Hide table of contents

Introduction

Often when donating to LMIC charities directly through bank transfer, a non-negligible amount of your money will likely be lost through intermediary bank fees, poor exchange rates or other fees. This can range from 1% to an egregious 20%. This guide aims to help minimise the amount of money lost in this process.

Note: This guide does not take into account tax deductibility which would likely be a superseding factor compared to transfer fee efficiency. Our experience stems from operating within the African landscape, particularly in transferring funds to various animal advocacy charities and projects across Africa, but we think this could also be highly applicable to other organisations working in low, middle income settings.

Advice for Sending Money Efficiently

Use Wise

My first and primary piece of advice in this guide is to sign up to and use Wise. Wise has the best exchange rates and the highest level of transparency I have come across, usually averaging out to around a fee of 0.7% for a one-way money exchange and transfer. In other words, donating $100 to a Mexican organisation would cost you ~$0.7 so they would end up receiving $99.3 instead of $100.

Go through as few entities as possible

I’d recommend making as few transactions as possible and going through the least number of intermediaries. This is because often there is a fee associated with each step of the transaction. So if you can make a direct transaction, that is optimal. 

For example, if you do a direct bank transfer, your transfer may be routed through additional intermediary banks each charging their own fee, or if donating through an intermediary third party donation website they may take their own fee, so it’s worth checking if this is the case. This could be by asking the recipient or referring to the donation website.

Send in the same currency as the recipient

This is generally good practice because you’ll know what exchange rate you’re paying when you exchange the money to the same currency as the recipient. Otherwise, you will pay the exchange rate the banks set unknowingly, which can be unfavourable, especially if it takes place on the recipient’s side.

I recommend asking if the receiver has a USD account (assuming you are sending in USD) or if it’s possible for them to set one up, especially if you are making large or multiple transactions and then sending in USD.

If you are not sending in USD it may make sense to exchange to the currency the recipient is using, to avoid conversion on the recipient's end of the transaction

Fortunately, in Wise, this is relatively easy. You can open a new account in most currencies (see image below). Once you have this new account you can exchange money into this account from your existing USD (or primary currency) account at a good rate.
 

 

Opening a new account balance in a different currency is simple with Wise. Open –> Choose your currency –> Confirm

Other Options

Sometimes Wise will not work, for example as I am writing this you cannot send to Nigerian recipients. My current best solution for this is using WorldRemit, which does work, although the fees are high. Unfortunately, sometimes you will have to accept paying a high fee for the sake of expediency.

In general, I have ordered this list with the lowest fee options first and progressing to those with the highest fees. (Take this with a pinch of salt and please do your own research as this is anecdotal to my own experience)

SendWave

SendWave has fair rates and covers a fair amount of countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It is worth checking SendWave, if Wise does not have your country covered. 

Caveat: I don’t recommend using cash pickup unless it is your absolute last option. It can be potentially unsafe for the recipient.

WorldRemit

As I mentioned above, WorldRemit often has countries covered that Wise does not. It’s worth checking, if neither SendWave nor Wise has you covered.

Bank Transfer

Often you are losing a fair bit of money on bank transfers. That said, if your bank has excellent transparency and foreign exchange rates, it could be a viable option.

Paypal

It’s unlikely PayPal will work better than any of the above options due to high fees but it can be worth checking.

Forex Company

I have tried to sign up with a couple of different FX companies and they both oversold and underdelivered. I could imagine if you are doing substantial transactions they may prioritise you and give you a better rate. Feel free to email me for information on my experience with Forex companies.

Another Regrantor 
 

Piggybacking off of another re-grantor like ourselves (Animal Advocacy Africa for transfers to animal advocacy organisations in Africa) who has optimised systems and transfers set up can cost less and be a smoother process, although you may incur further costs from going through multiple entities.

Recommended Resources

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions: cameron@animaladvocacyafrica.org


Want to learn more about our work and the African animal advocacy landscape? https://www.animaladvocacyafrica.org/

27

0
0
1

Reactions

0
0
1

More posts like this

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Executive summary: This guide provides recommendations on efficiently transferring funds to low and middle income country organizations to minimize fees and other losses, potentially saving 1-20% of donations. It advises using Wise for best rates, minimizing intermediaries, sending in recipients' currencies, and checking alternatives like SendWave if needed.

Key points:

  1. Use Wise for low fees (~0.7%) and good transparency.
  2. Make direct bank transfers when possible to avoid multiple fees.
  3. Send donations in the recipient's currency to control exchange rates.
  4. Check SendWave if Wise doesn't work for a country.
  5. Consider WorldRemit, bank transfers, PayPal as backups with higher fees.
  6. Contact intermediaries for large or frequent transfers to seek better rates.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

This guide does not take into account tax deductibility which would likely be a superseding factor  compared to transfer fee efficiency. 

For donors who deduct on their taxes, likely so. 

Do you have a sense of the amount and distribution of donations made directly to EA-related LMIC organizations by individuals in the US? I'm wondering how much potential advantage there would be to running a so-called "Friends of" organization for a group of small LMIC orgs to essentially gain tax deductibility in the US and/or to make an efficient donation experience more frictionless for the donor. (By distribution I am trying to capture whether most of the money is flowing to relatively few organizations vs. small cash flows to many organizations. The former would be more tractable.)

We're unsure, but our guess would be in the EA space, there will not be many organizations that aren't internationally registered despite working in LMICs.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal