BANGKOK, THAILAND – Foreign residents in Thailand reported that they received noticeably less money from international transfers via Wise in late 2025, fuelling online debate over rising fees and exchange rates.
Expats in Thailand feel the pinch
For many retirees and long‑term residents in Thai destinations such as Pattaya, Chiang Mai and Phuket, the daily check of the Wise app had become a ritual that underpinned their cost of living. In the final weeks of 2025, however, voices in social networks and forums said that transfer fees from British pounds to Thai baht had “clearly increased”, prompting heated discussions about eroding purchasing power in Thailand.
Users reported that the amount credited to local accounts at Bangkok Bank or Kasikorn Bank often fell short of expectations. A shortfall of 300 to 400 baht on a 1,000‑euro transfer was described as the equivalent of several simple street‑food meals, turning what once seemed abstract fee changes into a tangible cut in everyday life.
Dynamic pricing and market volatility
Behind each Wise transfer stood two key components: a visible service fee and the effective exchange rate, which the company promoted as close to the market mid‑rate. The article explained that in 2025, providers used local liquidity pools rather than moving money directly across borders, and the cost of holding balances in different currencies varied with central bank interest rates.
Wise applied both a fixed fee and a variable, percentage‑based fee on transfer amounts, and that variable component was not static. It fluctuated by currency pair and market volatility, so even a move from 0.55% to 0.65% could add up on larger transfers, particularly when combined with a less favourable rate.
Less baht, more frustration
A practical example described an Expat sending 2,000 euros to Thailand in November 2025 at an assumed rate of 36.50 baht per euro, implying a market value of 73,000 baht. After a modest fee increase, the customer might receive only 72,800 baht, a difference of 200 baht that felt like a loss of control even if it remained small in absolute terms.
On top of this, the Thai baht itself was portrayed as relatively stable but heavily influenced by tourism and gold prices, meaning its appreciation against the pound or the euro could reduce the baht payout without any change in Wise’s nominal fees. Many users appeared to confuse weaker European currencies with higher transfer costs, because the app only displayed the final amount, which often looked worse than in previous months.
Bank charges and tighter Thai oversight
The article also pointed to domestic fees charged by Thai recipient banks, despite Wise’s marketing of local transfers. Depending on the method used to move funds from a Wise partner account to a personal account, small “landing fees” could apply, and past adjustments by Thai banks made it more likely that such costs would be passed on rather than absorbed by the fintech.
At the same time, the Thai government and the Bank of Thailand had stepped up monitoring of cross‑border money flows in line with tax reforms that began in 2024. Stricter reporting duties for foreign income brought higher compliance costs for financial service providers, which, according to the analysis, were increasingly built into customer pricing across the industry.
Competition narrows the gap
The report stressed that Wise was not alone in adjusting its terms, noting that rivals such as Revolut and DeeMoney regularly changed their conditions as well. New entrants sometimes offered very low prices to win market share before moving fees to cost‑covering levels, while Wise, now an established and listed company, focused more on profitability and stability than on subsidised growth.
In this environment, experts suggested that traditional banks still tended to be more expensive and slower than fintechs, but that the perceived gap had narrowed as promotional “gifts” faded. The market, it said, had shifted towards more realistic pricing for fast, digital cross‑border payments.
Route‑specific hikes and SWIFT traps
Returning to complaints about pound‑to‑baht transfers, the analysis found that Wise had made route‑specific adjustments to its “dynamic fees”, particularly where partner banks in the United Kingdom or Asia had changed their own conditions. Transfers that had to run via the SWIFT system, for example for very large sums or special account types, had become “significantly more expensive” than local transfers.
In such cases, the text noted, customers who accidentally or unavoidably selected a SWIFT route could see costs “explode” and mistakenly interpret this as a general price increase. The underlying pattern, according to the article, was the passing on of higher liquidity and correspondent‑bank charges rather than a uniform mark‑up by the fintech itself.
Guaranteed rates and human perception
Another frequent source of confusion was Wise’s guaranteed exchange rate, typically valid for 24 to 48 hours. If money did not reach Wise in time, for instance due to manual bank transfers over a weekend, the guarantee expired and the transaction was executed at the then‑current, possibly worse rate.
The analysis said that in statements such as
“The fees have gone up!”
said an unnamed forum user, frustration often masked the fact that markets had simply moved against the sender between initiation and settlement. According to the article, human psychology amplified irritation over small changes, especially among budget‑conscious Expats who tracked the price of street food and local transport down to the baht.
Assessing transparency and alternatives
The text stated that contacting Wise customer support typically yielded standardised responses pointing to “market conditions”, which many found unsatisfying but not necessarily inaccurate. It emphasised that the fee shown in the app before sending was binding and that there were no hidden charges added afterwards; any “shock” therefore occurred before confirmation, not retroactively.
At the same time, readers were reminded that large liquidity providers and global banks widened their spreads during periods of economic uncertainty, forcing Wise either to worsen its offered rate or slightly raise variable fees to maintain margins. Customers were encouraged to compare providers such as Remitly or Panda Remit, while being wary of “zero fee” advertising where the real cost was embedded in a poorer exchange rate.
Looking ahead in a changing market
According to the article, experts expected that the era of “extremely cheap” transfers was ending as the fintech sector consolidated and interest rates stayed higher, making money movements more expensive to fund. Competitive pressure, however, was likely to prevent prices from “exploding”, and users in Thailand were advised to stay alert and compare two or three apps before larger transfers.
The text suggested practical strategies such as bundling transactions into monthly payments to dilute fixed fees, using price alerts, and sending money when time allowed for waiting on a favourable rate. Flexibility, it argued, had become one of the most valuable assets for foreign residents managing their income flows.
Crypto detours and tax paperwork
A short section noted that some Expats experimented with stablecoins such as USDT to save on charges, but described this as a legal and tax grey area in Thailand, with local banks reportedly sceptical of unclear crypto‑funded inflows. The potential risk of account blocks was presented as outweighing modest savings on transfer fees for most users.
From a tax perspective, higher fees could in theory reduce taxable income if money was brought into Thailand in the same year, but the article called this “cold comfort”. Instead, it underlined the value of detailed documentation from Wise and similar services, which could help demonstrate to Thai authorities that incoming funds derived from savings or pensions.
Conclusion: market forces, not conspiracy
The piece concluded that fees had indeed risen “selectively and dynamically” for certain routes, including GBP to THB, driven by higher partner‑bank and liquidity costs rather than a blanket percentage hike for all customers. It described the perceived deterioration as a mix of minimal real adjustments and the general weakness of source currencies against the baht.
The overall message was that users were not being “ripped off” but faced a more mature, cost‑reflective pricing environment. The analysis advised comparing providers rather than panicking, and closed with a reminder that exchange rates and fees as of November 2025 were subject to constant change and that readers should check current conditions and applicable Thai tax rules before each transfer.