How global art auctions expose FX fees imbalance

Yahoo18 hours ago

Imagine for a minute that you were the winning bidder last year for Claude Monet's Nymphéas. It sold last year at Sotheby's, New York after a competitive bidding war lasting only 17 minutes. And the price? $65.5m. That is just for starters. One might be forgiven for thinking that the auction house commission for the sale would be paid by the seller.
One would of course be wrong. There is the buyer's premium to calculate. In this case, if Sotheby's standard fees applied, that means a 27% buyer's premium for works up to $1m; 22% for the part of the transaction between $1m-$8m and 15% for the balance above $8m. The Monet is now going to set back the buyer almost $76m. And there is more to come.
Let us also imagine that the buyer is based in the UK and is working through his or her bank, say one of the traditional big four banks. The bank will typically add to the cost of the Monet by charging an FX fee of at least 2%, probably closer to the 3% to 4% range. Even at the midpoint of the FX fees scale, that adds about another $2.3m to the final cost to the buyer.
For the sake of brevity, let us avoid the tricky question of VAT on the buyers premium or VAT on imported works of art and just focus on FX fees. The total cost of the Monet in question, including VAT, is now way over $80m for a UK buyer. A saving on the FX fee is do-able and it is almost akin to negligence if the theoretical winning UK bidder uses a traditional bank and meekly pays a 3%-4% FX fee.
It also offers disrupters in the market such as iBanFirst, an outstanding market opportunity to highlight the benefits of its smarter, fairer FX fees structure.
Vivek Savani, UK Country Manager at iBanFirst, is on a mission to address the imbalance in the FX market.
'Whether we're talking about high-net-worth individuals or not, the foreign exchange imbalance is an unnecessary premium that really doesn't represent smart financial management. It also affects businesses. And I think when we look at it, there are exorbitant fees and premiums built into FX pricing and services that many banks offer.
'Over 70% of businesses are still using their bank. If we extrapolate that to the private market for individuals, it's probably vastly more than 70% moving up towards 80% and 90% of individuals that have currency transfers and requirements, that are using their bank. And it's there that these fees really start to kick in. Typically, they may charge between 2% to 4% and ultimately, that's a really, really high price to pay for, ultimately what is quite a straightforward transaction. And they offer, essentially an execution only service. They seldom offer the quite bespoke service that many of these individuals and businesses require. So yeah, I'd say it's quite a vast problem.'
To suggest that the global art market is struggling, as some have claimed, might be stretching it a little. If you want a quick but comprehensive summary of the sector, the annual Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2025 by Arts Economics is a good starting point. It reveals that the global art market recorded an estimated $57.5bn in sales in 2024.
The number of transactions grew 3% year-on-year, demonstrating continued interest from collectors worldwide. On the other hand, that total for the year of $57.5bn is down by 12% y-o-y.
The US and UK continue to lead the way with 43% and 18% respectively of global sales by value. But their 2024 sales of $24.8bn and $10.4bn are down by 9% and 5% respectively.
Given the decline in the total value of art sales, Savani argues that it is time for the art world to start paying closer attention to FX and says this could support the entire ecosystem. It would encourage higher bids for auction houses/dealers, support a better seller experience and increasing buyer strength.
And he highlights the support iBanFirst provides in the global art market and says that its business model, built around close relationships, mirrors the art world. Specifically, iBanFirst
can help buyers and sellers better track payments, meaning that they are better equipped when it comes to buying and selling based on the real-time cost of currency.
'Purchasing art is a sizable investment for many people, and those fees add to the overall cost of that transaction. They're quite opaque. So ultimately, I would argue that this really deters many people from potentially participating in an overseas auction. It erodes confidence and penalises the sellers potentially from having a wider audience to bid on those particular pieces of art. Having overall transparency would really encourage people to participate and help the sellers and help the buyers at the same time, as well as the intermediaries, the brokers and the auction houses that are a central part of that particular ecosystem.'
Savani says that there has been a rise in levels of interest in working with FX specialists instead of banks for such international transfers and in the specialist service that bespoke disruptors can offer.
But he adds: 'It's not moving at as quick a pace as one would hope. From the consumer perspective, we want to work with more individuals, more dealers, more brokers, to try and bridge that gap. It is improving. There's still a lot of work to be done, and we hope that we can get the message out there that there is an alternative to the bank. There are better levels of service, of convenience, of information, of assistance that are out there.'
Savani summarises the iBanFirst proposition as offering a combination of technology mixed with the human touch.
'We have a really nice piece of technology. Many clients find the platform really convenient, very easy to use, and very different to what a banking system would offer them. We also offer that human touch, so someone that is there to speak to the client from the beginning of the transaction right until the end. And this is something that is really missing from a banking solution and many of our competitors.
'That is, a specialised individual that can provide guidance in terms of setting up the transaction, even more insight and a real, healthy overview of what's happening in the market at any particular time. Ultimately, we hold the hand of the client from the beginning until the end. And that is a very important feature, I would say, when it comes to these high value transactions. They're not small amounts of money, and it's a comfort for clients to know there is someone at the end of a phone that will help them with any situation, whether it's funds, whether it's the payment, whether it's making the transaction, the FX piece.'
Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Belgium, iBanFirst is regulated as a payment institution, passported throughout the EU and is a serious competitor to the traditional bank offering for SMBs.
Its core banking platform offers fast and secure multicurrency transactions and it wins on cost versus banks, thanks to no setup fee, no tiered monthly subscription costs and no transfer fees. Savani says that what the client sees is exactly what the client pays.
The iBanFirst pricing structure is designed with scaling international businesses in mind. iBanFirst gives a standard exchange rate spread that applies across all of a client's transactions. This means they can predict their costs even as payment values increase, rather than watching fees eat away at profits. Its offering best suits established small and medium businesses that are outgrowing entry level payment providers and that need advanced tools for things like FX risk management. It will suit importers and exporters with international supply chains seeking the tools and expertise to manage complex payments, that do not want fees eating into their margins. And it suits wholesalers who rely on FX risk management tools that crave detailed payment tracking and hands on responsive support.
What's more, iBanFirst clients are able to track international payments every step of the way, with detailed, timestamped updates and tracking links that clients can share with their partners and suppliers.
This is, however, a competitive market, and iBanFirst is competing with some serious players. For example, Wise Business can claim that it keeps things simple, both in terms of pricing and functionality. It targets both individual consumers and businesses, especially those looking for a cost-effective solution.
On the other hand, once you are regularly moving over, say, €100,000 euros annually, across borders, iBanFirst would argue that Wise's per transaction fees soon start adding up. And if a business is growing, foreign currency risks will become more of a concern. Wise doesn't offer the kind of FX risk management tools or dedicated support that iBanFirst offers to protect margins from exchange rate swings.
Another competitor is Airwallex, a cross-border payment provider that offers multi-currency accounts. Airwallex is a payment gateway allowing e-commerce businesses to collect online payments, and it offers virtual and physical cards for expense management. On the other hand, it's a more complex platform, and its features are plan dependent, that may require a steep learning curve for some users. And iBanFirst might argue that the Airwallex pricing structure is not the most SMB friendly.
Another competitor is Payoneer, which specialises in facilitating payments to and from freelancers, contractors and online sellers. But with a split focus across multiple audiences, freelancers, businesses and marketplaces, Payoneer, arguably isn't so focused on developing solutions that meet the specific needs of SMBs.
And then there is Ebury. Ebury offers forward contracts and other FX hedging tools and offers mass payment capabilities for handling multiple international transactions. However, its complex tailored pricing structure can make it harder for businesses to predict costs or compare Ebury to other providers.
In addition, iBanFirst may argue that the Ebury platform is not so user friendly, making it harder to integrate into a modern tech stack.
Two other competitors are Convera and Revolut. Convera does suit large businesses with more complex FX needs across multiple countries, but some SMBs may find the Convera platform overwhelming and potentially more expensive than alternatives like Wise or iBanFirst.
And finally, there is Revolut. It features a tiered monthly subscription model and each plan comes with a monthly allowance for currency exchanges at the interbank rate. Revolut business does work well for companies that want a single platform to handle most of their financial needs.
So, it does have a lot to offer in terms of functionality, but iBanFirst could argue it's not a specialised tool for a specific business type, because it tries to cater to vastly different audiences. Accordingly, some clients may find themselves paying for features that are not relevant to their business needs.
And Savani can argue that if human support is a must have, iBanFirst can win against any of what is a very competitive peer group.
"How global art auctions expose FX fees imbalance" was originally created and published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO

Yahoo

29 minutes ago

Yahoo

Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO

(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos