OMTOnline Money Transfer
Research›The Last Mile Tax
DATA EDITION · 22 JULY 2026

Need the £200 in cash? The transfer costs about £2.10 more

Across 791 UK services, recipients without a usable account had fewer practical choices. Cash was usually the answer, and it came with a higher bill even after we allowed for harder routes.

Download the 33-country filePut the cost against UK payCheck our calculation
BEST ESTIMATE£2.10Extra cost for cash on £200
FAIR MATCHES12 of 17Cash cost more
CASH CHEAPER0 of 17Not once in the matched sample
COUNTRIES COMPARED30More exclusion usually meant more cash
HOW THE EXTRA COST APPEARS
RECIPIENT HASNO USABLE ACCOUNT
→
SO THEY NEEDCASH COLLECTION
→
OUR BEST ESTIMATE+£2.10

The £2.10 is an estimated average after allowing for the company and destination, plus the way the sender pays. It is not a tariff added to every cash transfer.

THE ACCESS PROBLEM

Without a usable account, the transfer needs a counter

1.3bnadults worldwide still have no financial accountGlobal Findex 2025

The World Bank counts an adult as unbanked when they have neither a financial-institution account nor a mobile-money account. Its measure covers people aged 15 and over.

Read the World Bank definition →
WHAT THE NUMBER LOOKS LIKE AT STREET LEVELThe sender pays from a sofa in Britain. The recipient may still travel across town and queue for notes.

Without a usable account, the recipient cannot simply wait for a bank credit. They may need a cash payout agent, acceptable identity documents, transport to the outlet and enough time to queue. Those travel and time costs are not included in our price data.

WHAT THE NUMBER CANNOT TELL USA national average does not describe every person receiving money.

A national unbanked rate is an average, not a description of every remittance recipient. An adult counted as “banked” may still have a dormant account, an account that cannot accept this payment, poor access to a branch, or a good reason to prefer cash.

1No usable accountThe recipient cannot receive a simple account credit.
→
2Cash becomes necessaryA local agent, cash stock and manual handover are needed.
→
3Fewer practical choicesThe family compares only services that can pay out nearby.
→
4The transfer can cost moreHigher fees or a weaker exchange rate create the penalty.
WHY PEOPLE REMAIN OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM

Usually several barriers overlap

World Bank survey work repeatedly points to lack of money, missing documentation, distance, service cost and distrust. Mobile money also depends on a phone, connectivity and the confidence to use it safely.

World Bank evidence on access barriers →
  • Not enough moneyAn account can feel irrelevant or unaffordable when income is irregular.
  • No accepted documentsID, proof of address and other checks can stop an application.
  • Too far or too costlyA branch may require a long journey and fees may outweigh the benefit.
  • No safe digital routeA shared phone, weak signal, fraud fears or low digital confidence can block access.
  • Trust and household controlSome people rely on a relative’s account or do not trust formal providers.
Why Kenya looks different

The World Bank treats mobile money as an account. Kenya can therefore record relatively low exclusion even where a conventional bank branch is not the main way people receive money.

THE PRICE RESULT

The raw cash gap is too large, but it does not vanish

Cash is common on difficult routes, so the simple averages overstate its effect. After allowing for those differences, the estimated premium falls from £5.44 to £2.10.

CASH AVERAGE£10.23Cost to move £200
ACCOUNT AVERAGE£4.79Cost to move £200
RAW DIFFERENCE+£5.44Before allowing for harder routes
FAIRER ESTIMATE+£2.10Likely range £1.15 to £3.04
OUR READINGFinancial exclusion creates the need for cash. The provider then decides how much of that inconvenience appears in its fee and customer rate.
PUT IT AGAINST UK PAY

A worker sending £200 each month spends £122.76 a year on average cash-transfer costs

CASH TRANSFER COSTS TAKE0.31%

of the UK median full time gross salary of £39,039

AND CONSUME6.2 hours

of gross pay at the UK median hourly rate

OVER FIVE YEARS£613.80

is spent moving £12,000 in monthly £200 transfers

CASH COLLECTION£122.76per year
0.31%of annual salary
5.12%of the money sent
CASH COSTS2.1× more

than account delivery in the observed averages.

RAW ANNUAL GAP+£65.29

or 3.3 hours of median gross pay each year.

FAIRER ANNUAL GAP+£25.16

0.06% of salary after allowing for harder routes and different offers.

What these percentages do and do not say

The salary comparison uses the ONS provisional 2025 median for full time employees and gross pay before tax. The transfer figures include both stated fees and exchange rate loss. The annual example assumes one £200 transfer every month. Different transfer amounts or frequency will change the result. Using take home pay would make the salary share larger.

THE DELIVERY METHOD

Cash is the costliest observed final mile

These are descriptive averages across the complete UK service panel, normalised to £200. They are not controlled comparisons.

Open JSON →
Cash394 services · 33 corridors
£10.235.12% of £200
Mobile wallet106 services · 16 corridors
£6.693.34% of £200
Card7 services · 3 corridors
£5.402.70% of £200
CASH AVERAGE£10.23Fee £3.71 · FX margin 3.26%
ACCOUNT AVERAGE£4.79Fee £2.10 · FX margin 1.34%
MOBILE WALLET AVERAGE£6.69Fee £0.91 · FX margin 2.89%
THE TEN BIGGEST CASH PENALTIES

What an extra cash charge looks like on a real £200 transfer

These are the ten largest gaps among 17 like for like comparisons. In each one, the provider, destination, payment method, speed, date and network coverage are the same. Only the way the recipient gets the money changes.

Download all 17 comparisons →
10largest matched penalties
6destination countries
8MoneyGram offers
£18.85largest extra cost
THE SURPRISING PARTThe largest cash penalties are not concentrated in the most unbanked countries.

These ten offers cover 6 destinations, and none has more than 29 in every 100 adults unbanked. National exclusion helps explain where cash is needed. It does not, by itself, explain how much a particular company charges for cash.

WHAT THE PROVIDER RESULT SAYS8 of the top 10 are MoneyGram offers. The other 2 are Western Union.

This is not an overall provider ranking. It describes specific offers captured in the World Bank dataset on a particular date. We can observe the customer price gap, but not the companies’ internal costs, so we call it a cash premium rather than a profit margin.

  1. #1BR
    MoneyGram

    Britain to Brazil

    Paid by credit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£18.85
    Into an account£2.82
    versus
    Collected as cash£21.67

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £18.85 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£4.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£13.86
    UNBANKED14%SERVICES OFFERING CASH24%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS15.8
  2. #2CN
    MoneyGram

    Britain to China

    Paid by debit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£7.73
    Into an account£2.58
    versus
    Collected as cash£10.31

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £7.73 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£4.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£2.74
    UNBANKED11%SERVICES OFFERING CASH17%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS8.7
  3. #3CN
    MoneyGram

    Britain to China

    Paid by credit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£7.49
    Into an account£4.18
    versus
    Collected as cash£11.67

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £7.49 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£4.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£2.50
    UNBANKED11%SERVICES OFFERING CASH17%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS8.7
  4. #4LT
    MoneyGram

    Britain to Lithuania

    Paid by debit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£6.25
    Into an account£2.44
    versus
    Collected as cash£8.69

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £6.25 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£4.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£1.26
    UNBANKED1%SERVICES OFFERING CASH40%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS9.6
  5. #5LT
    MoneyGram

    Britain to Lithuania

    Paid by credit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£5.85
    Into an account£3.66
    versus
    Collected as cash£9.51

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £5.85 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£5.00EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£0.84
    UNBANKED1%SERVICES OFFERING CASH40%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS9.6
  6. #6BG
    MoneyGram

    Britain to Bulgaria

    Paid by credit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£5.01
    Into an account£5.78
    versus
    Collected as cash£10.79

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £5.01 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£4.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£0.02
    UNBANKED15%SERVICES OFFERING CASH50%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS93.8
  7. #7BG
    MoneyGram

    Britain to Bulgaria

    Paid by debit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£4.99
    Into an account£5.20
    versus
    Collected as cash£10.19

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £4.99 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£4.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£0.00
    UNBANKED15%SERVICES OFFERING CASH50%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS93.8
  8. #8CN
    Western Union

    Britain to China

    Paid by bank account transfer · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£2.51
    Into an account£3.81
    versus
    Collected as cash£6.31

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £2.51 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£1.00EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£1.50
    UNBANKED11%SERVICES OFFERING CASH17%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS8.7
  9. #9IN
    Western Union

    Britain to India

    Paid by bank account transfer · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£1.39
    Into an account£1.29
    versus
    Collected as cash£2.69

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £1.39 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£1.00EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT+£0.40
    UNBANKED11%SERVICES OFFERING CASH32%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS14.6
  10. #10RO
    MoneyGram

    Britain to Romania

    Paid by credit card · stated speed: less than one hour

    +£1.02
    Into an account£2.39
    versus
    Collected as cash£3.41

    Cash makes the same £200 transfer £1.02 more expensive.

    EXTRA CASH FEE+£2.99EXCHANGE RATE EFFECT−£1.97
    UNBANKED29%SERVICES OFFERING CASH46%BANK BRANCHES / 100K ADULTS20.8
Average extra cost£3.68
Middle result£1.39
Average higher fee£2.52
Average exchange rate loss£1.15
THE COUNTRY PATTERN

Where fewer adults have accounts, providers offer more ways to collect cash

Each dot is a destination for money sent from Britain. Countries farther to the right have more adults without accounts. Countries higher up have more cash collection services.

WHAT THE DOTS SHOWStrong link

Across 30 countries, cash is much more common where account access is weaker. The formal rank correlation is 0.71.

THE SCALE EXCEPTIONPakistan

72.7% of adults are unbanked, yet the estimated average cost is only £3.23 per £200. A large, competitive corridor can offset weak access.

THE MOBILE MONEY EXCEPTIONKenya

Only 9.9% are unbanked under the Findex definition, which includes mobile money accounts. Cash accounts for 33.3% of observed services.

THE EUROPEAN EXCEPTIONBulgaria

Only 15.3% are unbanked, but half of observed services pay cash and the estimated average cost is £10.10. Access alone does not set price.

WHAT MOVES TOGETHER

The evidence supports an access story, not a simple corruption story

We compared the order of countries from low to high rather than pretending these very different measures form one score. The labels below give the plain English result; the smaller line preserves the statistical detail for readers who want it.

World Bank governance data →
FEWER ACCOUNTS → MORE CASH SERVICESClear pattern

Countries with more unbanked adults usually have more cash services. Rank correlation 0.71 across 30 countries.

MORE CASH SERVICES → HIGHER COSTClear pattern

Cash heavy corridors are usually more expensive. Rank correlation 0.62 across all 33 corridors.

FEWER ACCOUNTS → HIGHER COSTSome pattern

Countries with more unbanked adults tend to cost more, but the link is less powerful than their reliance on cash. Rank correlation 0.42.

WEAKER CORRUPTION CONTROL → MORE CASHSome pattern

Cash is more common where corruption control scores are weaker. That may reflect broader institutional and infrastructure conditions, not a provider decision.

CORRUPTION CONTROL → TRANSFER COSTNot clear

We do not find strong enough evidence that the national corruption score directly predicts what a transfer costs.

POLITICAL STABILITY → TRANSFER COSTLittle pattern

Political stability barely moves with the price of sending money in this 33 corridor sample.

What the corruption measure means

The World Bank Control of Corruption score combines perception based sources and ranges from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating stronger control. It provides national context. It does not measure the compliance cost, honesty or profitability of any provider in this study.

THE SWIFT QUESTION

Countries are not simply “SWIFT members”

SWIFT connects institutions, not national populations, and it does not hold customer money. Its network reaches more than 11,500 institutions; in 92% of countries and territories at least three institutions are connected. A yes or no country flag would therefore add false precision to this study.

Read SWIFT’s network explanation →
ALL 33 DESTINATIONS

The complete access and cost panel

Rows are ordered by cash service share. Missing values remain missing. We do not fill them with regional averages.

Download CSV →
DestinationEstimated cost per £200Cash servicesUnbanked adultsControl of corruptionInternet useATMs / 100kBranches / 100kGDP per person
AFAfghanistan3 services · 2 firms£17.818.90%100.0%3 cash services90.3%202121.40 weak · 100 strong16.1%2024Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported$4172024
EREritrea12 services · 6 firms£14.967.48%100.0%12 cash servicesNot reportedNo survey14.80 weak · 100 strongNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
SSSouth Sudan10 services · 4 firms£13.396.70%100.0%10 cash services94.2%20216.10 weak · 100 strongNot reportedNot reported1.020241.72024Not reportedNot reported
SLSierra Leone18 services · 7 firms£9.394.70%83.3%15 cash services61.4%202433.60 weak · 100 strong25.1%20243.520242.12024$8072024
GMThe Gambia22 services · 10 firms£22.5811.29%81.8%18 cash services61.8%202441.10 weak · 100 strong49.5%20248.420245.62024$8712024
LBLebanon15 services · 4 firms£9.244.62%80.0%12 cash services77.0%202421.50 weak · 100 strong80.6%202432.9202415.92024$4,4732024
JMJamaica20 services · 6 firms£6.753.37%80.0%16 cash services26.7%202145.90 weak · 100 strong90.1%202439.020246.92024$7,7542024
ALAlbania30 services · 6 firms£9.904.95%76.7%23 cash services53.9%202439.30 weak · 100 strong85.9%202444.8202418.02024$11,3742024
SOSomalia17 services · 6 firms£12.636.32%76.5%13 cash servicesNot reportedNo survey11.70 weak · 100 strong27.9%2024Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported$6302024
ETEthiopia19 services · 7 firms£7.583.79%63.2%12 cash services51.2%202439.00 weak · 100 strong21.9%202410.1202314.32023$1,1342024
ZWZimbabwe23 services · 7 firms£8.734.36%60.9%14 cash services50.5%202422.50 weak · 100 strong41.6%20244.120245.52024$2,4962024
PKPakistan29 services · 8 firms£3.231.61%58.6%17 cash services72.7%202426.30 weak · 100 strong57.3%202412.1202411.22024$1,4792024
ZMZambia21 services · 6 firms£6.753.37%57.1%12 cash services27.3%202438.60 weak · 100 strong17.1%20247.720242.52024$1,1872024
RWRwanda23 services · 7 firms£13.956.98%52.2%12 cash servicesNot reportedNo survey60.50 weak · 100 strong31.7%20243.520244.72024$1,0602024
LKSri Lanka29 services · 8 firms£4.482.24%51.7%15 cash services18.3%202440.10 weak · 100 strong54.6%2024Not reportedNot reported17.32024$4,5452024
BGBulgaria22 services · 5 firms£10.105.05%50.0%11 cash services15.3%202443.00 weak · 100 strong82.4%202492.3202493.82024$17,5972024
ZASouth Africa24 services · 9 firms£10.455.23%45.8%11 cash services18.9%202444.00 weak · 100 strong78.4%202446.020248.02024$6,2672024
RORomania24 services · 6 firms£4.982.49%45.8%11 cash services28.7%202448.40 weak · 100 strong91.3%202463.7202420.82024$20,0802024
NPNepal22 services · 6 firms£4.552.28%45.5%10 cash services40.0%202435.00 weak · 100 strong46.3%202424.5202423.82024$1,4602024
PHPhilippines38 services · 10 firms£4.882.44%44.7%17 cash services49.8%202436.20 weak · 100 strong67.3%202427.820248.12024$3,9852024
THThailand25 services · 8 firms£8.124.06%44.0%11 cash services8.2%202437.20 weak · 100 strong90.9%202493.020248.02024$7,3872024
VNVietnam25 services · 8 firms£6.133.06%44.0%11 cash services29.4%202442.80 weak · 100 strong84.2%202427.220243.12024$4,7172024
UGUganda34 services · 11 firms£7.973.99%41.2%14 cash services27.2%202425.30 weak · 100 strong8.9%20243.620242.12024$1,0782024
GHGhana37 services · 13 firms£7.893.94%40.5%15 cash services18.8%202443.90 weak · 100 strong72.2%202411.020245.92024$2,4192024
LTLithuania25 services · 9 firms£7.413.70%40.0%10 cash services1.0%202468.00 weak · 100 strong89.2%202446.020249.62024$29,6042024
BDBangladesh32 services · 10 firms£9.064.53%37.5%12 cash services56.7%202425.50 weak · 100 strong53.4%202415.920249.12024$2,5932024
TZTanzania24 services · 8 firms£9.054.53%37.5%9 cash services40.2%202441.90 weak · 100 strong31.2%20245.520242.42024$1,1932024
NGNigeria31 services · 9 firms£2.991.49%35.5%11 cash services36.7%202425.30 weak · 100 strong41.2%202412.820243.32024$1,0842024
KEKenya27 services · 10 firms£5.802.90%33.3%9 cash services9.9%202431.60 weak · 100 strong35.0%20246.420244.52024$2,1332024
INIndia28 services · 12 firms£2.771.38%32.1%9 cash services11.0%202441.90 weak · 100 strong64.9%202424.5202414.62024$2,5922024
PLPoland30 services · 10 firms£4.442.22%26.7%8 cash services13.9%202463.90 weak · 100 strong88.6%202466.6202421.32024$25,1042024
BRBrazil29 services · 9 firms£6.533.27%24.1%7 cash services13.6%202439.60 weak · 100 strong84.5%202489.9202415.82024$10,3112024
CNChina23 services · 6 firms£6.513.25%17.4%4 cash services10.6%202449.60 weak · 100 strong92.0%202467.820248.72024$13,2932024
METHOD AND LIMITS

Three tests, no hidden score

The study separates observed service prices, matched comparisons and country context. We do not describe correlation as proof of exploitation or assume every cost difference becomes provider profit.

01Price records

All 791 transparent UK service observations in World Bank RPW Q3 2025, across 33 destinations and 45 named providers.

02£200 estimate

We linearly interpolate monetary cost between the official £120 and £300 baskets. It is a normalised estimate, not a quote captured at exactly £200.

03Matched offers

Provider, corridor, funding, access point, speed, date and receiving coverage must match. Seventeen cash and account comparisons qualify.

04Adjusted model

The model allows for the company and route, plus how the transfer is funded. It also adjusts the uncertainty for uneven variation between records.

05Country context

Unbanked means the share of adults aged 15 and over without an account at a financial institution or mobile money provider. Findex 2025 surveys were conducted in 2024. Other indicators use the latest available 2021 to 2024 observation.

06Correlation

Spearman rank correlation tests whether countries move together. The panel is small and observational, so mechanisms remain interpretations rather than causal proof.

Important limit

The World Bank dataset measures available services, not customer transaction volumes. A corridor with ten cash products and one account product is not proof that ten times as many customers collect cash. The provider model describes pricing in the observed service menu.

SOURCES AND REUSE

Audit every input

Price data use the RPW workbook updated 5 May 2026. Financial inclusion uses the Global Findex 2025 edition, based on 2024 surveys. Governance uses the 2024 WGI release. The salary comparison uses provisional ONS April 2025 earnings.

Suggested citation

Online Money Transfer, “The Last Mile Tax 2026: What cash collection costs families receiving money from Britain”, data edition, 22 July 2026, published by Finofin Limited.

RESEARCH TEAM

The names attached to this work

The checking desk produces the rate records. Finofin Limited is responsible for the published explanations and for correcting them when the evidence changes.

AR
Alon RajicPublisher and research leadBackground and responsibilities →
RG
Russell GousHead of contentBackground and responsibilities →