I write email sequences for a living, mostly for ecommerce brands in the United States and a smaller number of SaaS companies in Singapore and Australia. The work is the work. The campaigns either move the metric or they do not, and after eight years of doing this I have a reasonably good instinct for which is which. What I want to write about is not the work. It is the part of the freelance life that nobody outside Nepal ever has to think about, which is the question of how the money actually gets from a client's Stripe account in Delaware to my bank account in Kathmandu without a meaningful percentage of it evaporating along the way.
The opening anecdote I tell when other Nepali freelancers ask me about this is the one about my first big retainer client, a New York DTC brand that paid me a quarterly fee that was, by Kathmandu standards, life-changing. The invoice went out on a Friday. The payment cleared their end on Monday. It reached my bank in Kathmandu on the following Friday, eleven days later, with three different correspondent banks each taking a quiet bite, and a final conversion rate that was about 4% worse than the mid-market rate I had been quoting myself when I priced the work. I had quoted the rate as if the money would arrive cleanly. The money does not arrive cleanly. The money arrives diminished.
That experience set me off on what turned into a two-year project to find a stack that actually worked. The constraint set is unusual. Nepal Rastra Bank has rules about how foreign currency can be received, what it can be converted into, when it has to be converted, and what kind of accounts can hold it. PayPal works, in the sense that you can receive money into it, but you cannot easily withdraw to a Nepali bank account without going through workarounds that I am not going to write about in detail because they are exactly the kind of thing the regulator notices eventually. Stripe does not work for receiving in Nepal at all. Wise has historically not supported receiving in NPR. Payoneer does, with caveats. The picture is not as clean as the picture in a country where you can just plug your IBAN into a client's portal and forget about it.
The piece that helped me think about the trade-offs rather than just react to the latest workaround was a guide to the best payment receivers for freelancers in South Asia. It compared the actual fee structures, not the headline ones, and it included the part that matters most, which is the time-to-cash. A platform that charges 2% but takes nine days to release the funds is, for a freelancer who has rent due, often worse than a platform that charges 3% and releases in two. The piece also covered the regulatory side honestly, including which platforms have proper agreements with Nepali banks and which are operating in a grey zone you do not want to be in if you ever want to formally document your income for, say, a visa application or a mortgage.
The stack I ended up with is not exotic. Payoneer for the US clients, because the global payment service provides a virtual US account number that the client's accounts payable software can treat as a domestic ACH payment, which is what they want. Wise for the European and Australian clients, because the conversion to USD is cleaner and the routing through their correspondent network is faster. A USD-denominated account at a Nepali bank that has a properly documented relationship with both, so the inbound transfers from Payoneer and Wise land cleanly without triggering the manual review that the smaller banks here sometimes do. And, importantly, a written record of every invoice, every conversion, and every transfer, kept in a way that I can hand to my accountant once a year for the income tax filing without any of it being a mystery.
The other piece I leaned on, which did the comparison I most needed in the order I needed it, was a clean breakdown of Wise versus Payoneer for receiving payments into Nepal. It went through the fee structures at different invoice sizes, the supported currencies, the withdrawal mechanics into Nepali banks, and the practical question of which works better for which kind of client. The thing I most needed it to confirm, which it did, was that the choice is not which platform is better in general, but which platform is better for which client. The US clients want ACH. The European clients want SEPA or local. The Australian client wants PayID. Payoneer is better for the ACH case. Wise is better for the SEPA and local cases. Running both is more administrative work than running one, but the saving on each invoice more than pays for the extra hour a month I spend reconciling.
The thing I did not initially appreciate, which I now consider central, is the cost of the SWIFT route for smaller invoices. For an invoice under about ten thousand dollars, a direct SWIFT wire from the client's bank to mine is almost always the worst option. The fees are not proportional. The correspondent banks each take a flat charge that hits a small invoice harder than a large one. For invoices above twenty or thirty thousand, SWIFT becomes more competitive, because the fees become a smaller percentage. For my actual invoice profile, which is mostly retainers in the three-to-eight thousand range, the fintech route is meaningfully cheaper. I now have a rule. Anything under ten goes through Payoneer or Wise. Anything over twenty, I will consider SWIFT if the client insists. The middle band is a negotiation.
The reflective part of this, for me, is that I had to stop treating the payment stack as an afterthought to the work. It is part of the work, in the sense that my effective hourly rate is not what I quote. It is what I quote minus the fees minus the conversion losses minus the time spent reconciling. For a long time I told myself that the difference was small enough to ignore. The difference was not small. The difference, when I finally added it up, was several thousand dollars a year that I had been quietly losing to a problem I had not bothered to solve.
I am writing this from a flat in Patan, with the kind of late afternoon light that makes the brickwork look softer than it is. The work is the work. The stack now lets the work pay what the work was supposed to pay. That is a smaller win than it sounds in the abstract and a larger one than it sounds in the specific.
Sign in to leave a comment.