For now it won't make it into my day-to-day banking lineup, but it could for others, and I agree that it's good to see more competition.

Peter said
Am I understanding it correctly that pushing and pulling money domestically using Wise incurs costs?

You can send and receive e-Transfers for free.

You can push money into Wise via EFT (from most non big banks) and you can pull money out of Wise via EFT.

But if you initiate the EFT transfer from withing Wise (push or pull), you get charged a fee (0.31% to pull and 0.517% in my quick test).  

Yes, this is right.

I do a monthly transfer from Britain. There is a conversion fee, circa 0.3% but likely depends on the amount. Once the money is in CAD, I do a pull from WS, which is free and instantaneous. If I were to push from Wise, there would be a cost aligned with the above - and the transfer wouldn’t be instant.

You can send and receive e-Transfers for free.

You can push money into Wise via EFT (from most non big banks) and you can pull money out of Wise via EFT.

But if you initiate the EFT transfer from withing Wise (push or pull), you get charged a fee (0.31% to pull and 0.517% in my quick test).

mordko said
The RPAA is not “just a modernized version” of the Bills of Exchange Act/Payments Canada rules. It created a distinct federal supervisory regime for PSPs. The Bank of Canada now registers and supervises them, including requirements for operational-risk management, incident response and safeguarding end-user funds, and it has enforcement powers.

The Bank of Canada is the regulator of that Act, but that does not mean PSPs are regulated from a consumer protection standpoint. What you describe is similar to, but not equivalent to, OSFI supervision in terms of operational risk management protocols and capital adequacy. These are important, yes, but the reality there is still no FCAC or OBSI consumer protection regulation as I said.

I don’t see any mechanism whatsoever for the UK ombudsman to get involved.

Wise is regulated as a UK financial entity from a consumer protection standpoint, which may extend to subsidiary entities. If it doesn't extend to subsidiary entities, you've made an even stronger case against inclusion. I maintain they may be regulated by UK FCA, but that that regulation is not equivalent to Canadian regulation and, so, even if they are regulated by UK FCA, it's cumbersome and/or toothless and, so, recommend against inclusion.

Since November 1, 2024, OBSI is Canada’s single external complaints body for federally regulated banks. ADR Chambers info is dated but tha'ts detail.

That's unfortunate, yes, a fault of the Trudeau government for forcing the bureaucratic, slow-as-molasses, and administratively costly OBSI body onto federally-regulated financial institutions, instead of allowing institutional choice. ADR Chambers consistently showed faster case resolutions and comparable results to OBSI.

The statement that provincially regulated credit unions aren’t regulated “from a consumer protection standpoint” is simply wrong at least in Ontario.

Perhaps. I haven't looked into FSRA regulations in Ontario lately. I will note, though, it is not equivalent to the "gold standard," which is FCAC and OBSI regulation.

Wise falls under very meaningful Canadian regulations but we agree that Canada has not yet given its customers the same independent individual-dispute-resolution mechanism as for banks, short of going to a Canadian court.  

Nor is there meaningful consumer protection regulation, meaning consumers are at the mercy of taking them to court, which is sub-optimal. At least for British Columbia residents, that cost is more affordable with the very recent expansion of the Civil Resolution Tribunal's scope.

Cheers,
Doug

I don’t see any mechanism whatsoever for the UK ombudsman to get involved.

Since November 1, 2024, OBSI is Canada’s single external complaints body for federally regulated banks. ADR Chambers info is dated but tha'ts detail.

The statement that provincially regulated credit unions aren’t regulated “from a consumer protection standpoint” is simply wrong at least in Ontario.

Wise falls under very meaningful Canadian regulations but we agree that Canada has not yet given its customers the same independent individual-dispute-resolution mechanism as for banks, short of going to a Canadian court.

mordko said

If you read Retail Payment Activities Act, you’ll find that the regulation isn’t “cursory” and that it's considerably more than minimum capital.

The FCA statement is inaccurate. A Canadian customer’s Wise account is provided by Wise Payments Canada Inc., not the FCA-regulated UK entity Wise Payments Limited. Wise’s Canadian agreement says disputes are governed by Ontario law and applicable Canadian federal law, nothing to do with FCA.

My personal experience is different. I have used Wise every month for several years and it does exactly what it says on the tin without any errors whatsoever. I have no need for “off script”. For comparison, I used TDDI for a year and had to call them regularly so they correct their (routine) errors. Which they did, but I'd much rather it wasn’t necessary. And RBC at one point just grabbed money from my savings account and transferred to someone else. A bunch of calls later they returned it but again… Not a good experience. And apparently it was on me to watch account balance like a hawk; RBC is not responsible for spotting own errors.

New entrants are desperately needed. Yes, regulations need to catch up so there is an ombudsman for dispute resolution.  

The Retail Payments Activities Act is just a modernized version of the Bills of Exchange Act and Payments Canada Regulations related to the forthcoming modernized Canadian electronic payments system.

Yes, the subsidiary is Canadian-regulated, but the parent company is regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority, which has some consumer protection regulations. In other words, if you have a consumer protection complaint about Wise in Canada, that is your only avenue short of filing a lawsuit, as there is no Canadian consumer protection regulatory body. FINTRAC does not regulate consumer protection angles. There is no Ontario or federal consumer protection regulatory body. At least with Canadian banks and federal credit unions, I can complain to FCAC and/or OBSI/ADR Chambers.

Provincially regulated credit unions are also not regulated from a consumer protection standpoint, and it's the chief reason I no longer use them at all anymore. If I banked with a credit union, it would most likely be with a federal one for this reason. However, they have two things Wise doesn't have: uncomplicated deposit insurance protection and the benefit of consumer choice. If a credit union does not offer KYC validation suitable to me or is unresponsive to my needs, I can walk with me feet, or digital feet as the case may be, to another one that does.

doug said

That level of regulation is a very cursory level of regulation, like whether or not they hold required capital as a Payment Service Provider.

For me, I'm okay with the funds being segregated, but Wise is extremely not customer focused. When I said I didn't want to share my government-issued photo ID and take a selfie for my own reasons, they refused to honour other acceptable methods of KYC verification that FINTRAC accepts. That and the fact that for any sort of consumer protection-level of regulation, you have to go to the Financial Conduct Authority, whose regulation is not as stringent as in Canada, arguably, I don't think Wise should be added.

They also don't empower their CSRs to have any sort of discretion; they can't go off-script, which is a problem for me. If they did this and were more amenable to customer feedback, then I could conceivably get behind it, but not now.   

If you read Retail Payment Activities Act, you’ll find that the regulation isn’t “cursory” and that it's considerably more than minimum capital.

The FCA statement is inaccurate. A Canadian customer’s Wise account is provided by Wise Payments Canada Inc., not the FCA-regulated UK entity Wise Payments Limited. Wise’s Canadian agreement says disputes are governed by Ontario law and applicable Canadian federal law, nothing to do with FCA.

My personal experience is different. I have used Wise every month for several years and it does exactly what it says on the tin without any errors whatsoever. I have no need for “off script”. For comparison, I used TDDI for a year and had to call them regularly so they correct their (routine) errors. Which they did, but I'd much rather it wasn’t necessary. And RBC at one point just grabbed money from my savings account and transferred to someone else. A bunch of calls later they returned it but again… Not a good experience. And apparently it was on me to watch account balance like a hawk; RBC is not responsible for spotting own errors.

New entrants are desperately needed. Yes, regulations need to catch up so there is an ombudsman for dispute resolution.

Briguy said

I don't think Wise should be added to the chart here,   

I don't recommend adding it either. I've used Wise to transfer funds but I wouldn't be keeping any substantial amount of cash on deposit with them. It is not worth it given the alternatives.

mordko said

Wise Payments Canada Inc. is regulated in Canada. The Bank of Canada explicitly says it supervises Payment Service Providers (of which Wise is one) to ensure they meet requirements relating to risk management and the safeguarding of customer funds. Wise terms say that the funds are subject to Segregation requirement which happens to be a statutory regulatory obligation supervised by the Bank of Canada. Read Retail Payment Activities Act for details.

The part about no Canadian government org to appeal to is largely correct though. Of course Wise is subject to Ontario and applicable federal laws, so that's an option.  

That level of regulation is a very cursory level of regulation, like whether or not they hold required capital as a Payment Service Provider.

For me, I'm okay with the funds being segregated, but Wise is extremely not customer focused. When I said I didn't want to share my government-issued photo ID and take a selfie for my own reasons, they refused to honour other acceptable methods of KYC verification that FINTRAC accepts. That and the fact that for any sort of consumer protection-level of regulation, you have to go to the Financial Conduct Authority, whose regulation is not as stringent as in Canada, arguably, I don't think Wise should be added.

They also don't empower their CSRs to have any sort of discretion; they can't go off-script, which is a problem for me. If they did this and were more amenable to customer feedback, then I could conceivably get behind it, but not now.

Briguy said

I don't think Wise should be added to the chart here, since they aren't regulated in Canada except for reporting transactions to FINTRAC, so if any issues arise there is no government organization to appeal to, except maybe the UK Ombudsman. In my particular case they closed my account ( because of a failed 25.00 test transaction to my UK account ) and then took about 82 days to return my money in the account, even though I complained to the UK Ombudsman.  

Wise Payments Canada Inc. is regulated in Canada. The Bank of Canada explicitly says it supervises Payment Service Providers (of which Wise is one) to ensure they meet requirements relating to risk management and the safeguarding of customer funds. Wise terms say that the funds are subject to Segregation requirement which happens to be a statutory regulatory obligation supervised by the Bank of Canada. Read Retail Payment Activities Act for details.

The part about no Canadian government org to appeal to is largely correct though. Of course Wise is subject to Ontario and applicable federal laws, so that's an option.

doug said
I oppose, strongly, adding Wise to any comparison charts due to their dodge reputation and willful disregard to utilizing multiple FINTRAC-accepted KYC verification methods and due to the limited Canadian regulation because of their status as a money services business. @Briguy may have more to say on this.

People can do much better, with Wealthsimple, EQ Bank, Tangerine, or even Simplii Financial or Alterna Bank.

Cheers,
Doug  

I don't think Wise should be added to the chart here, since they aren't regulated in Canada except for reporting transactions to FINTRAC, so if any issues arise there is no government organization to appeal to, except maybe the UK Ombudsman. In my particular case they closed my account ( because of a failed 25.00 test transaction to my UK account ) and then took about 82 days to return my money in the account, even though I complained to the UK Ombudsman.