HSBC (UK) > LOS Transfer changes / delays / problems

[SooKee]

I have the good 'fortune' to have a HSBC account in the UK (you know, 'The World's local bank' - unless you live in Thailand!). I have always been impressed with the speed of the transfers to Thailand from the UK which in most cases (on a regular working day of course) could take as little as 2 hours!

In the last month or two though I've noticed that while it's still quick, it's not the same as it used to be. Before, once I made the transfer, the funds would be marked up as exiting my UK account almost immediately. Several times recently that has taken anything from 8 - 12 hours. It seems that waiting for the banking systems to fire up after a weekend or public holiday can delay that even further.  The longer delay will invariably now push the arrival time of the funds in LOS to the next working day. Still good in terms of transfer times but I'm wondering what's changed at the HSBC end that slowed down the length of time it takes the funds to exit the account? Almost without exception the time of arrival of funds in to the Thai account (notified by SMS) was always 09:34, to the minute. Now, it's arriving at different times, and considerably later.  I'm wondering if that's down to changes the HSBC end?

On slightly more worrying note is that a few days ago I set up a transfer to a newly opened account in Thailand and, as I always do to check that the transfer is working OK, I did a relatively small transfer (I'd rather sort out problems over a few hundred pounds than a few thousand). In this case I transferred £200 from the UK and noticed that once it arrived, the next day, the amount received in baht (I always transfer in £ and let the receiving bank convert it) was considerably lower than I expected. Luckily, rather than just write it off as a bad luck fluctuation in exchange rates I contacted the Thai bank (Kasikorn) who advised that the sum that had been received their end was £187, not £200! Checking the HSBC account confirms the debited amount was £200, at least that is what is showing on my account records.  Whether they actually SENT £200 is a different matter!  In addition to always sending transfers in GBP I also opt to pay just the UK fees so it's not a fees thing, even if it was, any fees (the UK end) should be disclosed in full before hitting 'Confirm'. I have sent a complaint to HSBC asking for an explanation and also demanding, if the error is within HSBC, that the missing funds be credited to my account and am waiting for a reply.   

 

Kasikorn did confirm that the fees they take on an international transfer in is 0.25% with a minimum of 200 and a maximum of 500 baht.  So their fees have also not reduced the received amount beyond that which would be expected and, in any event, their fees would deducted against the amount received, it would not affect what they receive from the UK bank.

 

I also did another test transfer yesterday, using another BKK account. That came in this morning, correctly, at the anticipated amount. The ONLY thing that is different with the newly set up transfer vs the older one (that was used today) is that the Bank Identifier Code is KASITHBKXXX as opposed to KASITHBK (KASITHBK no longer appears as an option in the BIC dropdown as I think they now all have to be 11 character codes - and Kasikorn advised that the two codes here can be used interchangeably) but I can't see that being in any way responsible.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the missing funds enquiry pans out.  As far as I am concerned the banks need to correspond with each other and sort this out, no point me bouncing back and forth between them with HSBC insisting they sent £200 and Kasikorn insisting they received only £187.  It's gone adrift somewhere for sure and I'm kinda hoping it'll be a HSBC error, if it's gone AWOL in LOS I have a feeling it'll be harder to resolve. Given that this morning's transfer came in and converted to the amount anticipated kinda makes me think it's an HSBC error.  May just be a coincidence but there was a transaction on the UK account for £1,870 the day the botched transfer was sent so I'm wondering if it was a systems glitch or whether someone has made a manual input error wrongly reading a line on the account / transaction records.  Could be totally wrong but it's a strange coincidence that the sum arriving in Thailand was £187 and the transaction immediately before it was for £1,870.  Never had a problem with HSBC transfers before, I'll be watching them like a hawk from now on!

Edited December 29, 2017 by SooKee

[Pib]

Probable culprit is a correspondent (a.k.a., intermediary) bank fee that HSBC must use to complete the transfer to your Thai bank account(s).  The correspondent bank will slice-off as a fee part of the funds flowing through them from HSBC UK on to your Thai bank account(s).  Sometimes it's a flat fee; sometimes it's a percentage fee.   I've seen other posts on ThaiVisa by HSBC UK customers where this has happened to them.

 

Expect HSBC to play dumb about the correspondent bank fee and try to deflect the blame on the Thai bank receiving fee which you already know is in the 0.25% (Bt200 min, Bt500 max) ballpark.   Plus K bank told you how much they received even before they applied their fee.  The missing money will be the correspondent bank fee.  You will not see the correspondent bank fee reflected on the HSBC UK end or you Thai bank end....the fee is just sliced off as it flows through the correspondent bank.  

Edited December 30, 2017 by Pib

[SooKee]

43 minutes ago, Pib said:

Probable culprit is a correspondent (a.k.a., intermediary) bank fee that HSBC must use to complete the transfer to your Thai bank account(s).  The correspondent bank will slice-off as a fee part of the funds flowing through them from HSBC UK on to your Thai bank account(s).  Sometimes it's a flat fee; sometimes it's a percentage fee.   I've seen other posts on ThaiVisa by HSBC UK customers where this has happened to them.
 
Expect HSBC to play dumb about the correspondent bank fee and try to deflect the blame on the Thai bank receiving fee which you already know is in the 0.25% (Bt200 min, Bt500 max) ballpark.   Plus K bank told you how much they received even before they applied their fee.  The missing money will be the correspondent bank fee.  You will not see the correspondent bank fee reflected on the HSBC UK end or you Thai bank end....the fee is just sliced off as it flows through the correspondent bank.  

I very much doubt that is the case particularly as have I've never had this happen before with HSBC in 14 years of doing transfers with them. The sum sent has ALWAYS been exactly the sum received in the recipient country account. If this was the reason I'm sure I'd have encountered it before.  Correspondent banks are generally only used if the two banks concerned cannot 'talk' to each other via the SWIFT network, this is not the case with HSBC / Kasikorn.  HSBC actually lists the Kasikorn SWIFT / BIC codes in its dropdowns for selecting overseas banks.

 

Still no reply to my complaint. I doubt much will be resolved until 2 January or after seeing as most their departments will likely be on leave for new year, except maybe customer support service staff who will not be able to research problems to the depth that the relevant banking department can.

Sent using Tapatalk
 

Edited December 30, 2017 by SooKee

[Pib]

Recent examples of correspondent bank fee....1st Direct a part of HSBC is mentioned.  I've seen other thread this year on same subject.....usually after running the rabbit trail it boiled down to a correspondent bank fee..  And just because HSBC lists K Bank codes in their menu doesn't mean they may not need to use a correspondent bank.    And remember, HSBC no longer has retail banking in Thailand which HSBC UK probably sent money to before as a middle man bank when doing transfers to other Thai banks such as K bank; now HSBC Thailand is only cooperate banking and that may have changed how HSBC UK transfers funds to Thai banks like not even using HSBC Thailand as before.

 

 

[topt]

2 hours ago, SooKee said:

I very much doubt that is the case particularly as have I've never had this happen before with HSBC in 14 years of doing transfers with them.

You may be correct but as Pib mentions this has come up a few times recently.

Here is a comment yesterday from @Jip99 in the UK pensions thread

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/540525-uk-pensions/?page=244&tab=comments#comment-12577412

 

Quote

Just watch out for HSBC transfers and any additional correspondent Bank charges....I incurred  additional costs on transfers to Bangkok Bank and Kasikorn which is why I changed to TW. As a former employee (who doesn’t pay the £4 charge) that was a major decision.

TW refers to TransferWise a forex money transfer operation.

[Jip99]

3 hours ago, SooKee said:

I very much doubt that is the case particularly as have I've never had this happen before with HSBC in 14 years of doing transfers with them. The sum sent has ALWAYS been exactly the sum received in the recipient country account. If this was the reason I'm sure I'd have encountered it before.  Correspondent banks are generally only used if the two banks concerned cannot 'talk' to each other via the SWIFT network, this is not the case with HSBC / Kasikorn.  HSBC actually lists the Kasikorn SWIFT / BIC codes in its dropdowns for selecting overseas banks.

 

Still no reply to my complaint. I doubt much will be resolved until 2 January or after seeing as most their departments will likely be on leave for new year, except maybe customer support service staff who will not be able to research problems to the depth that the relevant banking department can.

Sent using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Trust me....it is correct.

[SooKee]

Recent examples of correspondent bank fee....1st Direct a part of HSBC is mentioned.  I've seen other thread this year on same subject.....usually after running the rabbit trail it boiled down to a correspondent bank fee..  And just because HSBC lists K Bank codes in their menu doesn't mean they may not need to use a correspondent bank.    And remember, HSBC no longer has retail banking in Thailand which HSBC UK probably sent money to before as a middle man bank when doing transfers to other Thai banks such as K bank; now HSBC Thailand is only cooperate banking and that may have changed how HSBC UK transfers funds to Thai banks like not even using HSBC Thailand as before.
 
 

Well. I've never encountered it before in thousands of transactions so, even if they have used a correspondent bank, it's never impacted on me on terms of fees. I'll stick to the thousands of transactions I've done that have not had this problem as the justification for my beliefs rather than a a few random posts elsewhere where the circumstances of those transactions might not even be the same. Can't really be bothered to flog this point to death any more, I'll wait to see what HSBC say.

Sent using Tapatalk

[SooKee]

 
 
Trust me....it is correct.

As I said. I've done thousands of transactions from HSBC UK to Thai Banks. Never once had a correspondent bank fee nor had the sum received vary from the sum sent. The transaction I did the day after the error transaction also arrived in full.

Sent using Tapatalk

[simoh1490]

I'm with the OP on this, I also have made large numbers of transfers from HSBC UK to UOB Thailand over a fifteen year period and never once have I paid an intermediary or correspondent bank fee. Of course, that may well be a function of the HSBC/UOB relationship which may not be the same as the HSBC/Kasikorn relationship but my understanding is that the decision to use or not use a correspondent or intermediary bank is a function of the sending bank, not the receiving bank.

[SooKee]

25 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm with the OP on this, I also have made large numbers of transfers from HSBC UK to UOB Thailand over a fifteen year period and never once have I paid an intermediary or correspondent bank fee. Of course, that may well be a function of the HSBC/UOB relationship which may not be the same as the HSBC/Kasikorn relationship but my understanding is that the decision to use or not use a correspondent or intermediary bank is a function of the sending bank, not the receiving bank.

Indeed. And had the relationship between HSBC and Kasikorn been the problem I would have experienced this issue at least one with the few hundred transactions I'd done between HSBC UK and Kasikorn in the last few years alone.  If that relationship had changed I also would have had the problem with the most recent transaction which again, I didn't have.  Funds arriving in full, as normal.

 

The only thing that changed between the transactions was that the error transaction used the KASITHBKXXX BIC rather than KASITHBK.  I can't see that being the problem though as they both relate to the Kasikorn Head Office Branch.

Edited December 30, 2017 by SooKee

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, SooKee said:

As I said. I've done thousands of transactions from HSBC UK to Thai Banks. Never once had a correspondent bank fee nor had the sum received vary from the sum sent. The transaction I did the day after the error transaction also arrived in full.

Sent using Tapatalk
 

 

 

I am not aware that HSBC have reverted to making payments direct and I have no idea why you appear to be ‘exempt’ where others are not.

 

In fact you are not ‘exempt’ because you incurred the charge on your recent transaction. 

 

Whilst I suggested that they reviewed their procedures (in the light of whatever impacted on me and many others) I seriously doubt that HSBC will take too much notice of a retired senior manager.

[simoh1490]

3 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I am not aware that HSBC have reverted to making payments direct and I have no idea why you appear to be ‘exempt’ where others are not.

 

In fact you are not ‘exempt’ because you incurred the charge on your recent transaction. 

 

Whilst I suggested that they reviewed their procedures (in the light of whatever impacted on me and many others) I seriously doubt that HSBC will take too much notice of a retired senior manager.

So is the theory that HSBC no longer has a relationship with Kasikorn, I understand from another thread that they no longer have one with Bangkok Bank which now must use an intermediary or is it thought the problem is with Kasikorn?

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

So is the theory that HSBC no longer has a relationship with Kasikorn, I understand from another thread that they no longer have one with Bangkok Bank which now must use an intermediary or is it thought the problem is with Kasikorn?

 

Frankly Simoh, I don’t know......my issues were with transfers to Kasikorn and also Bangkok bank. Something has certainly changed..... and not for the good.

 

There was a recent change of SWIFT codes etc....it may all be related.

 

If I the time/inclination I would have enquired further - but I have found alternative channels via Transferwise and Barclays Bank.

[simoh1490]

4 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Frankly Simoh, I don’t know......my issues were with transfers to Kasikorn and also Bangkok bank. Something has certainly changed..... and not for the good.

 

There was a recent change of SWIFT codes etc....it may all be related.

 

If I the time/inclination I would have enquired further - but I have found alternative channels via Transferwise and Barclays Bank.

As said, HSBC UK now uses Natwest UK to transfer between itself and Bangkok Bank in Thailand and an intermediary charge is levied as a result. People seem to think that change is a function of Bangkok Bank rather than HSBC, the former having cancelled its SWIFT relationship with HSBC, something that I find very odd. Apparently, even though both banks are members of SWIFT, the receiving bank must open up a channel to the sending bank within SWIFT, before funds can be transferred between them and that channel was purposely shut down, by Bangkok Bank. It is possible I suppose that Kasikorn may have gone the same route although I don't know why.

[Jip99]

16 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

As said, HSBC UK now uses Natwest UK to transfer between itself and Bangkok Bank in Thailand and an intermediary charge is levied as a result. People seem to think that change is a function of Bangkok Bank rather than HSBC, the former having cancelled its SWIFT relationship with HSBC, something that I find very odd. Apparently, even though both banks are members of SWIFT, the receiving bank must open up a channel to the sending bank within SWIFT, before funds can be transferred between them and that channel was purposely shut down, by Bangkok Bank. It is possible I suppose that Kasikorn may have gone the same route although I don't know why.

 

 

That sounds about right right based on my experience...why ? I don’t know... and frontline staff have no idea, they blame the charges on the fact that “ you ticked to share charges”.....no I didn’t, I ticked to pay HSBC charges at this end and Thai bank charges at that end!

 

Note...with Barclays you can prepay the Thai bank charges and it works out slightly cheaper if the Thai max of 500 Baht applies. Remember Kasikorn add 20 Baht for transfers out of Bangkok and an unlimited 0.1%.

[SooKee]

   

I am not aware that HSBC have reverted to making payments direct and I have no idea why you appear to be ‘exempt’ where others are not.

 

In fact you are not ‘exempt’ because you incurred the charge on your recent transaction. 

 

Whilst I suggested that they reviewed their procedures (in the light of whatever impacted on me and many others) I seriously doubt that HSBC will take too much notice of a retired senior manager.

 

 

What I'm saying is I have NEVER had any charges levied against me other than the £4 transfer fee except on this ONE occasion and no charge was levied yesterday either That's fact. Not a belief!

 

The only difference is that the Problem transfer used the new KASITHBKXXX BIC instead of the old KASITHBK that was used before.

 

Hundreds of HSBC to Kasikorn over the years and NEVER a charge. Two days ago, 13 GBP goes missing, yesterday no charges / money missing but THAT transaction used the old account and KASITHBK BIC. I can't see that being responsible though given that both BICs relate to the same HQ branch.

 

Sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[Jip99]

9 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Think what you want.

 

Where did I say I think I was exempt

 

What I'm saying is I have NEVER had any charges levied against me other than the £4 transfer fee except on this ONE occasion and no charge was levied yesterday either That's fact. Not a belief!

 

Sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

I dont’ doubt you.

 

The inconsistency (not yours) is that you appear to have picked up the charge on one transfer (like the rest of us) and not the next.

 

Assuming that both transfers were in Sterling, to the same Thai Bank, then the charging is inconsistent.

[SooKee]

 

I dont’ doubt you.

 

The inconsistency (not yours) is that you appear to have picked up the charge on one transfer (like the rest of us) and not the next.

 

Assuming that both transfers were in Sterling, to the same Thai Bank, then the charging is inconsistent.

Exactly. See the edited post above re BICs which was the only difference. I'll see what HSBC say before I try again with the new BIC. But I've never been charged other than 4 GBP since 2011. Only that once since. And not again yesterday. IF it was a charge and not an error.

 

Both transactions in sterling. Both to the same Bank, even the same account, I only edited it to update my address to the BKK address rather than my old Chiang Mai address. When I did that, the option to use KASITHBK was no longer there. I had to use the new KASITHBKXXX. If that's the cause, I'll be deleting the new payee and stick to the old one.

 

Sent using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Jip99]

21 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Exactly. See the edited post above re BICs which was the only difference. I'll see what HSBC say before I try again with the new BIC. But I've never been charged other than 4 GBP since 2011. Only that once since. And not again yesterday. IF it was a charge and not an error.

 

Both transactions in sterling. Both to the same Bank, even the same account, I only edited it to update my address to the BKK address rather than my old Chiang Mai address. When I did that, the option to use KASITHBK was no longer there. I had to use the new KASITHBKXXX. If that's the cause, I'll be deleting the new payee and stick to the old one.

 

Sent using Tapatalk

 

 

By the by, I always used the longer SWIFT code ...it was impressive that I could literally see my HSBC Balance reduce as the transfer was processed..... invariably received by Kasikorn within 2 hours. I can guarantee that your deduction was a charge and not an error.

 

[SooKee]

18 hours ago, Jip99 said:

By the by, I always used the longer SWIFT code ...it was impressive that I could literally see my HSBC Balance reduce as the transfer was processed..... invariably received by Kasikorn within 2 hours. I can guarantee that your deduction was a charge and not an error.

But, what I can't understand is.  Why have I never had the charge before over hundreds of transactions vs just one that did?  And why was I not charged the day before yesterday?  Or more to the point, why have you been getting charged repeatedly when 5 other folks I know doing HSBC > Kasikorn never have been, in addition to at least one other poster on this thread?  If you were using the longer BIC maybe that's the cause, as it seems to be the only similarity.  I never got charged at all using KASITHBK and didn't get charged when I used it on 28th, ONLY on 27th when I used KASITHBKXXX.

 

I'll wait for HSBCs response, if it IS a charge (but £13 seems WAY excessive for a £200 transfer) I'll maybe try one more time with the new BIC and see if that also gets hit.  If it does, I'll maybe try and ask if HSBC can add the KASITHBK BIC to the list or, just revert to doing transfers on the old account details.

Edited December 31, 2017 by SooKee

[Jip99]

4 hours ago, SooKee said:

But, what I can't understand is.  Why have I never had the charge before over hundreds of transactions vs just one that did?  And why was I not charged the day before yesterday?  Or more to the point, why have you been getting charged repeatedly when 5 other folks I know doing HSBC > Kasikorn never have been, in addition to at least one other poster on this thread?  If you were using the longer BIC maybe that's the cause, as it seems to be the only similarity.  I never got charged at all using KASITHBK and didn't get charged when I used it on 28th, ONLY on 27th when I used KASITHBKXXX.

 

I'll wait for HSBCs response, if it IS a charge (but £13 seems WAY excessive for a £200 transfer) I'll maybe try one more time with the new BIC and see if that also gets hit.  If it does, I'll maybe try and ask if HSBC can add the KASITHBK BIC to the list or, just revert to doing transfers on the old account details.

 

 

 

I also fail to understand exactly what has changed - and I have not had the time to delve further, my complaints were met with a defensive response and an assertion that nothing had changed in the way HSBC process international payments. That is clearly not true because the payments I instructed were slower and both incurred charges. I have been doing these transfers for 11 years.

 

The BIC may be the reason, but that does not make sense as the recipient  bank is still Kasikorn.

 

Good luck with your enquiries and thank you in anticipation of bringing the answers to the forum.

[SooKee]

Quick update FWIW.

 

As I'd never had this charge before on literally thousands of transfers I was absolutely certain this was just an input error HSBC end; no such luck.  HSBC responded to an enquiry with "Ooooohhh, no idea really, guess it was an intermediary". Lame response and no sign of any in depth investigation by HSBC.

 

What I'm not sure of is why I caught this charge this time around.  Never been fleeced for anything above the £4 fee before in GBP transfers to Kasikorn.  The ONLY thing that was different was the BIC code I used.  As the new transfer I set up no longer had the KASITHBK option I had to use the KASITHBKXXX BIC which Kasikorn tell me are interchangeable.  Was that the cause I wonder?  Or was it the fact that the robbed transfer was coming out of the UK just as the banking system was surfacing from the Christmas public holidays, perhaps triggering an intermediary to get used?  It's all guesswork really.  What is odd though is that I did a much larger transfer the day after using the old payee (and BIC code) - no extra charges beyond the £4, full sum arrived! Go figure?

 

Either way though I'm now trying to establish (at least in my case) whether it indeed IS the new BIC I used by trying yet another transfer (£100 this time) using that set of details.  If that transfer also gets mugged en-route I'll try yet another to the old BIC.  If the only common factor to me getting hit is using the new BIC code I'll stick to the old one and sod the fact that my address details on that 'Payee' are different to my current address.  If they both get mugged though I'll change to using Transferwise.  The £4 transfer deal was always a bonus with HSBC Premier, not so much so if you're going to be subject to undisclosed fleecing of your funds en-route by HSBC and their chums.  It's all well and good HSBC trying to hide behind "either the sending or receiving banks may charge", it's HSBC and THEIR decision to use an intermediary that's the culprit.

[SooKee]

Well, that confirms it (or at least confirms it enough for me), it's the different BIC that is the only thing I can think of that's causing the transfers to get charged or, the newness of the 'Payee' set-up relating to using that 'new' BIC that is seemingly causing the transfer to get hit with an intermediary fee.  The payee using the old BIC code was set up 4 years ago, the payee using the new BIC code (same Kasikorn account - just with a different payee address) about 2 months ago.

 

Transferred £100 yesterday and expected around 4,000 baht to arrive in the account today (approx 42.8 minus the 200 baht Kasikorn fee).  Amount credited 3,525!!

 

Transfer of 200 GBP on 27/12/17 using KASITHBKXXX - intermediary charge £13!

 

Transfer of 1,600 GBP on 28/12/17 using KASITHBK - no intermediary charge

 

Transfer of 100 GBP on 10/01/18 using KASITHBKXXX - intermediary charge £13!!

 

I might at some time go into to Kasikorn to get them to check whatever details they can to ensure that it's nothing happening their end but I don't think it is.  When I checked with Kasikorn first time around they said an amount smaller than transferred reached the account, I doubt it's anything to do with Kasikorn clearing while it's on the way from arrival in Thailand to my account.

 

What it does make you wonder though is whether HSBC are changing something and whether eventually they'll get around to changing longer established payee set ups so they will all get hit.  My next GBP transfer, using the old KASITHBK, will be made at the end of this month so we'll see how that goes.

Edited January 11, 2018 by SooKee

[SooKee]

Been doing some research on transfers since I'm no longer happy to play the game of Russian roulette that's involved in doing transfers from HSBC, even with their 'great value' deal of a flat fee of £4 for transfers from Premier accounts, flat that is until HSBC decide it's time to let their chums mug your transfer while it's en route to wherever.  I found out (luckily) about the growing threat of this on a small transfer and got slammed for £13 on £200 (and subsequently for the same amount on a £100!) transfer.  I dread to think what that would have been on £2-3,000!  While I seem to have cured it for now, by reverting to using an older established payee with an older BIC, I'm no longer prepared to put faith in HSBC and find one day that they've worked round to hitting older established payee's by switching to using an intermediary.  

 

Over the last few days I've been looking at comparisons, primarily using TransferWise (TW), as an alternative to HSBC.  TransferWise was recommended to me because of the higher exchange rate they can guarantee vs letting a Thai bank convert GBP on arrival (I would never EVER use the option to send the funds in Thai baht as that would attract the worst rate of any).  Initially I dismissed the TW option as I interpreted their transfer estimate wrongly in that I thought their fees would be on top of the sum you need to transfer to reach the target amount in baht. Not so, their transfer / Forex conversion estimation includes the deduction they will make on the sum you transfer, it's not a fee you need to add.

 

By way of an example, using a target amount of 75,000 baht (a fairly rounded random amount that's not very low and not particularly high) using today's GBP/THB rate (as shown using XE Currency) of 43.30 (merely as a guide):

 

HSBC: I find that using HSBC I will always get around 0.5 baht less to the £ using the XE rate.  In addition, while it's only a paltry amount, you need to cater for the 200 baht fee the Thai bank will make for the Forex receipt / conversion.  So for 75,200 you'd need to transfer £1,757.  On top of that there's the £4 HSBC fee (plus of course the risk of getting mugged by HSBC and their chums by way of intermediary charges if you're unlucky). A total of £1,761.

 

TransferWise: Much easier to calculate.  Simply, you'd need to pay TW a total of £1,746 to receive 75,037 baht (at the time of checking).  That's £15 less than you'd need with HSBC, not an insignificant amount!  Further, AFAIK, the way TW operate is that the sum you transfer is paid in to your account in local currency from an account they hold in that country so there will be no receiving bank Forex fee.

 

The other thing I have noticed, indicating to me that something has definitely changed with the way HSBC handles such transfers, is the time they now take.  Up until about 2 months ago, I could do a transfer from the UK at say, 11:00 am (Thai time) on a Tuesday (thus avoiding any possible delays caused by weekend system shut-downs etc) and the sum would always leave my account pretty much within minutes.  It would then arrive in my Thai (Kasikorn) bank account within 2-3 hours, without fail, every single time.  That's changed now.  I first noticed it when a transfer didn't arrive as expected and the trend I've noticed now is that funds will not leave the UK account for 8-12 hours after you complete the instruction.  Why is that I wonder?  The funds are thus now never received in my Thai bank until the next day.  Previously, if I'd done a transfer after Thai banks were closed for business, they would always arrive at exactly 09:34 (literally to the minute) on the next day.  Now it's either later or a lot later, sometimes very late afternoon before the funds arrive.  It's still fast enough for a transfer given that some take 3-5 days but I mention it only as an indicator that, despite what they say, something has changed with regard to the way HSBC handles transfers.  Given the track record of HSBC with regard to the scandals they've been involved in, I take any HSBC assurance with a pinch of salt.

 

For the immediate future I'll pass on HSBC and their 'preferential' Premier transfer rate and stick to TransferWise, unless anyone knows of an even better way.

[Pib]

Intermediary (correspondent) bank fees are sliced-off as the funds flow through them unless the sending bank has a contract with the intermediary bank to pay them separately.   The receiving bank should only be able to tell you how much arrived...doubtful they will be able to see what was originally transmitted from the sending bank.   The sending bank may not know how much an intermediary bank will possibly slice off as a fee but they can find out because they are the ones that selected the routing of the money to reach the receiving bank....they are the ones which sent your money.

 

And actually the sending bank will most likely initially play dumb on the issue when talking to their front-line customer support rep....usually saying it was probably a receiving bank fee (a standard excuse) because if saying it was probably an intermediary bank fee that makes the customer feel the sending and intermediary bank are in-bed with each other....why does the sending bank have to use an intermediary bank causing this fee, why get another bank involved, etc.?  Generally a customer will blame any intermediary bank fee as being caused by the sending bank.

 

From reading many ThaiVisa posts over the years on money that seems to go missing/gets sliced off enroute for those that run to ground the real reason for the missing money/that mysterious extra fee it's almost always boiled down to an intermediary bank fee.   Nothing new about intermediary bank fees....whether you get hit with one will largely depend on the Sending bank's capability to send money worldwide, agreements/relationships with other intermediary banks, etc.

[SooKee]

12 minutes ago, Pib said:

Intermediary (correspondent) bank fees are sliced-off as the funds flow through them unless the sending bank has a contract with the intermediary bank to pay them separately.   The receiving bank should only be able to tell you how much arrived...doubtful they will be able to see what was originally transmitted from the sending bank.   The sending bank may not know how much an intermediary bank will possibly slice off as a fee but they can find out because they are the ones that selected the routing of the money to reach the receiving bank....they are the ones which sent your money.

 

And actually the sending bank will most likely initially play dumb on the issue when talking to their front-line customer support rep....usually saying it was probably a receiving bank fee (a standard excuse) because if saying it was probably an intermediary bank fee that makes the customer feel the sending and intermediary bank are in-bed with each other....why does the sending bank have to use an intermediary bank causing this fee, why get another bank involved, etc.?  Generally a customer will blame any intermediary bank fee as being caused by the sending bank.

 

From reading many ThaiVisa posts over the years on money that seems to go missing/gets sliced off enroute for those that run to ground the real reason for the missing money/that mysterious extra fee it's almost always boiled down to an intermediary bank fee.   Nothing new about intermediary bank fees....whether you get hit with one will largely depend on the Sending bank's capability to send money worldwide, agreements/relationships with other intermediary banks, etc.

 

Exactly.  I'm fully aware there's nothing new in the use of intermediaries.  The problem for me is the total lack of transparency and the lack of an audit trail even when the customer contacts the sending bank with a specific enquiry (IMO the information should be readily visible online as part of the transaction details).  All down to the way banks operate and the reason I have as little to do with them as possible. Trust, the bank, you must be joking!

 

What is so very odd in this case is that I'd NEVER been hit with a HSBC UK > Kasikorn GBP transfer intermediary charge before and indeed have only been hit with one twice now, both times when using a newly set up payee using the KASITHBKXXX BIC.  You would think that could be the cause, it's the only common factor between to the transfers that got hit though.

Edited January 12, 2018 by SooKee

[Pib]

I expect each BIC (even when a receiving bank possibly has numerous BICs which can be common due to organizational structure) that HSBC treats each BIC as a separate entity and the routing of the funds to include routing through an intermediary bank which might charge a fee can be different. 

 

Like K Bank has around 16 different BICs depending on which department/major branch you might want to send to.   Now of course K banks has many, many branches across the country but for business operation purposes they have around 16 BICs probably due to the different business units within K bank....business units which can appear as different financial organizations to some other financial organization outside of Thailand wanting to do a funds transfer. 

 

And it's K-bank that goes out and get all these different BICs assigned.   And if wanting to throw-in a BIC ending with XXX which means the headquarters function of bank, then they have 17.   

 

 

[SooKee]

Of course banks will use different BICs to differentiate receiving branches / departments, that's the whole point.  The point with KASITHBK and KASITHBKXXX though is that they are both BICs for EXACTLY the same branch / address (Kasikorn Head Office) and can be used interchangeably (as confirmed by Kasikorn) depending on which ones are included in your sender's options.  The XXX addition merely makes this specific BIC compatible with the 11 character BIC requirement.  Given that they refer to the exact same branch and routing process there should be no difference as far as the sending bank is concerned.  In this case however there are only two factors that are common with the problematic transfers (and therefore might have caused the charge to be incurred):

 

1) use of the new 11 character BIC (e.g. it's the BIC itself that is the cause)

 

and

 

2) the fact that the payee using that BIC was set up only recently (it's the newness of the payee that is the cause)

 

So, given the total lack of information forthcoming from the sending bank, one can only assume that it was either the BIC or the newness of the payee.

 

[SooKee]

Used TransferWise for the first time today.  Most impressed!!  Did a transfer at 9am 15/1/18, had a mail arrive from TW telling me the funds would arrive by tomorrow (16/1/18), 4 hours later (1pm 15/1/18) funds arrived in my Thai bank.  Will be sticking with TW from now on