Remittance & Money Transfer Statistics 2024 – Everything You Need to Know

Are you looking to add Remittance & Money Transfer to your arsenal of tools? Maybe for your business or personal use only, whatever it is – it’s always a good idea to know more about the most important Remittance & Money Transfer statistics of 2024.

My team and I scanned the entire web and collected all the most useful Remittance & Money Transfer stats on this page. You don’t need to check any other resource on the web for any Remittance & Money Transfer statistics. All are here only 🙂

How much of an impact will Remittance & Money Transfer have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your business? Should you invest in Remittance & Money Transfer? We will answer all your Remittance & Money Transfer related questions here.

Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any word. 🙂

Best Remittance & Money Transfer Statistics

☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 200 Remittance & Money Transfer Statistics on this page 🙂

Remittance & Money Transfer Market Statistics

  • The market of international money transfer has been growing considerably at a CAGR of 10.4% since 2000. [0]
  • It now has a profitable business model and significant market share (10%). [0]
  • According to the World Bank, total remittances sent in 2016 were above the $530 billion mark and have grown at a CAGR of 10.4% since 2000, representing a significant global services market. [0]
  • September 2017 news about an impending funding round shed light on its recent performance, where it is targeted to make revenue of $100 million in 2017 and holds a 10% share of the UK money transfer market. [0]

Remittance & Money Transfer Latest Statistics

  • adjusted their projections to a decline in remittance flows of 7.2 per cent to USD 508 billion. [1]
  • Latest data show that instead, remittance flows fell by only 1.6 per cent to USD 540 billion, defying projected declines that would have been the sharpest in recent history. [1]
  • According to the World Bank, the decline in recorded remittance flows in 2020 was smaller than the one during the 2009 global financial crisis (4.8%). [1]
  • In terms of remittances as a share of gross domestic product, by contrast, the top five recipients in 2020 were smaller economies Tonga (38%), Lebanon (33%), Kyrgyz Republic (29%), Tajikistan (27%) and El Savador (24%). [1]
  • According to the World Bank, the decline in flows to Sub Saharan Africa was mostly due to a 28 per cent decline in remittance flows to Nigeria. [1]
  • Excluding flows to Nigeria, remittances to Sub Saharan Africa increased by 2.3 per cent, demonstrating resilience. [1]
  • In the fourth quarter of 2020, the average costs of sending USD 200 to LMICs remained high at 6.58 per cent, well above the target of 3 per cent of the Sustainable Development Goal. [1]
  • Sub Saharan Africa continued to have the highest average remittance costs, at about 8.2 per cent; South Asia had the lowest average remittance costs at 4.9 per cent. [1]
  • The average remittance costs for the remaining regions were Europe and Central Asia (6.4%); East Asia and Pacific (6.9%); Middle East and North Africa (6.6%); and Latin America and the Caribbean (5.6%). [1]
  • Nonetheless, estimates of transaction costs can help to monitor progress towards the Sustainable Development Goal target of reducing sending costs to 3 per cent of the amount remitted. [1]
  • lowand middle income countries reached a record high in 2018, according to the World Bank’s latest Migration and Development Brief. [2]
  • lowand middle income countries reached $529 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.6 percent over the previous record high of $483 billion in 2017. [2]
  • Regionally, growth in remittance inflows ranged from almost 7 percent in East Asia and the Pacific to 12 percent in South Asia. [2]
  • The global average cost of sending $200 remained high, at around 7 percent in the first quarter of 2019, according to the World Bank’s Remittance Prices Worldwide database. [2]
  • Reducing remittance costs to 3 percent by 2030 is a global target under Sustainable Development Goal 10.7. [2]
  • Remittance costs across many African corridors and small islands in the Pacific remain above 10 percent. [2]
  • Banks were the most expensive remittance channels, charging an average fee of 11 percent in the first quarter of 2019. [2]
  • Post offices were the next most expensive, at over 7 percent. [2]
  • This premium was on average 1.5 percent worldwide and as high as 4 percent in some countries in the last quarter of 2018. [2]
  • Regional Remittance Trends Remittances to the East Asia and Pacific region grew almost 7 percent to $143 billion in 2018, faster than the 5 percent growth in 2017. [2]
  • Flows to Indonesia increased by 25 percent in 2018, after a muted performance in 2017. [2]
  • After posting 22 percent growth in 2017, remittances to Europe and Central Asia grew an estimated 11 percent to $59 billion in 2018. [2]
  • Ukraine, the region’s largest remittance recipient, received a new record of more than $14 billion in 2018, up about 19 percent over 2017. [2]
  • Remittances flows into Latin America and the Caribbean grew 10 percent to $88 billion in 2018, supported by the strong U.S. economy. [2]
  • Mexico continued to receive the most remittances in the region, posting about $36 billion in 2018, up 11 percent over the previous year. [2]
  • Colombia and Ecuador, which have migrants in Spain, posted 16 percent and 8 percent growth, respectively. [2]
  • Three other countries in the region posted double digit growth Guatemala as well as Dominican Republic and Honduras , reflecting robust outbound remittances from the United States. [2]
  • Remittances to the Middle East and North Africa grew 9 percent to $62 billion in 2018. [2]
  • The growth was driven by Egypt’s rapid remittance growth of around 17 percent. [2]
  • Beyond 2018, the growth of remittances to the region is expected to continue, albeit at a slower pace of around 3 percent in 2019 due to moderating growth in the Euro Area. [2]
  • Remittances to South Asia grew 12 percent to $131 billion in 2018, outpacing the 6 percent growth in 2017. [2]
  • Remittances grew by more than 14 percent in India, where a flooding disaster in Kerala likely boosted the financial help that migrants sent to families. [2]
  • In Pakistan, remittance growth was moderate , due to significant declines in inflows from Saudi Arabia, its largest remittance source. [2]
  • In Bangladesh, remittances showed a brisk uptick in 2018. [2]
  • Remittances to SubSaharan Africa grew almost 10 percent to $46 billion in 2018, supported by strong economic conditions in high. [2]
  • In 2017, 37% of Canadian residents born in countries eligible for Official Development Assistance sent money abroad to relatives or friends. [3]
  • Men (38%) remitted slightly more than women (36%). [3]
  • Southeast Asia and Oceania received approximately $1.4 billion in 2017, representing 27% of the total amount remitted in 2017. [3]
  • Money transfer stores were the most common method of sending money 56% of remitters went in person to a MTS to send their last money transfer. [3]
  • An additional 8% of remitters used a MTS online. [3]
  • Remitters paid on average 6% of the amount remitted last time in 2017. [3]
  • For example, remitters who sent up to $200 paid on average 11% of the amount remitted through in person banking, while those who sent $1000 or higher, using the same method, paid on average 2%. [3]
  • Remitters reported that convenience for the sender (30%) and the recipient (32%). [3]
  • At the macroeconomic level, it was estimated that, on average, remittances account for 27% of gross domestic product in some developing countries. [3]
  • Worldwide, the World Bank estimates that people pay fees of about 7% to send US$200 abroad. [3]
  • Confidence intervals should be interpreted as follows If the survey were repeated many times, then 95% of the time , the confidence interval would cover the true population value.3. [3]
  • FindingsAlmost four in ten residents of Canada born in ODAeligible countries sent money abroad in 2017In 2017, 37% of Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries sent money to relatives or friends living in another country. [3]
  • Men were slightly more likely (38%) to remit than women (36%). [3]
  • As a proportion, this translates into 56% for men and 44% by women. [3]
  • In 2017, the percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends in another country varied from 11% for those born in Eastern Asia to 57% for those born in Southeast Asia and Oceania. [3]
  • For example, 43% of men born in Southern Asia sent money to relatives or friends living in another country in 2017, compared with 28% of women. [3]
  • In contrast, in Southeast Asia and Oceania, women (61%) were more likely to send money than men (51%). [3]
  • For example, 11% of people born in Eastern Asia sent money outside Canada and the average amount was $4,755. [3]
  • In contrast, 46% of people born in the Americas sent money to relatives and friends, but the average amount was $1,825.Data table for Chart 2TotalMenWomendollarsPanel. [3]
  • Central Asia and the Middle East236107Northern Africa13049Eastern Europe and Southern Europe8452Canadian residents born in least developed countries most likely to remit, but. [3]
  • In 2017, residents from uppermiddle income countries were less likely to send money than those from least developed countries or lowermiddle. [3]
  • However, it was significant among those born in least developed countries where men were more likely to remit than women, with a difference of 5 percentage points. [3]
  • For example, while men born in least developed countries sent on average $2,690, their female counterparts sent $1,810.Residents who arrived more recently more likely to remitAnother factor associated with the remittance behaviours of people born abroad. [3]
  • For example, the likelihood to remit for people born in ODA eligible countries located in the Americas ranged from 31% for periods before 1980 to 53% for the most recent period. [3]
  • Among people born in ODAeligible sub Saharan African countries who came to Canada prior to 1980, 22% transferred money in 2017, compared with 61% of those who were admitted in Canada between 2010 and 2017. [3]
  • For example, 28% of those aged 18 to 29 years sent money abroad in 2017, a proportion that rose to a high of 45% among people aged 40 to 49 years, and then declined to 21% among people aged 70 and older. [3]
  • Note Demographic and socioeconomic characteristicsPeople who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017TotalMenWomen%95% confidence interval%95% confidence. [3]
  • Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Northern Africa, West Central Asia and the Middle East received the smallest share with 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively. [3]
  • Note As shown in Table 5, 56% of respondents sent their last money transfer through a money transfer store with little variation by sex. [3]
  • An additional 8% of respondents used an online money transfer store in the last money transfer. [3]
  • Men were about as likely to use online money transfers (8%) as women (7%). [3]
  • In fact, 9% of respondents used either in person banking during their last money transfer while 5% used online banking to send money abroad. [3]
  • Findings indicate that 10% of respondents brought money when travelling, or gave money for relatives or friends to others travelling to another country or visiting Canada. [3]
  • Money transfer methodMethod used last time in 2017TotalMenWomen%95% confidence interval%95% confidence. [3]
  • interval%95% confidence intervalfromtofromtofromto Remittances are sent at high frequencies and in relatively small amounts; resulting in higher sending costs. [3]
  • For instance, Yang reported in a study of El Salvador migrants in the United States that the average fee paid as a share of the total amount was 6%. [3]
  • Note Findings from this study show that inperson and online banking cost about 4% which is below the 6% share for an in person transfer through a money transfer store. [3]
  • For instance, the transaction fees for in person banking represented 11% of the amount sent if that amount was equal or less than $200. [3]
  • The fee for remitters who also used in person banking services but sent $201 to $999 was 6% and 2% if the amount sent was $1,000 or more. [3]
  • Note For currency exchange stores, the fee as a percentage of the amount transacted was 11% for amounts less than $201, 3% if the amount sent was between $201 and $999, and 1% if the amount sent was $1,000 or more. [3]
  • In 2017, the average fee paid in the last transaction, as a percentage of the amount sent, was higher for remitters who sent money to relatives or friends living in the Americas (9%). [3]
  • It was followed by Eastern Europe and Southern Europe (8%). [3]
  • In contrast, remitters who sent money to an Eastern Asia country paid only 2% in remittance fees, mostly because they sent larger amounts on average. [3]
  • Among other things, the results show that on average, remitters residing in the Atlantic Provinces and in British Colombia paid the lowest transaction fees (5%), while those in Quebec paid the highest fees (8%). [3]
  • regionAverage fee paid for last transferOverall averagepercentEastern Asia2.15.6Southern. [3]
  • This percentage was slightly higher among women (64%) than men (61%). [3]
  • According to Yang , little is known about remittance sending decisions, and specifically about whether migrants would like to control the money sent abroad. [3]
  • .Findings indicate that 59% of respondents sent money abroad to pay for living expenses, or 61% of male senders and 58% of female senders. [3]
  • For 43% of respondents, medical expenses were another important motivation for remittances. [3]
  • Women (44%) frequently remit for medical expenses compared to men (42%). [3]
  • Finally, 35% of respondents sent money back home for gifts. [3]
  • Women (37%) were more likely to send remittances for gifts than men (32%). [3]
  • For example, more respondents report using remittances to pay for education in sub Saharan Africa (34%). [3]
  • While 73% of respondents reported using remittances to pay for living expenses in least developed countries, only 40% of respondents sent remittances for this purpose to high income countries. [3]
  • In contrast, 45% of respondents reported sending money as a gift to high. [3]
  • Looking at least developed countries, findings indicate that 24% of respondents sent money as a gift. [3]
  • The corresponding figures for lowermiddle income countries and upper middle income countries were 37% and 33%, respectively. [3]
  • In 2017, 37% of respondents sent money abroad to relatives or friends, with a slight variation between men (38%) and women (36%). [3]
  • Despite these recent developments, 56% of respondents went in person to money transfer stores to send money; therefore they still have paid substantive amount of money to remit. [3]
  • In this report, people paid on average 6% of the total amount remitted, with small amounts remitted being costly compared with moderate and larger amounts. [3]
  • AppendixCountry of birthRemitters in 2017Average amount sent in 2017Total amount sent in 2017%95% confidence intervaldollars95% confidence intervalmillions of dollars95% confidence intervalfromtofromtofromtoEl. [3]
  • intervalMen95% confidence intervalWomen95% confidence intervalTotal95% confidence intervalMen95% confidence intervalWomen95% confidence interval%fromto%fromto%fromto%fromto%fromto%fromtoWorld Development, 33, 1645. [3]
  • Confidence intervals should be interpreted as follows If the survey were repeated many times, then 95% of the time , the confidence interval would cover the true population value. [3]
  • In 2017, 37% of Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries sent money to relatives or friends living in another country. [3]
  • In contrast, in Southeast Asia and Oceania, women (61%) were more likely to send money than men (51%). [3]
  • In contrast, 46% of people born in the Americas sent money to relatives and friends, but the average amount was $1,825. [3]
  • A quarter of people (24%) born in uppermiddle income countries sent money abroad—half the proportion of remittances of those born in leastdeveloped countries (49%) or lower middle income countries (45%). [3]
  • Overall, in 2017, $1.4 billion in remittance flows from Canada, or 27% of the total, went to Southeast Asia and Oceania. [3]
  • Southern Asia received $1.2 billion in 2017, corresponding to 23% of the remittance flows. [3]
  • Note RankTotal amount sent in 2017TotalMenWomenCountrymillions of dollars95% confidence intervalCountrymillions of dollars95% confidence intervalCountrymillions of dollars95% confidence. [3]
  • As shown in Table 5, 56% of respondents sent their last money transfer through a money transfer store with little variation by sex. [3]
  • On average, remitters’ last money transfers cost them 6% of the total amount sent. [3]
  • Note Money transfer methodPercentage of fee paid during last money transfer in 2017Amount remitted Amount less or equal 200. [3]
  • For currency exchange stores, the fee as a percentage of the amount transacted was 11% for amounts less than $201, 3% if the amount sent was between $201 and $999, and 1% if the amount sent was $1,000 or more. [3]
  • Among other things, the results show that on average, remitters residing in the Atlantic Provinces and in British Colombia paid the lowest transaction fees (5%), while those in Quebec paid the highest fees (8%). [3]
  • Destination regionAverage fee paid for last transferOverall averagepercentEastern Asia2.15.6Southern. [3]
  • This percentage was slightly higher among women (64%) than men (61%). [3]
  • Contrary maybe to popular belief, this represents only 15 per cent of what they earn the rest –85 per cent – stays in the countries where they actually earn the money, and is re ingested into the local economy, or saved. [4]
  • These international money transfers tend to be costly on average, globally, currency conversions and fees amount to 7 per cent of the total amounts sent. [4]
  • Although the money sent represents only 15 per cent of the money earned by migrants in the host countries, it is often a major part of a household’s total income in the countries of origin and, as such, represents a lifeline for millions of families. [4]
  • “The small amounts of $200 or $300 that each migrant sends home make up about 60 per cent of the family’s household income, and this makes an enormous difference in their lives and the communities in which they live.”. [4]
  • The rest, about 25 per cent of remittances – representing over $100 billion per year – can be either saved or invested in asset building or activities that generate income, jobs and transform economies, in particular in rural areas. [4]
  • If current trends continue, between 2015 and 2030, the timeframe of the 2030 Agenda, an estimated $8.5 trillion will be transferred by migrants to their communities of origin in developing countries. [4]
  • It is estimated that globally, the accumulated flows to rural areas over the next five years will reach $1 trillion. [4]
  • In addition, the amount of money sent by international migrant workers to their families in developing countries is expected to rise to over $550 billion in 2019, up some $20 billion from 2018, according to IFAD. [4]
  • Thirteen SubSaharan African countries averaged more than 5 percent growth for the period 1995 2002, but many others saw their economies contract, usually as a result of severe civil conflict and adverse weather conditions. [5]
  • The region’s economic growth slowed in 2002 to 2.8 percent, slightly down from 2.9 percent in 2001. [5]
  • Thirteen SubSaharan African countries averaged more than 5 percent growth for the period 1995 2002, but many others saw … [5]
  • The global average rate for remittances is 7.14%*, but this varies by country and method of payment. [6]
  • Banks are by far the most expensive method to remit money, with fees averaging 10.8%. [6]
  • Money transfer operators charge an average fee of 6.2%, while post offices charge the least at 5.5%. [6]
  • In 2017, the most expensive countries included Angola at 24% and Nigeria at 25%. [6]
  • It refers in particular to personal remittances according to the concept of the Balance of payments and international investment position manual. [7]
  • According to the BPM6 methodology, personal remittances consist of both transfer and income elements. [7]
  • Net outflows in personal transfers by migrants to their home economies have been dynamically increasing the last six years from €12.6 billion to €22.1 billion in 2020, 175 % of the 2014 level. [7]
  • Accordingly, outflows in personal remittances increased at annual growth rates of over 8 % in 2015. [7]
  • Inflows, on the other hand, had more volatile growth rates, reaching the highest growth rate of 10.3 % in 2019. [7]
  • In 2020, GDP fell by 4.4 % followed by the decrease of outflows and inflows of personal remittances by 3.5 % and 4.1 % respectively. [7]
  • About 53 % of total flows in personal remittances in 2020, as in the previous years, took place within EU Member States, i.e. EU residents predominantly remit among themselves. [7]
  • There are, however, considerable disparities between the EU Member States in regard to their relative exposure to the rest of the world in countries like Poland (98 %), Spain (93 %), Greece (91 %), Lithuania (84 %) and Italy (82 %). [7]
  • personal remittance outflows went predominantly to economies outside the EU, while Ireland (93 %), Italy (80 %), and Lithuania (76 %). [7]
  • The most EU centered economies in regard to international remittances were Luxembourg that recorded only 0.6 % of its total outflows beyond the EU, and Slovenia only 6.8 % of its total inflows from outside the EU. [7]
  • The major economies for outflows of personal remittances are Germany (17.4 % of total outbound personal remittances of the EU), France (11.6 %), Luxembourg (11.3 %) and the Netherlands (10.7 %). [7]
  • [1] Dependency rates on international remittances are measured by the share of inflows in personal remittances in percentage of the respective country’s GDP. [7]
  • By comparison, south eastern European economies appear much more reliant on this source of income Kosovo (18.5 % of GDP), Bosnia and Herzegovina (9.3 % of GDP), Montenegro (12.5 % of GDP), Albania (9.8 % of GDP) and Serbia (7.2 % of GDP). [7]
  • Data on personal remittances according to the BPM6 manual are currently available from dedicated tables in the Eurostat database under the balance of payments domain, with the most comprehensive coverage starting from 2005. [7]
  • The data starting from 2005 are compiled according to the BPM6. [7]
  • For a snapshot on migration and remittances from a global perspective the World Bank publishes on a regular basis valuable updates on recent trends and migrations [11] Remittances according to the BPM6 manual. [7]
  • Unrecorded flows through informal channels are believed to be at least 50 percent larger than recorded flows. [8]
  • Remittances are especially important for lowincome countries and account for nearly 4 percent of their GDP, compared with about 1.5 percent of GDP for middle. [8]
  • World Bank studies, based on household surveys, suggest that international remittance receipts helped lower poverty by nearly 11 percentage points in Uganda, 6 percentage points in Bangladesh, and 5 percentage points in Ghana. [8]
  • Between a fifth and half of the 11 percent reduction in poverty in Nepal between 1995 and 2004, a time of political conflict, has been attributed to remittances. [8]
  • The World Bank estimates that in Haiti they represented about 31 percent of GDP in 2017, and in some areas of Somalia, they accounted for more than 70 percent of GDP in 2006. [8]
  • But for smaller remittances—under $200, say, which is often typical for poor migrants—fees typically average 7 percent, and can be as high as 15–20 percent in smaller migration corridors. [8]
  • For example, the euro depreciated by 8 percent and the ruble by 16 percent against the US dollar, as of the first quarter of 2019. [9]
  • Figure 5 Growth of remittances by region (%). [9]
  • A third fundamental driver is climate change, which could displace as many as 143 million persons, according to the World Bank’s 2018 Groundswell report. [9]
  • According to the World Bank’s Remittance Prices Worldwide Database, the average cost of sending $200 to LMICs was 6.8 percent in the second quarter of 2019, only slightly below previous quarters. [9]
  • This is more than double the Sustainable Development Goal target of 3 percent by 2030 ( target 10.c). [9]
  • The cost was the lowest in South Asia, at around 5 percent, while Sub Saharan Africa continued to have the highest average cost, at about 9 percent. [9]
  • Remittance costs across many African corridors and small islands in the Pacific remain above 10 percent. [9]
  • Banks are the costliest channel for sending remittances, with an average cost of 10.3 percent in 2019 Q2, while post offices are lowest at 5.7 percent. [9]
  • Such premia average 2.3 percent of the cost of transferring remittances worldwide and are as high as 4.6 percent in the case of India, the largest recipient of remittances. [9]
  • The response rate was 92.3 percent, which was comparable to the response rates for the three previous monthly surveys and the survey in August 2007. [10]
  • Not unexpectedly, the item nonresponse rates for the amount sent or received were higher, as respondents often view income related questions as sensitive topics and are more reluctant to answer. [10]
  • Between August 2007 and August 2008, 5 percent of all households reported sending monetary transfers to relatives and friends outside the United States. [10]
  • Approximately 1 percent of all households reported receiving monetary transfers from friends and relatives outside the United States during the 12 months before being surveyed. [10]
  • Less than 1 percent of all native households compared with 4 percent of all foreign born households reported receiving monetary transfers. [10]
  • Of the 1.1 million households that received money from abroad, 68 percent were foreign born. [10]
  • A total of 364,000 households, representing less than 1 percent of all households, both sent and received monetary transfers, of which 75 percent were foreign born. [10]
  • Among native households that sent monetary transfers abroad, about half remitted between one and two times, compared with 30 percent of foreign. [10]
  • Native households were less likely to receive monetary transfers more frequently 31 percent of native households received monetary transfers 3 or more times compared with 44 percent of foreign. [10]
  • Of those households that reported sending monetary transfers to relatives and friends outside the United States and the amount sent, over half sent less than $1,000, including 34 percent that sent less than $500. [10]
  • Foreignborn households also are more likely to remit larger amounts 11 percent of foreign born households remitted $5,000 or more, compared with 7 percent of native households. [10]
  • For all households that reported receiving monetary transfers from relatives and friends outside the United States and the amount received, 39 percent reported receiving less than $500 while 24 percent reported receiving $5,000 or more. [10]
  • Over half of all native households received less than $500, with about 7 percent receiving $5,000 or more. [10]
  • By comparison, about 31 percent of foreignborn households received less than $500, while close to one third received $5,000 or more.9. [10]
  • Again, the median amount received also suggests foreignborn households are more likely to receive larger amounts half of native households received $383 or more, while half of foreign born households received $1,088 or more. [10]
  • Data from the CPS Migration Supplement suggest that households sent an estimated $11.7 billion to relatives and friends outside the United States during the 12 months before the survey. [10]
  • Due to sampling variability, a 90 percent confidence interval around the amount has a lower bound of $10.6 billion and an upper bound of $12.8 billion.10. [10]
  • In addition, households received an estimated $5.6 billion. [10]
  • Combined, a net estimated amount of $6.1 billion was sent abroad. [10]
  • Of the $11.7 billion sent, $10.5 billion, or 90 percent, was sent by foreignborn households; of the $5.6 billion received, $4.6 billion, or 82 percent, was received by foreign. [10]
  • Foreign born households sent abroad a net estimated amount of $5.8 billion. [10]
  • As with other personal income data , misreporting usually means underreporting, so the average and total amount of monetary transfers sent and received may be underestimated. [10]
  • , IDB estimated that Latin American migrants working in the United States sent $45 billion to their home countries, up from approximately $30 billion estimated by a similar study done in 2004. [10]
  • Both the BEA and IDB estimates are considerably higher than the approximately $12 billion in monetary transfers estimated by the Migration Supplement to have been sent by both native and foreign born households outside the United States. [10]
  • 6All comparative statements in this report have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90 percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. [10]
  • 7The percent of foreignborn households that sent monetary transfers between one and two times is not statistically different from the percent of foreign born households that sent monetary transfers 10 or more times. [10]
  • 9The percent of foreignborn households that received less than $500 in monetary transfers is not statistically different from the percent of foreign born households that received $5,000 or more in monetary transfers. [10]
  • It now costs on average 7.21% to send money abroad. [0]
  • in 2016 fees and FX revenue constituted 70% and 27% respectively of its total revenue Trying to increase FX charges is a potentially dangerous move to make, as customers are more cognizant to the real cost of FX through transparency efforts by competitors. [0]
  • Formed in Estonia in 2011, six years on, Transferwise is predicted to reach a valuation of $1.6 billion in 2017. [0]
  • It offers customers very competitive fee prices (0.5% for EUR to USD). [0]
  • Banks are facing the highest pressure from this drive to reduce fees, as they are the most expensive remittance providers, with an average cost of 11.0%, compared to MTOs at 6.1%. [0]
  • Western Union, for example, had a split of 70% and 27% between fee and FX revenue respectively in its 2016 results. [0]
  • In the face of higher fee competition, its relative share of revenue coming from fees has been decreasing, dropping to 70% in 2016 from 72% in 2014. [0]
  • Conversely, FX revenues have increased during the same time to 27% from 25%. [0]
  • With $117 million of capital already raised, its valuation is predicted to reach $1.6 billion at its next fundraising round and the business is now breaking even. [0]
  • So without any FX revenue, Transferwise focuses solely on fees for transfers, which at 0.5% for EUR to USD, are very attractive to consumers. [0]
  • For example, Xoom was an attractive business for PayPal due to the strength of #2, while it’s likely that Transferwise will continue to rise in value, due to its strength across all of the points. [0]

I know you want to use Remittance & Money Transfer Software, thus we made this list of best Remittance & Money Transfer Software. We also wrote about how to learn Remittance & Money Transfer Software and how to install Remittance & Money Transfer Software. Recently we wrote how to uninstall Remittance & Money Transfer Software for newbie users. Don’t forgot to check latest Remittance & Money Transfer statistics of 2024.

Reference


  1. toptal – https://www.toptal.com/finance/market-research-analysts/international-money-transfer.
  2. migrationdataportal – https://www.migrationdataportal.org/themes/remittances.
  3. worldbank – https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/04/08/record-high-remittances-sent-globally-in-2018.
  4. statcan – https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-657-x/89-657-x2019007-eng.htm.
  5. un – https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/remittances-matter.html.
  6. worldbank – https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7033.
  7. finder – https://www.finder.com/remittance-statistics.
  8. europa – https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Personal_remittances_statistics.
  9. imf – https://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/FT/fandd/basics/76-remittances.htm.
  10. worldbank – https://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/data-release-remittances-low-and-middle-income-countries-track-reach-551-billion-2019.
  11. census – https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2010/demo/POP-twps0087.html.

How Useful is Remittance Money Transfer

One of the most significant advantages of remittance money transfer is its immediate impact on the recipient households. For many families in developing countries, remittances are a vital source of income that helps cover basic necessities such as food, shelter, and education. Without this financial support, many households would struggle to make ends meet, leading to increased poverty and social instability.

Moreover, remittances also play a key role in driving economic development in recipient countries. The influx of remittance money into the local economy can stimulate consumption and investment, leading to job creation and overall economic growth. In fact, in some countries, remittances are a major contributor to the gross domestic product (GDP) and serve as a critical source of foreign exchange.

Furthermore, remittances help improve financial inclusion by providing access to formal financial services for recipients who may not have access to traditional banking systems. This allows individuals to save, invest, and access credit, ultimately empowering them to build a more secure financial future for themselves and their families.

Despite the numerous benefits of remittance money transfer, there are also challenges associated with this practice. High transfer fees, foreign exchange rates, and regulatory barriers can hinder the effectiveness of remittances and reduce the amount of money that reaches the intended recipients. It is essential for policymakers, financial institutions, and remittance service providers to work together to address these challenges and create an enabling environment for remittance flows to maximize their impact.

Another potential downside of remittance money transfer is the risk of dependency on external sources of income. While remittances can provide immediate relief for recipient families, over-reliance on remittance money may inhibit the long-term development of the local economy. It is crucial for policymakers to implement measures that encourage entrepreneurship, job creation, and sustainable economic growth to reduce dependency on remittances in the long run.

In conclusion, remittance money transfer is a valuable tool for poverty reduction, economic development, and financial inclusion. However, to realize its full potential, stakeholders must address the challenges associated with remittances and promote policies that support sustainable development. By leveraging the positive impact of remittances while mitigating their potential drawbacks, we can harness the power of this practice to create lasting positive change for individuals and communities around the world.

In Conclusion

Be it Remittance & Money Transfer benefits statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer usage statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer productivity statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer adoption statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer roi statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer market statistics, statistics on use of Remittance & Money Transfer, Remittance & Money Transfer analytics statistics, statistics of companies that use Remittance & Money Transfer, statistics small businesses using Remittance & Money Transfer, top Remittance & Money Transfer systems usa statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer software market statistics, statistics dissatisfied with Remittance & Money Transfer, statistics of businesses using Remittance & Money Transfer, Remittance & Money Transfer key statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer systems statistics, nonprofit Remittance & Money Transfer statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer failure statistics, top Remittance & Money Transfer statistics, best Remittance & Money Transfer statistics, Remittance & Money Transfer statistics small business, Remittance & Money Transfer statistics 2024, Remittance & Money Transfer statistics 2021, Remittance & Money Transfer statistics 2024 you will find all from this page. 🙂

We tried our best to provide all the Remittance & Money Transfer statistics on this page. Please comment below and share your opinion if we missed any Remittance & Money Transfer statistics.




Leave a Comment