Managing Cross Border Payment Analysis

Workflow

1. Define corridor scope

   • Specify origin/destination countries, currency pair, and directionality (one-way vs. bidirectional)
   • Identify customer segment and use case (remittance, B2B invoice, payroll, marketplace settlement)
   • Set volume assumptions: projected monthly transactions, average ticket size, peak/trough seasonality

2. Map regulatory requirements

   • Identify required licenses in the send jurisdiction (e.g., state MTLs in the US, EMI in EU, PSP license in UK) [VERIFY]
   • Identify required licenses or partnerships in the receive jurisdiction (e.g., authorized dealer bank, mobile money operator approval) [VERIFY]
   • Document sanctions and restricted-party screening obligations (OFAC, EU consolidated list, UN sanctions) [VERIFY]
   • Note data localization, reporting thresholds (e.g., CTR at $10K USD equivalent), and consumer disclosure rules [VERIFY]

3. Analyze pricing and economics

   • Break down total cost to customer: upfront fee + FX markup + any intermediary charges
   • Benchmark against at least three competitors on the same corridor using published rates or mystery-shop data
   • Calculate unit economics per transaction: revenue (fee + FX spread) minus direct costs (scheme fees, correspondent charges, payout partner fees, compliance cost allocation)
   • Model margin sensitivity to FX volatility — flag corridors where spread exceeds 150 bps or where local currency is illiquid

4. Evaluate settlement and payout infrastructure

   • Map available payout methods: bank deposit, mobile wallet, cash pickup, card credit
   • Assess settlement speed: same-day, T+1, T+2 — and identify bottlenecks (cut-off times, correspondent bank processing windows)
   • Evaluate pre-funding requirements and float implications on working capital
   • Identify single points of failure (sole correspondent bank, single payout aggregator)

5. Assess operational and compliance risk

   • Score corridor on AML risk (high/medium/low) based on FATF mutual evaluation, Transparency International CPI, and historical SARs filing rates
   • Identify fraud typologies prevalent on the corridor (identity fraud, mule networks, structuring)
   • Review partner due diligence: KYC/KYB on payout agents, ongoing monitoring cadence, contractual audit rights
   • Flag any pending regulatory changes that could affect corridor viability [VERIFY]

6. Compile corridor assessment report

   • Summarize go/no-go recommendation with supporting rationale
   • Present pricing comparison table, unit economics model, and sensitivity analysis
   • Include regulatory checklist with license status and timeline to compliance
   • Outline implementation roadmap: partner onboarding, technical integration, testing, and launch milestones

Output

The deliverable is a Cross-Border Payment Corridor Assessment Report containing:

• Executive summary: Corridor viability rating (green/amber/red), key economics, and recommended action
• Regulatory matrix: License-by-license status table for send and receive jurisdictions with estimated timelines
• Pricing benchmark: Side-by-side comparison of total cost to customer across competitors
• Unit economics model: Per-transaction P&L with assumptions clearly stated
• Settlement architecture diagram: Flow of funds from send to receive, with intermediaries, cut-off times, and pre-funding nodes
• Risk scorecard: AML risk tier, fraud exposure estimate, and operational concentration risk
• Implementation roadmap: Phased plan with dependencies, milestones, and estimated launch date

Quality Checks

• All regulatory requirements are jurisdiction-specific and tagged [VERIFY] where statutes, thresholds, or license names may change
• Pricing benchmarks use data no older than 90 days; any stale data is flagged
• Unit economics model includes all cost layers — no hidden costs omitted (nostro/vostro charges, FX hedging costs, compliance overhead)
• Settlement flow accounts for weekends, holidays, and cut-off times in both jurisdictions
• Sanctions and AML obligations reference the correct regime for each jurisdiction, not generic global statements
• Competitor analysis compares like-for-like (same send amount, same payout method) rather than headline rates
• Report clearly distinguishes confirmed data from estimates or assumptions