maya likely keep
| | | | |

Why is Maya likely to keep its transfer fee?

Free bank transfers are quickly becoming the norm. Maya, however, appears prepared to sit this one out. At least for now.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has spent years trying to make digital payments cheaper as it encourages Filipinos to move away from cash. Its latest push came through Circular No. 1238, which introduced new rules requiring electronic fund transfer charges to be based on costs.

Banks responded quickly. As of July 24, nearly all universal and commercial banks in the BSP’s transfer-fee table were already offering both InstaPay and PESONet transfers free to individual customers.

The fintechs have been more reluctant.

inside track logo

Maya cut its InstaPay transfer fee from P15 to P10 in July, but stopped there. GCash, GrabPay, and several other electronic money issuers continue to charge as well.

So when Rappler caught up with PLDT executives this week, we asked what exactly stands in the way of taking Maya’s fee all the way down to zero.

The answer, at least from PLDT’s side, is that Maya simply is not built like a traditional bank.

Different economics

Jinggay Nograles, PLDT head of investor relations, said the key difference lies in costs.

“If you look at a bank versus a digital financial platform like Maya, the cost structure of a bank and the cost structure of a fintech firm like Maya is quite different,” Nograles told Rappler during the briefing.

Maya is more than a digital bank. Its ecosystem spans a consumer wallet, merchant acquiring, payments, lending and banking, businesses that are still scaling and require technology and infrastructure spending. This makes it far different from, for example, a bank that’s had more than 175 years to fortify its revenue streams and customer base. (READ: Why exactly did BPI make transfers free?)

The P10 charge then is more than a little fee from PLDT’s perspective. Nograles said transfers remain “one of the pillars of revenues” for Maya even as its other businesses grow. Recall too that Maya achieved profitability just last year, and with an IPO on a horizon, compromising its revenue story is the last thing it would want to do.

“Maya needs to be a going concern,” she said. “Looking at that particular revenue stream, it does make sense for Maya to keep that P10 fee.”

PLDT’s reading is also that Maya is already complying with the BSP. Circular No. 1238 does not require transfers to be free. The BSP itself has since clarified that what it requires is cost-based pricing.

“So, they’re complying with BSP,” Nograles told Rappler in an exclusive interview. “The other banks are providing more than what the BSP is asking.”

Now, a little context on why we were asking PLDT about Maya in the first place.

Maya may no longer be a PLDT subsidiary, but the two companies have a deep history. Maya grew out of Voyager Innovations, which was once the digital innovation arm of PLDT and Smart. PayMaya itself was previously described as the group’s digital financial services arm.

Voyager was once a subsidiary of the PLDT group before outside investors came in. In 2018, PLDT began bringing in private equity giant KKR, Chinese tech giant Tencent, and eventually the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, diluting its ownership below 50% while remaining the single largest shareholder. Voyager eventually evolved into today’s Maya, spanning its wallet and payments business as well as Maya Bank.

The relationship remains close. PLDT and parent First Pacific together own roughly 40% of Maya Innovations Holdings, while PLDT continues to recognize its share of Maya’s earnings. PLDT chairman Manuel V. Pangilinan is also chairman of Maya and regularly comments on its strategy, from profitability and competition with GCash to plans for an eventual IPO.

Must Watch

WATCH: No more InstaPay transfer fees? Here’s what changed.


WATCH: No more InstaPay transfer fees? Here’s what changed.

But the BSP still has questions

Maya itself is saying much less.

“As requested by the BSP, Maya has already submitted the required position on Circular No. 1238. We have no further comment at this time,” the fintech giant told Rappler on Friday, August 14.

The industry groups it belongs to have been more vocal.

The Digital Bank Association of the Philippines (DiBA PH) has welcomed the BSP’s clarification that Circular No. 1238 is a cost-based framework rather than a zero-fee mandate. Maya Bank is part of DiBA PH, whose president is Maya Bank president Angelo Madrid.

FinTech Alliance PH has similarly argued that providers should be able to recover legitimate costs needed to maintain secure and reliable financial services. Maya is also represented there: Madrid sits on the alliance’s 2026 board.

That clarification gives Maya more room to defend a non-zero fee. It doesn’t, however, automatically settle whether P10 is the right number.

The BSP has been asking Maya, GCash, and other institutions to explain the costs behind their charges. Deputy Governor Mamerto Tangonan said in July that the central bank was reviewing their submissions, stressing that the same pricing framework applies to banks and e-wallets regardless of their different business models.

When Rappler chatted with Tangonan again on July 29, he remained mum on where that review is currently headed, saying discussions with the e-wallets were still ongoing.

So is Maya’s P10 fee staying? Unless a regulator intervenes, it seems to make good business sense for the still-burgeoning fintech player to keep it that way. – Rappler.com

Must Read

Banks are dropping transfer fees. Here’s why it took so long.


Banks are dropping transfer fees. Here’s why it took so long.

Similar Posts

  • |

    FPCCI seeks industry consultation before revision of incremental power package

    ISLAMABAD: The Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) has called on the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) to consult industry representatives before making any changes to the Incremental Package for industrial electricity consumers. The business community has warned that revising the package without taking major industrial stakeholders into confidence could create market distortions, undermine the intended benefits of the scheme and potentially transfer additional costs to industries that do not qualify for incremental consumption incentives. In post-hearing comments submitted to Nepra on August 12, 2026, FPCCI said the regulator had already directed that the proposed changes to the Incremental Package should first be presented to and discussed with industry representatives before being brought back for approval. The federation welcomed the direction, describing meaningful stakeholder participation as essential for developing a workable electricity pricing mechanism for industrial consumers. FPCCI highlights delayed review FPCCI also raised concerns over the failure to conduct the package’s scheduled quarterly review. According to the federation, the Incremental Package was specifically designed to undergo a review every three months. However, no review had been conducted for approximately eight months. The federation said the prolonged delay had created uncertainty for industrial consumers and prevented the timely identification and correction of issues within the package. FPCCI urged Nepra to immediately carry out the overdue review and ensure that the quarterly review mechanism is followed consistently in the future. The federation argued that regular reviews were particularly important because industrial electricity consumption, production conditions and operating costs can change significantly over time. Major industry bodies seek participation FPCCI requested Nepra to formally engage leading industry organisations before the next hearing on the proposed revision. The organisations named by the federation include the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), Korangi Association of Trade and Industry (KATI), All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (APTMA), as well as other major chambers and industrial associations. FPCCI said the participation of these organisations would allow the regulator to understand the practical challenges faced by different categories of industrial consumers. It stressed that the revised package should be based on actual industrial requirements and should not discriminate against existing consumers who are unable to qualify as incremental users. Warning against cost shifting The federation expressed concern that changes to the package could result in an unintended transfer of costs to non-incremental industrial units. FPCCI said any revised mechanism should ensure that incentives provided to additional electricity consumption do not create a financial burden for other consumers. It also called for clear safeguards to ensure that only genuine incremental electricity consumers receive the benefits of the package. According to the federation, the regulator should introduce mechanisms capable of preventing existing consumption from being presented as new or incremental demand merely to obtain preferential electricity rates. FPCCI maintained that a transparent verification system would be necessary to protect the integrity of the package and prevent potential misuse. Requests submitted to Nepra In its submission, FPCCI made a series of requests to the power regulator. The federation asked Nepra to formally consult FPCCI, KCCI, KATI, APTMA and other major industry bodies before the next hearing. It also requested the authority to provide sufficient advance notice of the date and time of any consultation, along with an online meeting link, so that FPCCI could coordinate participation by relevant chambers, associations and industrial representatives. The federation further sought a formal opportunity to present detailed recommendations on the proposed redesign of the Incremental Package. It called for safeguards restricting benefits to genuine incremental units and urged Nepra to immediately conduct the quarterly review that has remained pending for the past eight months. FPCCI also proposed making consultation with major industrial chambers and associations mandatory before any future revision or review of the Incremental Package or similar electricity pricing schemes. Invitation to power-sector institutions In a further effort to promote direct dialogue, FPCCI invited Nepra, the Power Planning and Monitoring Company (PPMC) and the Central Power Purchasing Agency-Guaranteed (CPPA-G) to visit its head office in Karachi. The federation proposed holding detailed discussions with the relevant institutions in the presence of industry representatives. FPCCI said direct engagement would provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to examine the existing mechanism, identify practical shortcomings and develop solutions based on actual operating conditions in the industrial sector. It maintained that consultation could help bridge the gap between regulatory objectives and the realities faced by industrial consumers. Industry seeks predictable power policy The dispute over the Incremental Package comes amid continued concerns among industrial consumers over electricity costs, competitiveness and the predictability of power-sector policies. For export-oriented and energy-intensive industries, electricity pricing is a major component of production costs. Business representatives have therefore repeatedly called for stable and transparent tariff mechanisms that allow companies to plan production and investment decisions. FPCCI said any changes to the Incremental Package should balance the objective of increasing electricity consumption with the need to maintain fairness among different categories of industrial consumers. The federation believes that a properly designed package, supported by regular reviews and meaningful industry consultation, could encourage additional industrial electricity consumption without imposing unintended costs on existing consumers.

  • |

    Goods transport strike threatens Pakistan’s industry

    KARACHI: A nationwide strike by goods transporters has triggered growing concern among industrialists, who fear that a prolonged disruption in cargo movement could disrupt factory operations, delay export shipments and add further pressure to Pakistan’s already fragile economy. Business leaders have warned that the continued suspension of freight services could create serious bottlenecks in the supply chain, particularly for industries that rely on the regular movement of raw materials and intermediate goods. Any prolonged shortage of essential inputs could force factories to slow down production or temporarily shut operations. The industrial sector is also facing the risk of delays in the delivery of finished products to domestic markets and international buyers. Export-oriented industries, in particular, could suffer if consignments fail to reach ports or overseas customers within agreed timelines. President of the SITE Association of Industry (SAI) Abdul Rehman Fudda said the transporters’ strike had created a critical situation for the manufacturing sector, as industries could not maintain uninterrupted production without a reliable logistics network. He said factories depended on the timely arrival of raw materials and the smooth transportation of finished goods. Any disruption in freight movement, he added, could interrupt production schedules and increase costs for manufacturers. Fudda warned that the impact of the strike could extend beyond factories, affecting workers, suppliers, exporters, retailers and other businesses linked to the industrial supply chain. He pointed out that Pakistan’s export sector was already operating under significant pressure because of high production costs and other economic challenges. A disruption in transportation, he said, would further increase the difficulties faced by exporters. The SAI president cautioned that delays in export shipments could have financial as well as reputational consequences. International buyers may impose penalties, demand price reductions or seek compensation when shipments fail to arrive within agreed deadlines. According to him, exporters operate under strict delivery schedules, and even a temporary disruption in logistics can affect production planning, container bookings and shipment arrangements. Fudda stressed that the consequences of the strike should be assessed from a broader economic perspective rather than being viewed solely as a dispute between transporters and other stakeholders. He said an interruption in the movement of goods could affect the entire supply chain, from the procurement of raw materials to the manufacturing process and eventual delivery of products to customers. The industrialist further warned that repeated delays in fulfilling export orders could undermine the confidence of foreign buyers and make it more difficult for Pakistani businesses to retain existing international contracts or secure new orders. Industrialists have therefore urged the relevant authorities and representatives of goods transporters to resolve their differences at the earliest and restore the movement of cargo across the country. They maintained that an uninterrupted logistics system was essential for keeping factories operational, protecting jobs, meeting export commitments and supporting economic activity. Business leaders also called for a sustainable resolution to the issues behind the transporters’ strike so that similar disruptions could be avoided in the future. They said uncertainty in the movement of goods not only affects individual industries but can also have wider implications for investment, exports, government revenue and overall economic growth. With industries already facing a challenging business environment, manufacturers fear that a prolonged transport shutdown could further increase operational costs and compound supply-chain problems. They urged the authorities to prioritise negotiations and ensure the resumption of freight services without further delay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *