Latest news with #remittances
Khaleej Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Startup founded by expat raises $93 million fund for cross-border digital payments
A cross-border digital payments startup, founded by an Indian expat who grew up in Abu Dhabi, has raised $93 million from investors and is now 'trying to build a verticalised (focused on a specific industry) financial experience for the Indian diaspora.' Aspora (formerly Vance) told Khaleej Times it cumulatively raised $93m from Sequoia Capital, Greylock, and other angel investors, including Quantum Light (the venture fund set up by Revolut CEO, Nikolay Storonsky). 'While a lot of financial products are in our future roadmap, we currently focus largely on remittances by keeping convenience at the center,' added the banking/ remittance startup. Aspora was founded in 2022 by Parth Garg, who dropped out of Stanford to build the company. Garg was raised in Abu Dhabi, and his family still resides in the Capital. The startup is building banking solutions for immigrant diasporas, beginning with the global Indian community. 'We currently help 250,000 users remit money to India, and the majority of our users are in the UAE,' Aspora noted, adding: 'We currently process more than $2 billion in volume, up from $400 million when we raised our Series A, six months ago. Our users have saved over $15 million in fees with Aspora over this period.' Aspora assured users they follow exchange rates identical to those on Google, and more importantly, they 'charge zero fees on transfers in the UAE but there is a fee in other regions. 'We are currently present in the UK, the UAE, and the EU region. We are launching in the US in July and in Canada, Australia, and Singapore by the end of 2025,' said Aspora, which is headquartered in London with offices in Dubai and Bengaluru. The company also announced new products 'that will help users bank across multiple countries, invest in multiple asset classes, and avail credit and insurance across borders.' Lead investor and new board member Luciana Lixandru noted: 'Aspora is bringing diaspora banking into the modern age, enabling (expats) participate in the growth stories of their home countries. This isn't just about digital banking, it's about the new opportunities Aspora can create for immigrants all over the world.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Remitly Global Stock Finished Up Almost 6% Today
One Wall Street analyst believes the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" going through the Senate could be a tailwind for Remitly. Because of its focus on remittances, Remitly has exposure to regulatory risk. The company is on track for another year of strong growth. 10 stocks we like better than Remitly Global › Shares of Remitly Global (NASDAQ: RELY) finished higher Tuesday on signs that the "Big, Beautiful Bill" moving through Congress could be less burdensome than initially expected, as one Wall Street analyst pointed out, after Senate revisions to the bill. As a result, shares of Remitly, which facilitates remittance payments, closed on Tuesday up 5.7% even as the broad market was down nearly 1%. According to a note from William Blair, Senate Republicans proposed "less onerous" restrictions in the tax and budget bill than investors had previously feared. William Blair even speculated that the bill, as currently proposed, could be a tailwind for Remitly, leading to increased adoption of digital remittances. Currently, the company competes with Western Union and Moneygram, as well as more traditional methods of remittances. The bill in the House had proposed a 3.5% excise tax on remittances, which would have imposed an additional burden on immigrants sending money home and could have led them to use methods like money orders that could more easily avoid the tax. Remitly investors should keep an eye on the bill, as any change in policy around remittances is likely to affect the company. Thus far, the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration doesn't seem to have had an effect on the company's business. First-quarter results were strong, with send volume up 41% and revenue up 34%. For the full year, the company expects revenue growth of 25%-26%. With numbers like that, Remitly is clearly gaining market share and capitalizing on the large market for remittances. If regulations don't get in the way, the company should continue to deliver steady growth. Before you buy stock in Remitly Global, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Remitly Global wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $660,821!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $886,880!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 791% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 174% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Jeremy Bowman has positions in Remitly Global. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Remitly Global Stock Finished Up Almost 6% Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Finextra
4 days ago
- Business
- Finextra
Jingle Pay collaborates with Western Union on cross-border remittances
Jingle Pay, a leading digital financial services platform in the Middle East & South Asia, today announced a significant collaboration partnership with Western Union, to enable delivery of international money transfers (remittances) from select markets. 1 Under this agreement, Jingle Pay will serve as a key partner for Western Union, providing support to the flow of cross-border money transfers currently to bank accounts & mobile wallets. Amir Fardghassemi, Chief Executive Officer of Jingle Pay, emphasized the significance of the alliance: 'This partnership is a defining milestone in Jingle Pay's journey. Being selected by Western Union to deliver their transactions from multiple send markets is a testament to our platform's reliability and scale. We're proud to enable faster and more accessible remittance experiences for communities that depend on cross-border support.' Riz Sohail, Chief Business Officer at Jingle Pay, noted:'With Western Union's extensive global network and Jingle Pay's cutting-edge technology, we are well-positioned to transform the remittance experience for millions of consumers. This collaboration not only supports financial inclusion, but also opens up scalable opportunities for innovation in international payments.' Giovanni Angelini, President of Europe, Middle East and Africa at Western Union, commented:'At Western Union, we are committed to connecting customers with their loved ones around the world through fast, convenient and trusted global money transfer services. Collaborating with Jingle Pay is an important step in furthering this commitment, expanding access to financial services and driving greater financial inclusion where it matters most.' Hatem Sleiman, Regional Vice President of Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan at Western Union added:'Our collaboration with Jingle Pay reflects our focus on meeting the evolving needs of digitally savvy customers. By combining our strengths, we're making international money transfers more accessible and relevant. Together, we are driving innovation that empowers customers with seamless and reliable money transfers, supporting their growth.' Both companies are also exploring expansion to additional high-demand corridors in the near future, aiming to further enhance access to seamless and secure cross-border money transfer
Forbes
4 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
U.S. Lawmakers Ponder A Remittance Tax
Nestled in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) winding its way through the U.S. Congress is a tax provision that could have ripple effects around the world: an excise tax on international remittances sent by individuals who live in the United States but are not U.S. citizens or nationals. The United States is by far the largest source of international remittances to lower-income countries. In 2022 U.S. remittances exceeded $79 billion. Compare that with the second largest remitter — Saudi Arabia — which sent a much smaller $39.3 billion. Rounding out the top four countries are Switzerland and Germany, which respectively sent roughly $32 billion and $25.6 billion that year, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration (International Organization for Migration, 'Migration and Migrants: A Global Overview,' 2 (2024)). It's not surprising that the United States is the top remitter given that it has the largest immigrant population in the world. But which countries largely benefit from these cash outflows? It turns out that India receives the lion's share of international remittances. In 2022 it received over $111 billion. Mexico is in second place with over $61 billion in remittances. Rounding out the top five countries were China, the Philippines, and France, which received $51 billion, $38 billion, and $31 billion, respectively. Not only is India the top recipient, but it receives a sizable portion of its total remittances from the United States — nearly 28 percent, according to the Financial Times. Having passed the House, the OBBBA has been taken up by the Senate. If the Senate keeps the remittance measure, it will mark the first time that the federal government has implemented a remittance tax on international transfers sent by individuals. While the remittance tax is attracting a lot of scrutiny, this is not the first time that congressional lawmakers have considered implementing one. Over the past decade, several bills have been introduced to tax international remittances, but the current measure has advanced the furthest. The United States is also not alone in considering — or implementing — a remittance tax. This kind of measure has been considered in Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain (see Dilip Ratha, Supriyo De, and Kirsten Scheuttler, 'Why Taxing Remittances Is a Bad Idea,' World Bank People Move blog, Mar. 24, 2017). But remittance taxes historically have had little lasting power, raising questions about their short- and long-term feasibility. However, the sheer size of global remittances, coupled with the fact that legislators do occasionally consider taxing them, indicates there's a need for more research on remittance inflows and outflows and the benefits and drawbacks of these taxes. The budget bill seeks to implement a 3.5 percent excise tax on personal remittance transfers sent by non-U.S. individuals. The sender — not the recipient — would bear the tax. However, the responsibility for collecting the tax would fall on remittance transfer providers, which would be responsible for paying the tax quarterly to the government. The excise tax would not apply to any individual who is a U.S. citizen or U.S. national and sends remittances through so-called qualified remittance transfer providers. If those individuals, for whatever reason, do wind up paying some excise tax, they would receive a refundable tax credit. However, to receive a credit, the individual must provide a U.S. Social Security number. Lawmakers want remittance transfer providers to have skin in the game as well. Under the bill, a qualified provider must agree in writing to verify whether customers are U.S. citizens or nationals. This is important for remittance transfer providers because they have secondary liability for any unpaid or uncollected tax under the bill. If implemented, the measure would apply to remittances made on January 1, 2026, and onward. The remittance proposal is not the first one that federal lawmakers have considered. In 2022 a proposed bill (H.R. 8566) sought to apply a 5 percent remittance fee on all money transfers sent out of the United States. However, U.S. citizens could claim a refundable tax credit. A year later, the measure was reintroduced, but the fee doubled to 10 percent (see Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., release, 'Hern, Vance Introduce Bill to Tax Cartel's International Money Transfers,' Dec. 14, 2023). In 2017 a proposed bill (H.R. 1813) sought to apply a 2 percent remittance fee on money transfers sent to individuals in 42 Latin American and Caribbean countries, including Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Jamaica, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina. That proposal applied to all remittances, regardless of the sender's U.S. citizenship or national status. In 2015 a proposed bill (S. 79) sought to apply a 7 percent fine on international remittance transfers sent by individuals who could not confirm their legal status within the United States. That measure also required remittance transfer providers to verify the sender's status, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be responsible for enforcing the measure. The bill generated some questions about how much revenue the federal government might raise. The bill's sponsor, then-Sen. David Vitter, asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate how the bill might affect both remitters and remittance transfer providers and forecast any potential revenue. In a 2016 report, the GAO conducted a scenario analysis and found that net revenue from a remittance fine could vary significantly, ranging from $10 million to $1.29 billion (see GAO, 'International Remittances Actions Needed to Address Unreliable Official U.S. Estimate,' Feb. 2016). The agency said the yield would rely on factors like 'the dollar amount of remittances sent by those without legal immigration status, changes in remitter behavior because of the fine, including a potential reduction in remittances through regulated providers, and the cost of enforcement.' Chiefly, the fine could drive senders from regulated markets to black markets or induce them to rely on relatives and friends who have legal status to send money on their behalf. As for enforcement costs, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau flagged that costs would include things like developing rules, examining providers, and coordinating enforcement actions with other federal agencies. Remittance transfer providers also told the GAO they were concerned about negative impacts on their businesses and negative impacts to smaller providers. Some of that concern was based on outcomes from Oklahoma's remittance tax. In 2009 Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to enact a fee on remittance transfers out of the state. Under Oklahoma's law, a $5 fee applies to the first $500, and any subsequent amount is taxed at a 1 percent fee (63 Okla. Stat. section 2-503.1j). The law applies to every transaction that meets the monetary threshold. However, individuals who have a valid SSN or taxpayer identification number are allowed to claim an income tax credit that equals the amount of the remittance fee paid. For its 2016 report, the GAO interviewed some remittance transfer providers who did business in Oklahoma. Those providers generally said that transaction activity and revenues had dropped in the wake of the law. One provider told the GAO that business had shifted to out-of-state transfer providers and informal channels. However, a state audit official told the GAO that the state's revenues from the fee had increased. Oklahoma's annual revenue and apportionment reports contain data about the transmitter fee, and it is true that the fee's revenues have significantly increased over time. According to the 2010 report, the fee generated about $5.7 million in revenue that year. By 2018 that number jumped to nearly $13.2 million and has hovered around that level over the past few years, with some declines during the COVID-19 pandemic (see 'Oklahoma Tax Commission Annual Report,' June 30, 2018). As for the federal proposal before the Senate, the remittance industry is unenthusiastic, and several trade associations have issued letters and statements asking lawmakers to remove it. The American Fintech Council, a trade association of fintech companies and innovative banks, is one of them. CEO Phil Goldfeder said in a May 27 release: 'This tax would put pressure on grocers, pharmacies, and other small businesses that provide remittance services, threatening to raise costs for consumers well beyond those who send money abroad. Rather than imposing new burdens, Congress should work with responsible financial innovators, regulators, and consumer advocates to modernize payment systems in ways that are fair, efficient, and inclusive.' The American Fintech Council is concerned that the remittance tax could drive consumers into black markets, citing as examples the 2016 GAO report and Oklahoma's experience. The statement doesn't mention digital currency, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the remittance proposal could push remitters to use virtual assets as a workaround. That could create unwanted ripple effects for governments trying to discourage the use of money transfer back channels. The organization is also worried about regulatory overload, particularly because states across the country are standardizing their remittance regulations. In 2021 the Conference of State Bank Supervisors — a national association of state banking regulators — published the Money Transmission Modernization Act, which offers a streamlined set of standards. According to the association, 30 states have adopted the law either in whole or in part. The American Fintech Council, which supports the model law, thinks the federal government should let state-level regulators handle this domain. 'Layering federal taxes on top of state regulations would raise compliance costs for remittance providers, leading to higher fees for consumers or fewer options in the market,' the release added. The organization also signed onto a joint letter sent by seven trade associations to Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore. In that letter, the group highlighted several concerns about the proposal, including concerns about privacy and operational complexity. The organizations worry that the remittance tax will require providers to collect significant amounts of personal data on a large volume of transactions. Although the legislation does not describe how providers should verify a sender's U.S. status, the organizations say in the letter that 'it appears inevitable that it would require the collection and verification of sensitive personal information such as Passport or social security number — which presents a very serious privacy concern.' On the operational side, the organizations are concerned that the volume of information to be collected will overwhelm remittance providers. The measure does not mention anything about a minimum value threshold for remittance amounts, which means transfer providers would have to keep track of everything. In 2017 a strongly worded World Bank blog post offered nine reasons why governments should avoid taxing remittances. At the time of publication, a small handful of governments, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, were considering these measures. The post, 'Why Taxing Remittances Is a Bad Idea,' said the effort may not be worth the cost. Citing the 2016 GAO report along with IMF estimates, the blog post said the resulting revenue would likely account for a meager portion of GDP. For example, the IMF estimated that a 5 percent remittance tax in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE would have raised about $4 billion among the six countries in 2015 (see 'Diversifying Government Revenue in the GCC: Next Steps,' IMF (Oct. 26, 2016)). In the United States, a 7 percent remittance tax would likely raise less than $1 billion (as noted above). The blog post pointed out that some countries that implemented remittance taxes — whether on outward or inward remittance flows — later removed them. They included Vietnam, Tajikistan, Gabon, and Palau. But a few countries have found ways to maintain some level of taxation. The Philippines applies a document stamp tax on remittances but exempts remittances made by Filipino individuals residing overseas, provided they can show proper documentation of their Philippine status. While the blog post discouraged remittance taxes, it called for a systematic study on the feasibility of these taxes and their implications, given that literature at the time did not seriously discuss them. Several years later, there is still a lack of literature on the taxation of remittances, and it appears it's time for more research. Given that the U.S. GAO report is nearly a decade old, and given that remittance tax proposals continue to appear, new U.S. research into this topic may be warranted. That research could be bolstered by examples from other countries. Ecuador notably implements a tax on international remittances. (Prior analysis: Tax Notes Int'l, May 18, 2020, p. 803.) Money sent outside the country is subject to a 5 percent fee, and banks are required to withhold the fee. However, taxpayers are allowed to deduct the fee from their local income taxes. India applies a withholding tax to some overseas remittances. Under the country's Liberalized Remittance Scheme, individuals can send up to $250,000 abroad annually. The withholding tax, whose rate varies from 0.5 to 20 percent based on the kind of remittance, generally kicks in after remittances exceed INR 10 lakh (about $11,600), and individuals can claim the withheld tax as a refund. Bahrain does not have a remittance transfer tax, but it has seriously considered one. In January 2024 the lower house of Bahrain's National Assembly approved a 2 percent tax on remittances sent overseas, but it failed in the upper house. But the measure reappeared this year. In January Bahrain's lower house again approved a 2 percent tax on remittances sent overseas, and again the upper house rejected it, according to local reports. Some lawmakers reportedly were concerned that the fee could lead to an increase in money laundering, an issue that has yet to be explored in the United States (see 'Bahrain: 2% Tax on Remittances Is Rejected,' Gulf Daily News (Mar. 4, 2025)).
Entrepreneur
4 days ago
- Business
- Entrepreneur
Fintech Aspora Closes USD 53 Mn Series B Led by Sequoia and Greylock
You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. Fintech startup Aspora, which was previously known as Vance, has successfully raised USD 53 million in a Series B funding round, co-led by Sequoia Capital and Greylock. It also received support from Quantum Light Ventures, Hummingbird Ventures, and Y Combinator. With this latest round, the company's total funding has reached $99 million, giving it a valuation of USD 500 million. The new funds will be used to enhance Aspora's cross-border banking infrastructure, expand into new markets like the US, Canada, Australia, and Singapore, and introduce a range of financial products designed specifically for global diaspora communities. Currently, Aspora operates in the UK, UAE, and EU, serving over 250,000 users, mainly non-resident Indians (NRIs). "The latest fundraise allows us to accelerate our mission of building a truly global financial ecosystem for diaspora communities," said Parth Garg, the Founder and CEO of Aspora. "We're just getting started—our users deserve modern financial infrastructure that works across borders." Founded in 2022 by Parth Garg, who left Stanford University to pursue this venture, Aspora is dedicated to rethinking banking for immigrants. The company provides zero-fee remittance services, offers exchange rates that match Google's, and supplies tools for investing, banking, and accessing credit and insurance on a global scale. Aspora rebranded from Vance to Aspora in April 2025, reflecting its ambition to serve diaspora populations worldwide, not just in India. In just six months, Aspora claims its transaction volume has increased from USD 400 million to over USD 2 billion, saving users more than USD 17.5 million in foreign exchange fees. This latest Series B round follows two earlier funding rounds: a $5 million seed extension in September 2024 and a USD 35 million Series A in December 2024, both led by Sequoia Capital and backed by existing investors. Luciana Lixandru, Partner, Sequoia Capital, "Aspora is bringing diaspora banking into the modern age. This isn't just about digital banking; it's about the new opportunities it creates." Aspora is backed by notable angel investors including Balaji Srinivasan (former CTO, Coinbase), Sundeep Jain (former CPO, Uber), and Chad West (former Head of Marketing, Revolut). Headquartered in London, with offices in Dubai and Bengaluru, Aspora is positioning itself as the go-to platform for seamless financial services for the global Indian diaspora.
