Riksbank: The Large Swedish Banks and the G20 Cost Targets for Cross-Border Payments

History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but it Often Rhymes*

It was in February 2020 when the leaders of the G20 tasked the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), and other international organisations to launch an ambitious work program aimed at improving the cost, speed, accessibility, and transparency of cross-border payments. This urgent initiative was triggered by Meta’s (formerly Facebook) controversial plan to introduce a global stablecoin, Libra, intended to enhance cross-border payments for billions of its users (see Cunliffe 2023).

Today, nearly five years later, the G20 cross-border payments program is in an implementation phase. There is clear global momentum, and promising developments are underway, including harmonised market practices based on ISO 20022 and the growing use of fast payment systems for cross-border transactions.

Ironically, the ambitions of Big Tech to enter the cross-border payments space have not faded. Interest in stablecoins is at an all-time high, and even Meta is reportedly considering a return to the field (see Meta in talks).

The Cost of Cross-Border Payments Remains High at a Global Level

While much of the renewed interest in stablecoins is driven by the crypto-friendly stance of the Trump administration, other factors are also contributing to their growing appeal. Despite notable improvements in the speed and transparency of cross-border payments, costs remain persistently high — well above the G20’s target levels (see Table 1).

Table 1: G20 Cost Targets and Current Global Situation

Note: B2B, C2P, B2P and P2P refer to business-to-business, consumer-to-business, business-to-person, and person-to-person payments.

Source: FSB 2024

What is Actually Going on Around the Cost of Cross-Border Payments?

Progress reports published by the FSB assess the state of cross-border payments at a global aggregate level. However, they provide little insight into conditions within individual jurisdictions or institutions. This lack of granularity makes it difficult to fully understand the underlying factors driving the high costs of cross-border payments. Detailed assessments at the institutional level could fill this gap — offering deeper insights, raising awareness, and fostering accountability.

This article demonstrates how such an assessment can be conducted using publicly available data. We analyse the total end-user costs of cross-border payments offered by major Swedish banks and evaluate their alignment with the G20 cost targets. Additionally, we compare these services with those provided by individual examples of challenger banks and non-bank payment institutions to better understand the feasibility of achieving the G20’s cost targets.

Sweden Serves as a Suitable Case Study

Sweden’s market for outgoing cross-border payments is among the largest in the world when measured relative to the size of its economy. According to data collected by the Riksbank in 2021, the total value of outgoing cross-border payments amounted to approximately SEK 50.3 trillion — roughly ten times Sweden’s nominal GDP. In comparison, the global market for cross-border payments is estimated at around twice the world’s nominal GDP (see McKinsey and SWIFT 2018).

Sample Details

We focus on the five largest banks in Sweden: Swedbank, Handelsbank, Nordea, SEB, and Danske Bank. The cost of cross-border payments is estimated by relying on banks’ public price lists and other public data sources. We consider all relevant ...

* Based on a longer and more detailed publication (see R. Juks (2025) “Cross-Border Payments Offered by the Large Swedish Banks: Are They in Line with G20 Cost Targets?.” Staff memo, The Riksbank.

Download your sample issue here!

No part of Central Bank Payments News may be reproduced, copied, republished, or distributed in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without the express and prior written permission of the publisher, Currency Research Malta, Ltd.