Faisal KhanAnswered Mar 1, 2015You are assuming that the Remittance transfers in this case is peer-to-peer. Ideally (in most cases that I know of), the Inward remittance from US to AU would be treated as a separate transaction from AU to US. Net-off in remittances are now discouraged worldwide (for reason of accounting and to prevent anti-money laundering).
The remittance agent is not responsible for being the market maker. I cannot think of an example or a scenario where one would be. In P2P transfers, its the liquidity that comes into play for both markets that would enable dual transactions (equally).
For most, the remittance agent deals with the transfer based on the SWIFT Wire transfer and the exchange rates are quoted by the settling bank (by their treasury / FX department). The agent is merely executing the transaction with the in-built margins. Hope that clarifies.
The remittance agent is not responsible for being the market maker. I cannot think of an example or a scenario where one would be. In P2P transfers, its the liquidity that comes into play for both markets that would enable dual transactions (equally).
For most, the remittance agent deals with the transfer based on the SWIFT Wire transfer and the exchange rates are quoted by the settling bank (by their treasury / FX department). The agent is merely executing the transaction with the in-built margins. Hope that clarifies.