Comparison Guides · 6 min read · TechArticle · up to date 2026-09-24
SHA vs OUR SWIFT Wire Charges: How to Prevent Missing Cash on Foreign Invoices
SWIFT field 71A decides who eats the correspondent bank's charges. SHA lets $15–$35+ of intermediary cuts land on your payout; OUR forces the sender to cover every charge. Here is the contract clause that locks the full amount down.
Who pays the intermediary
SHA: Receiving side pays — cuts land on your payout
OUR: Sender pays every charge
Field 71A value
SHA: SHA
OUR: OUR
Amount that arrives
SHA: Invoice minus $15–$35+ in intermediary deductions
OUR: Full invoice amount
Default in most contracts
SHA: SHA (unless the clause says otherwise)
OUR: Never assumed — must be negotiated
| Line item | SHA (shared charges) | OUR (sender pays all) |
|---|---|---|
| Charge allocation | Each party pays their own bank; receiving bank + intermediaries bill the beneficiary | Sender pays their bank, every intermediary and the beneficiary bank's charges |
| What nets in your bank | Invoice amount minus the intermediary SHA cut and local liens | The full invoice amount |
| Typical shortfall on $1,000 | $15–$35+ (plus any receiving-bank commission) | $0 |
| Enforcement in practice | The bank default when the contract is silent | Requires an explicit clause + the sender instructing Field 71A = OUR |
| Bank verification | Confirmed on the MT103 / credit advice | Confirmed on the MT103 / credit advice |
What you'll learn
- What SWIFT Field 71A actually means and where the two charge codes behave differently end-to-end.
- Quantifying the SHA shortfall: $15–$35+ that silently leaves your invoice per transfer.
- The copy-paste contract clause that forces OUR, plus the MT103 audit step that proves it.
- Why moving off the correspondent chain removes the argument completely.
Field 71A: the line that reroutes your cash
Every SWIFT wire carries a Field 71A (Details of Charges) instruction. Three values exist: BEN (beneficiary pays all charges), OUR (sender pays all charges), and SHA (charges are shared — the sender pays their own bank's fees, the receiving bank and any intermediaries bill the beneficiary). Contracts that say nothing default to SHA, because that is the corridor standard most originating banks apply.
SHA sounds symmetrical, but it is the practical trap for the contractor: the receiving-side deductions — intermediary correspondent cuts plus the receiving bank's own commission — leave your payout. The sender's portal never shows them. You discover the damage when the landed amount is less than the invoice.
The SHA shortfall, quantified
On the $1,000 benchmark this guide uses, the SHA shortfall lands in the $15–$35 band for a single correspondent hop and climbs with multi-hop routing and under-banked corridors. Add a receiving-bank commission or a local landing fee and the true leakage exceeds the headline intermediary cut.
Because the deduction happens outside the platform, neither Upwork, Fiverr nor a direct-client portal can correct it after the fact — the money is already dispersed through the chain. Recovering it means changing the instruction upstream, which is a contract question before it is a banking one.
The contract clause (copy-paste)
Map the SWIFT instruction into the fee language of your engagement letter so the sender's finance team executes it without interpretation:
"Payments shall be made by bank wire in [CURRENCY] to the account named on the invoice. All transfer fees and charges, including but not limited to the sender's bank charges, any correspondent or intermediary bank charges, and the beneficiary bank's receiving commission, shall be borne entirely by the Client. The sender must instruct the transfer with SWIFT Field 71A set to OUR, and produce a copy of the SWIFT MT103 upon request."
The MT103 is the sender's payment order; its Field 71A must read OUR. When the landed amount still falls short, the MT103 is your evidence: the receiving bank applies charges that violate the instruction, and you can push them back to the sender to settle the difference.
The practical escape hatch
The strongest fix is structural: a modern direct-clearing rail has no correspondent bank in the route, so there is no intermediary to split charges and no Field 71A negotiation. The route converts at the mid-market rate with a disclosed fee, and the full invoice amount arrives. Contract CARL the outcome — net delivery in the bank — instead of leaving it to a SWIFT instruction the counterparty may not honor.
The verdict
Under SHA, receiving-side banks and intermediaries bill the contractor; under OUR, the sender covers every charge. The difference is $15–$35+ per wire, pure leakage from the invoiced amount.
Negotiate OUR in writing, request the MT103 as proof, and — where the client allows any rail at all — prefer a non-correspondent route that makes the argument moot.
Audit your corridor, then invoice accordingly
The calculation these guides describe — gross invoice, platform cut, correspondent deduction, real conversion and net landed — runs live for every corridor in the fee calculator. The Invoice Studio then renders the result as a contract-ready remittance clause so the client pays a number that has already priced the transit.