Problem Definition
Meridian Payments is a U.S. fintech founded in 2016. It sells accounts-payable (AP) automation software to small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs) with $5M--$250M in annual revenue: invoices are captured, approved and paid inside Meridian, which then moves the money over domestic rails (ACH, virtual card and check). Meridian has 48,000 business customers, processes approximately $62 billion of domestic payments a year and earned $210 million of revenue last year at an 8% EBITDA margin. It raised a Series E last year and has $300 million of cash on the balance sheet.
Meridian's product team has noticed a gap. When a customer approves an invoice from a foreign supplier, the workflow stops: the customer exports the invoice and pays it through their bank's wire desk. About one in five Meridian customers does this every month. Customers complain about three things: the price (FX mark-ups they cannot see), the speed (they cannot tell suppliers when money will arrive), and the lack of tracking.
The market is large and moving. FXC Intelligence estimates that SMBs sent approximately $14.4 trillion of cross-border B2B payments in 2025, and that the SME segment pays the highest prices in the market (an average take rate of approximately 1.3%, against approximately 0.2% for large enterprises). A 2026 Mastercard-Bain survey of more than 1,000 SMEs found that banks are the primary cross-border provider for 42% of SMEs today but are expected to fall to 28% by 2028, while fintechs rise from 30% to 48%. Specialists are scaling fast: Wise processed approximately £182 billion of cross-border volume in its 2026 financial year, and Airwallex reported approximately $1.3 billion of annualized revenue in March 2026, up 74% year on year.
The CEO has asked your team: Should Meridian enter cross-border B2B payments? If so, which corridors should it launch first, and should it build its own licensed capability, partner with an existing provider, or buy one?
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
If asked, please share that:
- The board has set aside up to $60M of capital for cross-border over the next two years, and wants the new business to be EBITDA-positive by the end of year 3
- Meridian holds no money transmitter licenses today; its domestic payments run through a sponsor bank
- In the U.S., money transmission is licensed state by state; approximately 31 states have enacted the Money Transmission Modernization Act (MTMA) in full or in part, which harmonizes some requirements but does not remove the need for individual state licenses
- In the UK, e-money and payment institutions have had to comply with a stricter FCA safeguarding regime (daily reconciliations, monthly returns, annual audits) since 7 May 2026
- Meridian's customers are mainly importers (wholesalers, light manufacturers, consumer-goods brands) paying overseas suppliers; about 15% also collect export receivables from abroad
Question 1Structuring
This is a candidate-led case. How would you structure your approach to the CEO's question? Walk me through what you would want to look at, and in what order.
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- Share only if asked: Meridian's customers who pay foreign suppliers make, on average, 8--10 international payments a month
- Share only if asked: Meridian's NPS among these customers is +48; the most common complaint in support tickets is "I have to leave Meridian to pay my overseas suppliers"
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
A strong structure has four branches, explored in this order:
1. Is the prize worth it? (Market and revenue potential)
- a) Total U.S. SMB cross-border payment flows and the revenue pool at current take rates
- b) Serviceable prize inside Meridian's base: number of customers paying abroad × annual volume × realistic adoption
- c) Achievable take rate: what customers pay banks today vs. what specialists charge
2. Where should we play first? (Corridors and segments)
- a) Meridian's customer volume by destination country
- b) Customer pain (bank all-in cost, speed) and Meridian's achievable price by corridor
- c) Operational complexity: local payout rails, capital controls, documentation
- d) Competitive intensity by corridor (banks, Wise, Airwallex, local specialists)
3. How do we get there? (Entry mode)
- a) Build: own licenses (U.S. states, UK/EU), own treasury and payout network
- b) Partner: embed a licensed cross-border provider behind Meridian's interface on a revenue share
- c) Buy: acquire a licensed money transmitter
- d) Compare time to market, 5-year economics, control of the customer and the scale at which each option wins
4. How do we win and what can go wrong? (Competitive response and risks)
- a) Differentiation vs. banks and specialists (embedded workflow, tracking, pricing transparency)
- b) Regulatory and compliance risk (AML/KYC, sanctions, safeguarding)
- c) FX and liquidity risk; fraud risk
- d) Price compression and partner dependence
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
Let the candidate lead. Do not share the exhibits until the candidate asks for data in the relevant area. A strong candidate should lay out a structure and then say which branch to explore first and why. The natural starting point is the size of the prize inside Meridian's own customer base (the "right to win" comes from the workflow, not from being a better FX provider).
- Good candidates cover market attractiveness, Meridian's ability to win, economics and risks
- Strong candidates make the structure specific to payments: take rate vs. bank all-in cost, corridor selection, licensing and compliance, liquidity/FX risk, and the build-partner-buy choice
- Excellent candidates spot that Meridian's advantage is distribution (it already sees the invoice before the money moves) and structure the case as "Is the prize worth it? → Where do we play first? → How do we get there fastest and cheapest? → How do we win and what can go wrong?", and they propose to start with the installed base rather than the global market
"So What?" Cascade:
- Level 1 (surface): Cross-border B2B is a large, growing market
- Level 2 (implication): The market is large, but Meridian does not have to win it; it only has to capture the payments its own customers already approve inside Meridian and then send elsewhere
- Level 3 (actionable insight): Frame the entry as a product extension with a captive demand pool, which lowers customer acquisition cost to near zero and makes speed to market (and therefore the entry mode) the critical choice
Question 2Numeracy
Let's size the prize. First estimate the U.S. SMB cross-border payments revenue pool, then estimate the annual revenue Meridian could earn from its own customer base by year 3.
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
Share when the candidate asks for data:
- U.S. goods exports were approximately $2.2 trillion and goods imports approximately $3.4 trillion in 2025 (total goods trade approximately $5.6 trillion)
- Small and medium-sized exporters account for approximately one-third of the known value of U.S. goods exports (assume the same share applies to imports)
- Average SME take rate in cross-border B2B payments: approximately 1.3% of volume
- 22% of Meridian's 48,000 customers pay foreign suppliers; they send on average $1.6M a year each abroad
- Meridian's pricing team expects a blended take rate of approximately 0.9% (FX margin plus fees)
- Pilot data suggest 35% of eligible customers would move their cross-border payments to Meridian by year 3
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Top-down: U.S. SMB revenue pool
- U.S. goods trade: $2.2T exports + $3.4T imports = approximately $5.6T
- SME share of approximately one-third: $5.6T / 3 = approximately $1.9T of SMB cross-border flows
- Revenue pool at a 1.3% take rate: $1.9T × 1.3% = approximately $24.7B, call it approximately $25B a year
- This is conservative: it excludes services trade (U.S. services exports alone were approximately $1.2T in 2025)
Bottom-up: Meridian's installed base
- Customers paying abroad: 48,000 × 22% = 10,560, approximately 10,500
- Annual cross-border volume in the base: 10,500 × $1.6M = $16.8B
- Year-3 volume captured: $16.8B × 35% = $5.88B, approximately $5.9B
- Year-3 revenue: $5.88B × 0.9% = approximately $52.9M, call it approximately $53M
Sanity checks
- $53M / $210M = approximately 25% uplift to Meridian's revenue
- $53M / $24.7B = approximately 0.2% of the U.S. SMB revenue pool: a realistic share for a new entrant
- $16.8B of customer volume is approximately 0.9% of the $1.9T U.S. SMB flow, which is plausible for a platform with 48,000 SMB customers
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
There are two separate estimates. The top-down one sets context; the bottom-up one is what drives the decision. Watch the units (trillions vs. billions) and ask the candidate to sanity-check the answer against Meridian's current revenue.
- Good candidates get both numbers roughly right
- Strong candidates note that the top-down figure is goods-only (services and financial flows would add more) and is therefore conservative
- Excellent candidates compare the two and draw the implication: Meridian's year-3 revenue would be a fraction of a percent of the national pool but would add a quarter to Meridian's revenue; the question is not "is the market big enough" but "can we capture our own flows fast enough"
"So What?" Cascade:
- Level 1 (surface): The U.S. SMB pool is roughly $25B; Meridian could earn roughly $53M
- Level 2 (implication): $53M is approximately 25% of Meridian's current revenue, from customers it already has, with almost no acquisition cost
- Level 3 (actionable insight): Because the value sits in the installed base, adoption speed is the main value driver; every year of delay is roughly one year of this revenue forgone, which matters for the build-vs-partner decision
Question 3Judgement & Insights
Here is Meridian's customer volume by destination corridor. Which corridors should Meridian launch first, and why?
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Exhibit 1Meridian Customers' Cross-Border Payments by Corridor
| Corridor (U.S. to) | U.S. goods trade with country, 2025 ($B) | Share of Meridian customer volume | Customer volume ($B/yr) | Bank all-in cost paid today (% of payment) | Meridian achievable take rate (%) | Payout complexity | Competitive intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 873 | 18% | 3.02 | 2.4% | 1.0% | Low--Medium (SPEI real-time rail) | Medium |
| Canada | 720 | 22% | 3.70 | 1.6% | 0.7% | Low | High |
| China | 415 | 24% | 4.03 | 2.8% | 1.2% | High (capital controls, trade documentation) | High |
| Eurozone (Germany largest) | 239 (Germany only) | 16% | 2.69 | 1.2% | 0.6% | Low (SEPA Instant) | High |
| Vietnam | 210 | 9% | 1.51 | 3.1% | 1.3% | Medium--High | Low |
| United Kingdom | 162 | 6% | 1.01 | 1.1% | 0.5% | Low (Faster Payments) | High |
| Other | --- | 5% | 0.84 | --- | --- | Mixed | Mixed |
| Total | 100% | 16.80 |
U.S. goods trade figures: U.S. Census Bureau annual 2025 data (rounded). Customer volume, bank cost, take rate and complexity ratings: Meridian customer data and pricing team estimates.
Source: Meridian Payments case file
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- Share only if asked: a licensed partner can go live in Mexico, Canada, the Eurozone and the UK within 4 months; China and Vietnam need 9--12 months because payouts require local licensed collection partners and invoice-level documentation checks
- Share only if asked: Swift data show approximately 90% of cross-border payments reach the recipient's bank within one hour, but only approximately 43% reach the end customer's account within one hour
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Step 1: Revenue potential at full capture (volume × take rate)
- Mexico: $3.02B × 1.0% = approximately $30.2M
- Canada: $3.70B × 0.7% = approximately $25.9M
- China: $4.03B × 1.2% = approximately $48.4M
- Eurozone: $2.69B × 0.6% = approximately $16.1M
- Vietnam: $1.51B × 1.3% = approximately $19.6M
- UK: $1.01B × 0.5% = approximately $5.1M
- Total of the six corridors: approximately $145.3M
Step 2: Customer savings vs. bank (bank cost − Meridian take rate)
- Vietnam 1.8 pts, China 1.6 pts, Mexico 1.4 pts, Canada 0.9 pts, Eurozone 0.6 pts, UK 0.6 pts
- In dollars: China approximately $64.5M a year of savings for customers, Mexico $42.3M, Canada $33.3M, Vietnam $27.2M, Eurozone $16.1M, UK $6.1M
Step 3: Interpretation
- China + Vietnam: 33% of volume but ($48.4M + $19.6M) / $145.3M = approximately 47% of revenue potential, and the biggest savings; this is where customers feel the most pain
- Mexico: the best balance: top U.S. trade partner, 1.4 pts of savings, low complexity thanks to the SPEI real-time rail, medium competition
- Canada: the largest corridor by volume but a thinner margin and heavy competition; still important because customers want one provider for all corridors
- Eurozone and UK: low complexity, but banks and specialists already offer low prices, so customer savings are small
Recommendation:
- Wave 1 (launch within 4 months): Mexico, Canada, Eurozone. 56% of customer volume and approximately $72M of revenue potential; fast to launch; proves the embedded product and builds adoption
- Wave 2 (months 9--12): China and Vietnam. Start partner onboarding and documentation workflows on day 1, because these corridors hold nearly half of the revenue potential and the strongest switching reason
- UK: add at low cost alongside the Eurozone launch, but do not prioritize it
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
The trap is to rank corridors by one column, usually U.S. trade value or Meridian volume. The candidate should compute revenue potential (volume × take rate) and the saving for customers (bank cost − Meridian take rate), and then weigh that against complexity and time to launch.
- Good candidates calculate revenue potential by corridor and notice China is the largest
- Strong candidates also compute customer savings, and notice that the Asian sourcing corridors (China, Vietnam) carry the most pain and the most revenue, while North America and Europe are easier to launch
- Excellent candidates propose a sequence rather than a ranking: launch the easy, high-volume corridors first to prove the product, while starting the China and Vietnam set-up in parallel, since that is where the profit pool is
"So What?" Cascade:
- Level 1 (surface): China is Meridian's biggest corridor by volume and revenue
- Level 2 (implication): China and Vietnam are 33% of volume but approximately 47% of revenue potential and carry the highest customer savings; they are the strongest reason for customers to switch but are the hardest to launch
- Level 3 (actionable insight): Sequence: wave 1 (months 0--4) Mexico, Canada, Eurozone for fast adoption; wave 2 (months 9--12) China and Vietnam, where the prize is; the UK is a cheap add-on to the European launch but not a priority
Question 4Numeracy
The team has modeled three entry options. Using Exhibit 2, compare them over 5 years. Which would you recommend, and at what point would the answer change?
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Exhibit 2Entry Mode Assumptions
| Assumption | Build (own licenses) | Partner (embedded provider) | Buy (acquire licensed transmitter) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to launch | 18 months | 4 months | 6 months (post-close) |
| Up-front cost | $40M (licenses, platform, compliance set-up) | $6M (integration) | $150M purchase price |
| Fixed operating cost | $15M / year | $4M / year | $15M / year |
| Variable cost (% of volume) | 0.25% (payout, liquidity, FX hedging, network) | 0.35% (partner fee, all-inclusive) | 0.25% |
| Volume ramp, years 1--5 ($B) | 0, 1.5, 3.5, 5.9, 7.0 | 1.5, 3.5, 5.9, 7.0, 8.0 | 1.5, 3.5, 5.9, 7.0, 8.0 |
| Take rate | 0.9% | 0.9% | 0.9% |
Build volumes are the partner ramp delayed by one year. The acquisition target has approximately $20M revenue and is roughly break-even; ignore its standalone business for this question. Figures undiscounted.
Source: Meridian Payments case file
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- The board's constraints: up to $60M of capital over two years; cross-border EBITDA-positive by end of year 3
- Share only if asked: the partner is willing to reduce its fee to 0.30% once Meridian's annual volume exceeds $5B
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Partner
- 5-year volume: 1.5 + 3.5 + 5.9 + 7.0 + 8.0 = $25.9B
- Revenue: $25.9B × 0.9% = $233.1M
- Partner fees: $25.9B × 0.35% = $90.65M
- Fixed: $6M up front + $4M × 5 = $26M
- 5-year net: $233.1M − $90.65M − $26M = approximately $116.5M
- Year-by-year contribution after fixed operating costs: $4.25M, $15.25M, $28.45M, $34.5M, $40.0M; including the $6M integration cost, year 1 is approximately −$1.75M and the business is EBITDA-positive from year 2
Build
- 5-year volume: 0 + 1.5 + 3.5 + 5.9 + 7.0 = $17.9B
- Revenue: $17.9B × 0.9% = $161.1M
- Variable costs: $17.9B × 0.25% = $44.75M
- Fixed: $40M up front + $15M × 5 = $115M
- 5-year net: $161.1M − $44.75M − $115M = approximately $1.4M
- Year-by-year after fixed opex: −$15.0M, −$5.25M, +$7.75M, +$23.35M, +$30.5M; the $40M up front plus the losses in years 1--2 total $60.25M, slightly more than the whole $60M budget, and the business only turns EBITDA-positive in year 3
Buy
- Same volumes as partner: revenue $233.1M; variable costs $25.9B × 0.25% = $64.75M; fixed opex $15M × 5 = $75M; purchase $150M
- 5-year net: $233.1M − $64.75M − $75M − $150M = approximately −$56.65M
- It also breaks the $60M capital limit; only worth it if the target's own business and licenses were valued well above what is modeled here
When does build win?
- Variable margin: build keeps 0.9% − 0.25% = 0.65% of volume; partner keeps 0.9% − 0.35% = 0.55%; difference 0.10%
- Extra fixed cost of build: $15M − $4M = $11M a year
- Crossover volume: $11M / 0.10% = $11B of annual volume
- Year-5 volume is $8B, so the partner model is cheaper throughout the plan
- With the partner's tiered fee (0.30% above $5B), the difference shrinks to 0.05%, and the crossover moves to $11M / 0.05% = $22B a year
Recommendation: Partner. It is the only option that clears both board constraints comfortably (capital well under $60M; EBITDA-positive from year 2) and it produces approximately $115M more 5-year cash than building. Negotiate: Meridian owns the customer relationship and data, the tiered fee, a 3-year term with no exclusivity, and migration support, so that building or buying stays open if volume approaches $11B+.
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
The math is straightforward but has many steps; encourage the candidate to set up a table. The key insight is that partnering wins over 5 years because of speed, but building has a lower variable cost, so it wins at high scale. The candidate should compute the crossover.
- Good candidates calculate 5-year net cash for build and partner and choose partner
- Strong candidates also check the board's constraints (capital, year-3 EBITDA) and dismiss the acquisition on price
- Excellent candidates compute the volume at which building becomes cheaper (approximately $11B a year), see that Meridian will not reach it within 5 years, and use the partner's tiered fee offer to show the crossover moves further out; they recommend partnering now with contract terms that keep the option to build later (data portability, customer ownership, no long exclusivity)
"So What?" Cascade:
- Level 1 (surface): Partnering produces approximately $116M of 5-year net cash; building produces approximately break-even
- Level 2 (implication): Most of the gap comes from speed: build loses a full year of volume ($8B of 5-year volume) while it waits for licenses; its lower variable cost only pays back at very high scale
- Level 3 (actionable insight): Partner now, but negotiate the contract as if Meridian will one day build (or buy): own the customer and data, cap the fee as volume grows, and plan to revisit when annual volume approaches $11B
Question 5Creativity
Meridian will not be the only one chasing these customers. How can it win against banks, Wise and Airwallex, and what could go wrong?
Hint · Creativity
Brainstorm in buckets (e.g. internal vs external, short vs long term) so ideas stay structured and you can see gaps.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
Share when the candidate asks:
- Mastercard-Bain SME survey (2026): 91% of internationally active SMEs plan to switch providers within two years; 92% already use more than one provider
- Top selection criteria: trust (35%), speed (34%), cost (28%), transparency (28%); 67% of recent switchers cited speed; 43% want real-time payment tracking
- Wise's cross-border take rate was approximately 0.51% in the fourth quarter of its 2026 financial year and has been falling as it cuts prices; Wise Business had approximately 572,000 active customers
- Airwallex serves more than 676,000 businesses and processed approximately $287B of annualized volume in March 2026
- Some SME corridors, especially emerging markets, still carry all-in costs of approximately 2--4% of the payment value
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
How Meridian can win
1. Product: make cross-border invisible inside AP
- One flow from invoice capture to payment to supplier confirmation; no exporting to a bank portal
- Real-time tracking and a confirmation the customer can forward to the supplier (addresses the 43% who want tracking)
- Guaranteed delivery dates by corridor, using local rails (SPEI, SEPA Instant, Faster Payments) where the partner has them
2. Pricing: transparent and bundled
- Show the mid-market rate and one visible margin; this addresses the trust issue banks have
- Bundle cross-border into Meridian's higher subscription tiers (for example, first $250K a year at a reduced margin) to drive adoption
- Offer forward contracts and "lock the rate at approval" for importers who invoice in foreign currency
3. Network: turn suppliers into users
- Onboard foreign suppliers to receive payments and send invoices through Meridian; each supplier then brings other U.S. buyers
- Add receivables for the 15% of customers who export: local-currency collection accounts
4. Quantified upside
- If tracking and guaranteed speed raise year-3 adoption from 35% to 45%: $16.8B × 45% = $7.56B of volume; × 0.9% = approximately $68.0M revenue, approximately $15.1M above the base case
What could go wrong
| Risk | Why it matters | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Price compression | Wise is at approximately 0.51% and falling. At a 0.6% take rate, year-3 partner economics fall from $28.45M to $5.9B × (0.6% − 0.35%) − $4M = approximately $10.75M | Tiered partner fee; value pricing tied to workflow; bundle into subscription |
| Partner dependence | The partner controls licenses, payouts and part of the customer experience | Multi-year contract with data ownership; keep a second partner for China/Vietnam; revisit build at $11B+ |
| Compliance and fraud | AML/KYC, sanctions screening and invoice fraud hit trust, the top selection criterion | Use the partner's screening plus Meridian's supplier verification; invoice-to-payment matching |
| Regulatory change | State licensing (MTMA in only approximately 31 states), UK safeguarding rules since May 2026 | Partner carries the licenses; monitor if Meridian later holds funds itself |
| Bank response | Banks may cut prices for their best SME customers | Target the long tail of SMBs where banks earn most and serve worst |
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
Look for ideas that use Meridian's specific advantage (it sees the invoice, the approval and the supplier before the payment exists) rather than generic "lower prices" or "better marketing". Push the candidate to quantify at least one idea and to face the price risk: Meridian's planned 0.9% is well above Wise's approximately 0.51%.
- Good candidates list 4--5 plausible ideas and 3--4 risks
- Strong candidates group them (product, pricing, network, risk) and tie them to the survey's switching drivers (speed, tracking, trust)
- Excellent candidates quantify the upside of higher adoption and the downside of price compression under the partner model, and see that price compression hurts Meridian more than it hurts a licensed player because the partner fee does not fall with it
"So What?" Cascade:
- Level 1 (surface): Meridian needs to be faster, clearer and cheaper than banks
- Level 2 (implication): Meridian cannot win on price against Wise; it has to win on workflow (pay and track the invoice where it was approved), which is what customers say they value (speed, tracking, trust)
- Level 3 (actionable insight): Price the product for value, not as a price leader, but protect the margin: if the market forces the take rate down to approximately 0.6%, the partner economics become thin, so a fee step-down clause is not optional
Question 6Synthesis
The CEO walks in. Give your recommendation in two minutes.
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- No new data. The candidate should synthesize the prior answers.
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Recommendation: Yes, enter cross-border B2B payments now, through an embedded partner, starting with Mexico, Canada and the Eurozone, and adding China and Vietnam within 12 months.
Why:
- The prize is in our own base. 10,500 customers already send approximately $16.8B a year abroad. At 35% adoption and a 0.9% take rate, that is approximately $53M of revenue by year 3, approximately 25% on top of today's $210M, with almost no acquisition cost.
- Partnering is faster and far more valuable. Over 5 years, the partner model produces approximately $116M of net cash vs. approximately $1M for building and approximately −$57M for buying. It stays inside the $60M capital limit and is EBITDA-positive from year 2. Building only becomes cheaper above approximately $11B of annual volume, which we will not reach in the plan.
- Customers are ready to switch. 91% of SMEs plan to switch cross-border providers within two years, and speed and tracking drive the decision, both of which we can deliver inside the AP workflow.
Corridor sequence: Mexico, Canada, Eurozone first (56% of customer volume, launch in 4 months); China and Vietnam next (approximately 47% of revenue potential, highest customer savings, 9--12 months to set up).
Risks and triggers to revisit:
- If the take rate falls below approximately 0.6%, the partner model becomes thin: renegotiate the fee or reconsider build
- If annual volume approaches $11B, re-open the build-or-buy decision
- If the partner misses service levels or compliance standards, move to a second partner
Next 90 days:
- Run a partner selection process (at least 3 licensed providers), with fee tiers, data ownership and no exclusivity as hard terms
- Pilot with 300 customers in the Mexico corridor, measuring adoption, delivery time and support tickets
- Start China/Vietnam partner onboarding and supplier documentation workflows in parallel
- Set pricing: visible mid-market rate plus margin, and a bundled allowance in the top subscription tiers
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
Look for an answer-first recommendation, supported by 3 numbers from the case, with risks and next steps. Push back if the candidate hedges ("it depends"): the CEO wants a decision.
- Good candidates recommend entering via a partner and cite the revenue estimate
- Strong candidates include the corridor sequence, the build/partner comparison and the board constraints
- Excellent candidates add the "when would we change our mind" triggers ($11B annual volume, take rate below approximately 0.6%, partner service failures) and a clear 90-day plan
Data Sources
Market facts in this case are taken from the public sources below and rounded for interview math. Meridian Payments and all company-specific figures (customers, volumes, costs, corridor shares and entry-mode assumptions) are fictional.
| Fact used in the case | Source |
|---|---|
| SMB cross-border B2B payments approximately $14.4T (2025); SME take rate approximately 1.3% vs. 0.2% for large enterprises; total B2B TAM approximately $34.8T | FXC Intelligence, "How big is the B2B cross-border payments market?", 2026, https://www.fxcintel.com/research/reports/how-big-is-the-b2b-cross-border-payments-market |
| Banks 42% → 28% and fintechs 30% → 48% as SMEs' primary provider (2025 → 2028); 91% plan to switch; 92% multi-provider; trust 35%, speed 34%, cost 28%, transparency 28%; 67% of switchers cite speed; 43% want real-time tracking | Mastercard-Bain SME cross-border survey, reported by Tech Times, "Mastercard-Bain Survey Finds Fintechs Set to Overtake Banks in SME Cross-Border Payments", 2026, https://www.techtimes.com/articles/328090/20260925/mastercard-bain-survey-finds-fintechs-set-overtake-banks-sme-cross-border-payments.htm |
| Wise FY2026 cross-border volume approximately £181.7B (+25%); Q4 take rate approximately 51 bps; approximately 572,000 active Wise Business customers | The Industry Spread, "Wise FY26 volume jumps 25% to £181.7bn as take rate falls", 2026, https://theindustryspread.com/wise-fy26-cross-border-volume-181bn/ ; Wise Group plc, "Full Year 2026 Financial Results", 2026, https://owners.wise.com/news-releases/news-release-details/wise-group-plc-reports-full-year-2026-financial-results |
| Airwallex approximately $1.3B annualized revenue (March 2026, +74%); more than 676,000 businesses; approximately $287B annualized volume | Airwallex Newsroom, "Airwallex secures $320 million in Series H funding, valuation hits $11 billion", 2026, https://www.airwallex.com/global/newsroom/airwallex-secures-320-million-in-series-h-funding-valuation-hits-11-billion |
| U.S. 2025 goods exports approximately $2.2T, goods imports approximately $3.4T; services exports approximately $1.2T | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, "U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, December and Annual 2025", 2026, https://www.bea.gov/news/2026/us-international-trade-goods-and-services-december-and-annual-2025 |
| SMEs approximately one-third of known U.S. goods export value (approximately 33--35% in 2023--2024) | U.S. Census Bureau, "Preliminary Profile of U.S. Exporting Companies, 2024", 2025, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/edb/2024prelimprofile.pdf |
| 2025 U.S. goods trade by partner: Mexico approximately $873B, Canada $720B, China $415B, Germany $239B, Vietnam $210B, UK $162B | U.S. Census Bureau 2025 annual trade data, as compiled by Shipping Solutions, "Top U.S. Trading Partners", 2026, https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/top-u.s.-trading-partners |
| Approximately 90% of Swift cross-border payments reach the recipient bank within one hour; approximately 43% reach the end customer within one hour | Swift, "Swift cross-border payment processing speed stretches further ahead of G20 target", 2024, https://www.swift.com/news-events/press-releases/swift-cross-border-payment-processing-speed-stretches-further-ahead-g20-target |
| Approximately 31 states have enacted the Money Transmission Modernization Act in full or in part | Conference of State Bank Supervisors, "MTMA Legislative Update", 2026, https://www.csbs.org/mtma-legislative-update-4232026 |
| UK FCA strengthened safeguarding regime for payment and e-money firms from 7 May 2026 | Financial Conduct Authority, "FCA sets out changes to payment safeguarding rules", 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/payment-safeguarding-rules-changes |
| SME cross-border transfers in emerging-market corridors carry approximately 2--4% all-in cost | Ledger N3XT Research, "Stablecoins vs SWIFT for Cross-Border SME Payments" (citing IMF, 2023), 2026, https://www.ledger.com/academy/series/n3xt/research-stablecoins-vs-swift-cross-border-sme-payments |
Free in the DrillCase case library · Editorial policy