多小规模走廊的推动. 然而, 在过去的十年里, 品牌加价已经变得可以忽略不计. 正如已经讨论过的, 一项定价例外是明智的, whose business model explicitly involves lowering prices to disrupt banks and specialists.

最后, money transfer providers usually charge different markups based on the corridor’s cost structure, the type of transfer, and customer behavior. 例如, 正如西联汇款所承认的 2020, 一些种族往往对价格更加敏感并且更有可能更换提供商, 所以他们通常会得到较小的加价.

This drives some providers even to offer negative FX, 即, 在大型走廊中因对价格高度敏感的客户而蒙受损失，例如从美国或英国向印度汇款, 正如 MoneyGram 在 2019:

那么为什么有这么多不真实的文章, 部分由金融科技推动, 关于现有专业提供商和银行的费用有多昂贵? 这种误导性的评论 (看多本 SaveOnSend文章) 方便比较 “apples and oranges”: startups’ 在线发送大额金额与. what incumbents charge for sending small amounts via cash agents.

If a reporter were biased against incumbents, 它会很容易感到自以为是由樱桃采摘西联汇款和速汇金的费用一定的转移. 看看他们寄多少钱 $20 通过现金代理从美国到墨西哥: almost 30%!

While it is easy to talk about helping the “poor,” 建立一个将保持不变的现金代理网络实际上是相当昂贵的, 可能几十年, 发送农民工的钱的主要方法. 而且, we know that very few consumers send such small amounts, and many do it knowing they could save by a) sending more and b) 从现金代理转向数字发送方式.

那么怎么办 “老” 和 “新” providers compare for a typical transfer amount when sent digitally? Here is a global poster child, ground zero of online consumer remittances, 美国至印度走廊, 其独特之处在于其受过高等教育的发件人倾向于更换提供商以获取更优惠的价格:

虽然 Wise 往往是最便宜的提供商, 其商业模式主要基于推荐，营销支出很少. 不幸, 许多消费者似乎并不关心他们是否付款 0.5% 或 2.5%, and those that do are seeing lower prices from Wise’s competitors, 从向印度的转移中可以看出. As a result, Wise’s consumer volume growth rate has stagnated at around 20%, which might compel Wise to invest in regular marketing and incentives.

另一个极端, Remitly is still growing around 40%, 但它正在花费 20-25% 收入 (5X 怀斯的) 关于营销, which has kept it unprofitable for over a decade after launch.

可变成本和固定成本

在成本方面, as you remember from financial statements, variable costs are associated with each transaction and overall fixed costs.

Variable costs include many standard components specific to each transaction, 代表 30-50% of all expenses, depending on the provider. 它们大致分为提供商为接收资金和发放资金而支付的成本.

Receiving funds: Money transmitters pay agent networks to collect cash transfers and pay banks for sending money from a customer’s bank account or a linked debit/credit card. 银行对客户的转账收取的费用相对较低’ 账户, 大约~30美分, 因为它是通过 FedACH 服务提供的，象征性收费 (见 “origination per item” in the table below):

For a bank-funded transfer, 费用通常是固定的，金额范围很广 (例如, the same cost for sending $0-1,000 or even $0-2,999).

Card funding payment is usually variable, 通常 1-2% 在传输量. That’s why consumers who want to use a debit or credit card to fund their transfers generally are charged a much higher fee.

例如, Xoom 收取约 100 美元的固定费用 $4 发送少于 $1,000 从美国到墨西哥. 还有, its price for card transfers skyrockets for larger amounts (对于消费者来说，信用卡融资方式是最昂贵的，因为, 除了汇款提供商收取的高额费用之外, 信用卡公司会收取预借现金费用):

Some money transmitters use the so-called “on-us” technique to minimize card-based funding costs. They accomplish this by applying to process debit-credit card transfers in agent locations. In a sense, 他们是从一个链接借记信用卡汇款和处理这种转让的开闭循环内部没有充分利用的Visa / MasterCard /等. networks.

付款方式为现金剂更加细致入微，并涵盖了费用和FX标记. Negotiated terms could involve a split of those or a minimum threshold a provider must receive while allowing an agent to markup fees and exchange rates at its discretion. 取决于提供商, 零售连锁店, 和市场, revenues are split between these two parties in a vastly different way.

例如, 市场领先者像西部联盟可能会更有选择性, 只支付 10-30% 收取的费用以现金剂. 一个较小的供应商可能会分成费 50/50, 在某些情况下, when a money transmitter wants to gain market share quickly, 它可以通过承诺向他们支付最多加现金代理网络额外奖励 100% of collected fees. 还有一个类似的逻辑，当涉及到分裂的FX标记. 反过来, 更大的零售连锁企业可以协商更好的条件比较小.

放电资金: Providers pay banks and cash agent networks to discharge money or provide cash to customers. These payments are usually fixed; for example, 提供商可能会付费 $2 per transaction to a bank in a destination country.

Large players built direct relationships/connections with large banks and cash networks for both the receiving and discharging processes. These providers would send funds to a correspondent bank for each destination daily. 例如, 如果西部联盟每天传送一千万美元到墨西哥代表其客户, 这将每日量发送给其在美国的代理行 (以美元) so that the bank could distribute funds in Mexico.

Since an exchange rate can move significantly during the day, 一些提供商还会有一个内部对冲交易台，配备一些负责买卖货币的人员，以尽量减少汇率风险. 每个目的地的每日电汇加上交易人员似乎是一笔巨大的支出, 但不是在百万美元交易量的背景下 ($30 电汇每日交易量达 100 万美元 3% 平均毛利率代表 0.1% 收入).

这就是为什么区块链-比特币-加密货币转账方法, 同时理论上消除了电汇的需要, 由于额外的货币兑换和更高的波动性，节省的资金相对较少，并且实际上增加了更高的额外成本 (有关区块链的更多详细信息, Bitcoin, 和加密汇款, 读这个 SaveOnSend文章):

Blockchain一边, 货币转移机构一直在通过中介机构为部分或所有市场部署转移服务. 在某些情况下，, 使用Xoom Earthport, 明智的 – Earthport, WorldRemit – 地球港和 BTS, Azimo – CurrencyCloud, 和维亚美洲 (又名, Vianex) – Earthport. There are also regional intermediaries, like Wise’s case of partnering with Flutterwave for Nigeria. Such an approach is easier and faster but might be more expensive in the long run. 例如, 货币云正在充电 0.1% 其服务的传送量 (看到完整的报告 这里):

Using such an intermediary also increases the risk of dependency on a single provider for the most critical element of back-office processes: transferring funds across entities.

除了中介, 金融科技初创公司还可以与银行甚至现有企业中的直接竞争对手合作，以更快地获得分销机会. 例如, in December 2016, WorldRemit signed an agreement with Xpress Money (阅读更多 这里):

“我们希望我们的客户提供的支付方案的最广泛和最方便的选择. 随心金钱是一个值得信赖和可靠的汇款品牌与代理世界各地的梦幻般的网络. 我们的合作将我们的足迹延伸到新的领域，将使更多的人，使安全, 即时转账。”

Fixed costs 并不特定于每笔交易，并且涵盖技术组件的支出, 包括软件和硬件.

金融科技公司’ 架构往往比现有企业更简单，因为它们收购的拥有遗留系统的公司较少. 他们首先 5-10 开发它需要多年的时间, with IT expenses sometimes reaching 30% 收入. 然而, 之后, 架构良好的平台的固定成本可以扩展到更高的交易量, 导致 15-25% of revenues spent.

• Licenses 需要在美国货币转移机构开展业务的州开展业务. 获得许可既耗时又昂贵, 随后进行彻底的年度审计，检查运营的各个方面, 包括网络安全. 这就是为什么你会看到像 WorldRemit 这样的金融科技公司开始于 2015 只需几个, typically more minor, US states where it is easier to get licensed and then working their way up to the largest states over many months, if not years. Others, like TransferWise, 进入美国 2015 通过与获得许可的提供商合作，例如 PreCash (后来改用 CFSB):

• Fraud:
  1. “NSF” (Not Sufficient Funds) 当客户从关联的银行账户或银行卡汇款但没有这些资金时，就会发生这种情况.
  2. “Misrepresentation” is when a customer lies about NOT sending money after the transfer is completed (根据美国法律, a customer has up to 12 months to dispute a transfer).
  3. “Account takeover” 当客户的帐户被盗用时.

以下是欺诈经济学如何运作的 $1,000 从提供商的角度来看汇款:

• 每笔此类交易的平均收入为 $30, 利润是 $5.
• So, 汇款提供商需要 200 successful transfers to compensate for one fraudulent transaction (来弥补损失 $1,000 欺诈)—break-even is 0.5% 因欺诈而发生的交易.
• The overall number of fraud attempts across various migrant groups ranges from 1-5%, more than the 0.5% 盈亏平衡点.
• 汇款机构采用各种技术来降低实际欺诈的发生率, close to 0.1%. 在里面 2017 联邦贸易委员会 诉讼 反对西方联盟, the company’s complaints database included around 50 每年有数千起与欺诈相关的投诉, around 0.02% 大约 250 每年百万交易. 该公司估计实际数字可能高出五倍 (0.1%) 由于报告不足.

随着欺诈者变得越来越老练，打击欺诈的斗争也在不断发展. Some providers have excellent fraud-prevention teams with deep statistical backgrounds but still get ripped off.

• 网络安全: 类似诈骗, 由于潜在成本高昂，防止黑客攻击变得越来越具有挑战性，但势在必行 (阅读 Xoom’s debacle in December 2014).
• Compliance: Besides implementing the above control-related processes, remittance providers must prove that those processes work 有效地.

与合规性相关的功能非常昂贵. 它的费用西部联盟 $200 百万 annually and involves 2200 employees 或 更多 20% 致力于合规. 整个支付行业, 风险与合规管理占 36% 占总成本的, 使其成为最大的支出类别:

由于不透明的法规和零星的执法, money transfer providers use a lot of manual labor to impress regulators and show them that they take compliance seriously. 由于政府没有减少金融犯罪的动力，因此几乎没有实际阻止犯罪, 因为这些资金有可能使其他发达国家致富. 故, 提供商勾选必要的方框以避免罚款, 并且在很多情况下, actual investigations only occur when requested by law enforcement agencies.

即使是最好的金融科技公司似乎也放弃了进一步扩展此功能. 在早期的 2025, 15% of the available roles at Wise were in Financial Crime:

每个国家/地区的合规规则可能有所不同, making them hard to follow, especially since most local partners are independent organizations. Imagine ensuring that all employees of all your agent partner locations (500,000+ 西联) strictly adhere to compliance procedures.

因此，尽管在这一领域持续投入巨额资金, 西联汇款遭遇了 $568 百万 罚款在美国和 ~$2M fine by Ireland’s Central Bank, 速汇金支付 $13M 在美国被罚款并连续两次被罚款, $0.4M in total, 澳大利亚交易报告和分析中心. 新任 经常感觉 他们已经不成比例单挑这种遵守执法. It might be accurate, 但这并不意味着其他成熟的提供商或金融科技公司不认真对待合规性.

Acquisition Channels

All providers use the same channels for acquiring customers: 付费搜索, THIS, PR, Billboards, online-TV-radio-print advertisements, Affiliate Marketing, Social media, Referrals, and Promotions. The apparent objective is to keep customer acquisition costs as low as possible. 在建立供应商, 成本范围可能是 $10-100 每个客户根据获取能力, 渠道, corridor, 和段, 除其他因素外.

付费搜索: 汇款提供商向 Google 等搜索引擎支付在搜索页面顶部投放广告的费用. 越靠近左上角, 成本越高.

THIS: 目标是当客户在线搜索汇款选项时排名尽可能高. In the image below, Xoom has both the top SEO result and a paid ad in the right column.

付费搜索允许更具体的措辞, 而 SEO 则捕获更通用的页面标题. Compare both the sponsored and organic results for Remitly:

PR: 目标是在媒体上获得看似合法报道的好评. By definition, an outsider should never know whether a particular article was “sponsored” or not. 例如, read this article rooting for TransferWise: Richard Branson, Peter Thiel take aim at Western Union. 如你看到的, it is tough to find the line between lazy reporting and a great PR job (best described in Paul Graham’s classic The Submarine).

There are various ways to arrange PR publications. Sometimes, a publisher overtly quotes a price, 例如, “$100K for four positive articles.” A remittance company often hires a PR firm that deals with a publisher. In the SaveOnSend analysis of remittance articles, most seem to be written under quid-pro-quo. Such articles or interviews never ask tough questions or follow up for clarification.

如果您发现有关消费者汇款的合法质量报告, please leave a link in the comments section. Unfortunately for consumers, 这种趋势可能会扩大, 正如约翰·奥利弗 (John Oliver) 精彩指出的那样:

Billboards: 不言自明 (see example below)

TV Ads: also self-explanatory (看到一个典型的主题，在这个广告上WorldRemit).

Affiliate Marketing: The goal is to acquire customers via popular websites among frequent senders. 当用户点击此类网站上显示的链接, they are transferred to a money transfer provider. To smaller websites, a remittance company would pay a fixed amount (例如, $1-10 for each new customer) and use an aggregator. Large websites could negotiate customized terms and work directly with providers.

Social: This channel allows remittance companies to promote their brand and services on social media platforms (Facebook的, Twitter, Instagram, 等等). Each provider takes a unique approach to balancing those two components.

Fintechs typically target a 12-month payback across acquisition channels. 为了实现这一点, Wise relies on extensive testing and 分析:

“… 我们采用的数据来源不同的负载, 电梯试验, 品牌提升, Facebook的像素数据, 我们自己的数据和属性以及一些第三方数据。”

Referrals: 目标是激励现有客户充当提供商的销售代理.

受到 Uber 的欢迎，并利用其销售许多金融服务, 这个频道是 Wise 的最爱. 在其推荐计划的视觉示例中, Wise displayed three countries in different colors, 每个点代表一位客户. 每个相连的点都是他们邀请的客户 (or were invited by).

怀斯声称，历史上大约三分之二的新客户是通过推荐获得的. 这使得 Wise 的营销支出比其主要竞争对手少得多. 然而, 增长率的迅速放缓可能迫使 Wise 考虑更昂贵的收购渠道.

Promotions: 为了吸引新客户, money transfer providers typically offer an incentive for the first transfer, such as a gift card…

… 或更好的外汇汇率:

Western Union started a rewards program in 2015, and MoneyGram followed suit in 2019. Unlike credit card rewards, where a merchant effectively pays for the product, 在这种情况下, a company charges a customer a higher markup and then returns a small portion of it via a reward.

开始每次你汇钱的时间赚取奖励 #速汇金 加上奖励. 学习如何: https://t.co/XizhypFLf7 pic.twitter.com/eIEUIlLf41

— 速汇金 (@MoneyGram) 八月 22, 2019

现有企业和金融科技公司的估值

金融科技公司的收入或转账量的估值倍数高于传统公司，因为投资者认为它们更有能力实现长期增长:

Fintech startups are more than happy to support a narrative that they are disrupting incumbents and that all cash-based remittances will soon disappear. 具有讽刺意味的, of course, 一些提出此类主张的金融科技公司已不复存在.

Here is Azimo’s founder predicting in 2018 在 5-10 岁月, 所有脱机位置将消失. Guess who vanished in 2022 – Azimo.

VCs flushed with cash during 2011-2021 and eagerly funded those fintechs. You can find their typical rationale in the articles below:

• 明智的 – Learning From My Mistakes,
• WorldRemit – Drive Global Growth.

Here is the core of their common investment thesis:

• “significant disruption” “clear shift to online-mobile”
• “no innovation” from incumbents
• startups offer much more “convenient, low-cost solutions.”

今天的现实是 “SLOW,” “WRONG,” 和 “SOMEWHAT” 上述投资主题. The shift to online is crawling at 1-2% annually; 现有企业拥有与金融科技相同的在线移动工具，甚至更好, and fintechs offer less convenience with fewer destinations and send-receive methods. Fintechs are sometimes more expensive than the digital arms of incumbents in the most competitive corridors.

That’s why Western Union’s revenue has remained stagnant for over a decade. Traditional MTOs and fintechs have been challenging its four-decade-long dominance, but Western Union hasn’t stood still. While it hasn’t become as effective as Ria, it has done just enough to avoid disruption — so far.

西联公司开始上网 2000, 试点开始在移动支付 2007, 并曾在一个移动应用程序 2011 before some fintechs launched theirs. This would also imply that Western Union should be considered a pioneering FinTech player that probably did more to connect the so-called “没有银行账户” 比所有汇款初创公司合并.

As with any industry, competitive pressures have taken a toll on many second-tier players. The disappearance of traditional MTOs like Sigue and Small World coincided with the shutdown or sale of digital players like Tuyyo and Azimo. Lean operations and hunger for growth among the remaining players suggest that some of today’s well-known traditional and digital providers won’t survive into the next decade.

This unease over industry sustainability has even made investors wary of top-performing fintechs like Wise and Remitly. In a telling sign, the stocks of neither traditional MTOs nor fintechs have performed well over the last few years.

Over the past four-plus decades, the international money transfer industry has been transformed by novel business, 操作, 和技术模型. Its relative simplicity continues to attract new players, while its services for lower-income migrants draw attention from the media and politicians. The clear winners have been the users. Whether any player will become as globally dominant as Google or Apple remains uncertain, but it seems unlikely.

结论

感谢您阅读我们的文章! 希望, you found this overview helpful. 如果我们有任何错误或遗漏任何东西, 我们非常感谢在下面的评论部分您的建议. 我们将保持这个帖子定期更新 – 请尽快回来!