I know we had a short forex discussion on a thread recently and I have resolved that problem.

The (second issue) that I would appreciate some input or feedback on is as follows:

1) The clients USA Bank in CA e/transferred an amount to our Bank in SA ... no problem there

2) The Client paid their fee $40 to effect the transfer, no problem as that is within the rates most USA Banks charge to wire money. ( varies between $30 - $50

This is the PROBLEM /

The US Dollar amount sent from CA was US $15 short when it arrived at the SA Bank.

The SA Bank then changed the US into Rands at the going rate and then deducted their commission, that is fine.

The problem is ...

The USA Bank sent $2200 and only $2185 arrived.

The USA BANK is adamant they sent the full amount and the SA Bank is adament it rec'd $15 short & I have seen faxed copies to confirm that both are in fact correct

So who has (syphoned offf the $15) along the route USA to SA ... is it the Intermediary or Correspondent [Bank of New York] where the wire transfer goes via or if not WHO MADE THE DEDUCTION ...

Are there any bright sparks or people within the industry whom can offer an answer as this has happined twice to me, but often it does not happin, so there is some fish hook somewhere

It is not the $15 it is the principle that is at issue

Peter

Peter - The same thing often happens to us ......and it also irritates the hell out of me. We're told it happens when the SA/Offshore bank has to take it's charges out at their end as the payee forgot to pay it at their end......but it's very hard to get to the bottom of it.

US$15 a pop doesn't sound like much but if it happens to you just 100 times over the year you're being stung for US$1500 and no-one can tell you why!

Hi Steve

I concur 100% with you ... it is not the one of situation or $15 per se, it compounds and costs a small packet over a full season ...

I believe it is the intemediary bank that rips us off ...

My personal thoughts ( laymans opinion ) is it should be the OBLIGATION of the controlling bank being the clients Bank whom accepts their transfer and charges the client $40 ... they should be UP FRONT and either levy the extra $15 or tell the client that it is included in the $40 .... they are clever but they are not clever enough to be found out by silly fools like you and me ...

I am of the mind to (get them blogged0 on the internet if they dont front up, just like us booking agents, NO HIDDEN COSTS ( ha ha ) You know the power of the internet even the rich and famous can be brought to their knees if they are out of line !!

Steve : FYI /

My dearest and only daughter Bela is currently in that (god forsaken place called London) on her 2 year OE visa work experience and is loving it, night life and the plum Nanny jobs available as well, oh dont I wish I was young again and could stand the hectic pace of the big cities (-:

Peter

Peter,

The instruction to the US bank MUST state that the amount is to be "FREE OF COMMISSIONS". This will ensure that if there is an intermediate bank, that thier charges are passed onto the sending bank. You may find the sending banks commission higher to cover this cost. In my own case, I would rather pay the USD 15 and KNOW it was for commission than having the RSA principle question the amount transfered!

Also, these transfer transactions normally have something like a checksum that is included which when converted back with the decifering code by the recieving bank, will indicate the actual amount remitted.....this checksum and the amount which is stated in numerics and words MUST all agree.....that's certainly the way it worked a few years back.

Lastly, I NEVER have this problem, and I have money remitted to RSA monthly

Dave

Some good advice you have there.

The problem is would you believe some USA Bank dont know shit from clay at times and there is no standatd system in place.

I would cetainly be interested in which Bank you deal with in the USA whom can t/t an amount that arrives without deduction in SA ...

My question is DOES every t/t from the USA to SA have to go (via an intemediary bank) in New York or not, if not then how is it processed logistically !!! There MUST be a system and someone must know what it is, I dont believe it should be hit and miss

Peter

FWIW I sent funds to my Taxidermist in RSA this week and got a reply that the funds arrived the next day. I use Bank One here in the US, $20 xfer fee and no mention of shortages once it got to that side of the pond.

The first time I sent funds that way was at a different branch and the lady who did the xfer was very worried that I was being duped by some of you bad South Africans. After patiently explaining that I was 45 years old, in possession of enough of my senses to actually make a trip to Africa and kill something and now in debt to a taxidermist, she relented and sent the funds.

This week's adventure was with a young gent banker who spent the time filling out my paperwork and telling me that his wish to to visit Australia. I told him to just go do it (after he got my funds to RSA).

Peter,

This is what teh banks like to call "bank charges". Which is nothing but s theft as far as I am concerned.

I had this happen to me a few years ago, and I raised this question with my bank.

When they said it was "bank charges", I told them that I pay the going rate for any foreign currency I wish to transfer, then pay their telex transfer charges - which normally run about US$20.

I told them this is totally unacceptable, and unless they pay everything I transfer IN FULL, I will seriously consider moving to another bank.

That put an end to this silly fiasco. And ever since then, everything I transfer, gets to its destination in full.

Peter,

It's actually one of my principles in the US who initiates this transfer....but I will get the information to you early next week.

I have followed up and the end result is what I suspected all along ... The intemediary or Correspondent Bank stole/nicked the $15 / their fees is the answer ...

Now I dont begrude fees as charged per se as we all need to make a crust in this life ... what I am against is when ( hidden costs ) appear ...

The (initiating Bank) should be obligated to be up front whenever a client makes an e=transfer and say ... the fee is xyz and it covers your transfer fee and associted costs en route to effect a full transfer of funds ... what is sent should be what arrives ...

What the bank is in effect doing is masking the full fee at source and slipping it in on route ... NOT ETHICAL IMHO

Peter