Wealth management fees in Switzerland: who charges what

The cost of a wealth management mandate in Switzerland is not a single line in a contract. It is made up of several layers, charged by different parties: the manager, the custodian bank and the providers of the products in which the assets are invested. Neither the calculation basis nor the amounts are set by law; the law does, however, require the provider to inform the client about costs and about remuneration received from third parties. This page describes each component, recalls the legal framework and lists the questions to put in writing. It gives no rates: the authorities publish no tariff, and the median fee in our directory is not yet published (see below).

What are the components of the fees in a management mandate?

The table below describes each component, who charges it and the form in which it can be expressed. These are definitions: whether each line exists, and at what level, depends on the contract and the provider.

Three points on reading the table:

• With an independent manager, the costs build up across two invoices. The manager invoices fees; the custodian bank invoices custody, transactions and foreign exchange. Product costs do not appear on an invoice: they are deducted from the value of the investments. For the split of roles, see the page on the private bank and the independent asset manager.
• With a private bank, several lines may sit in a single tariff. The question is then what each line covers and what is charged in addition.
• The same word can cover several things. "Management fees" sometimes means the manager's fees and sometimes the ongoing charges of a fund. The contract needs to state which.

What does our directory publish on fees?

Firms rarely publish their terms. Our data, as of 17 October 2026, cover 549 institutions in the FINMA list domiciled in Geneva; the median fee is not published (n = 1, publication from 5 values). The minimum investment is published by 1.1 % of the institutions; the median of the 6 published minimums is CHF 250,000, all types combined. Detailed figures by type of institution are on the Geneva data page; they will be published once the threshold of 5 values is reached for a given type.

With no public tariff, the only reliable source is the document supplied by the provider. That is why fees are worth requesting in writing (see below).

What does the FinSA say about cost disclosure?

The Federal Act on Financial Services (FinSA, SR 950.1; in French LSFin) places information duties on providers. The full picture is in our page on FinIA and FinSA; two points bear directly on fees.

• Costs. In art. 8, para. 2, let. a, the act provides that the provider informs the client about the financial service that is the subject of the personal recommendation "and the risks and costs involved" (official French text: "et des risques et coûts y afférents"). The details are set out in the Financial Services Ordinance (FinSO, SR 950.11; in French OSFin), in art. 8 "Information on costs": the information covers in particular the one-off and recurring costs of the service. Where a cost cannot be determined in advance, it may be given as an order of magnitude, and the provider then points out the risk of additional costs. Art. 8, para. 2, let. b, FinSA adds information on economic ties with third parties (see below).
• Third-party remuneration. This is governed by art. 26 FinSA.

These provisions set what must be communicated. They do not cap fees and do not prescribe any method of charging.

What are retrocessions and what does the law provide?

A retrocession, or third-party remuneration, is a payment a provider receives from a third party in connection with the services rendered to its client: for example a commission paid by a fund provider on the assets placed, or by a custodian bank to the manager who brings it assets.

Art. 26 FinSA. A financial service provider may accept such remuneration only if the client has waived it after being expressly informed, or if the remuneration is passed on to the client in full (para. 1). The information must cover the type and extent of the remuneration and come before the service or the contract; if the amount is not known in advance, the provider communicates the calculation criteria and orders of magnitude and, on request, the amounts actually received (para. 2). The full text is available on fedlex.

Earlier case law. Before the FinSA, the question fell under the law of mandate (art. 400, para. 1, of the Code of Obligations: the agent must hand over to the principal everything received in connection with the performance of the mandate). Two leading Federal Supreme Court decisions are regularly cited:

• BGE 132 III 460 (2006), whose official summary concerns the return of retrocessions and "finder's fees" in an asset management contract and the conditions of a valid waiver of that return by the client;
• BGE 138 III 755 (2012), whose official summary concerns asset management by a bank and the return of distribution fees, including those paid by providers outside the bank's group, the client's waiver, and products of group companies.

The links go to the text published by the Federal Supreme Court. The decisions are not available in English: the page opens in French and the official summary is in German. For the precise scope of these decisions, only the text of the judgment is authoritative.

Asset-based fee or flat fee: which models exist?

Remuneration models can be described, but not ranked by cost, because the outcome depends on the amount managed, the rate or flat fee agreed and the ancillary charges.

For a given model, two points can be checked in writing: what the price covers (management only, or also custody, transactions and reporting) and who receives it (the manager or the custodian bank). The directory's fee calculator works out, from two values entered by the user (an annual percentage and an annual flat fee in CHF), the annual cost of each and the amount of assets above which the flat fee costs less than the percentage entered. It runs in the browser and includes neither the custodian bank's fees, nor VAT, nor any performance fee. It calculates only the values entered by the user.

What questions can be put in writing before committing?

The following questions can be sent to any provider, manager or bank, and the answer kept on file:

• What is the manager's remuneration, on what basis is it calculated (end-of-period value, average, in tiers) and how often is it charged?
• Does the contract provide for a performance fee? What threshold, what period, what "high-water mark" mechanism?
• What does the custodian bank charge (custody fees, brokerage, foreign exchange costs, account maintenance fees) and where is the tariff recorded?
• What are the ongoing charges (TER) of the products used, and does the provider use products of its own house or group?
• Does the provider receive retrocessions or other third-party remuneration? If so, from whom, on what calculation criteria and in what orders of magnitude? Are they passed on to the client or kept after a written waiver (art. 26 FinSA)?
• Is an annual summary of the fees actually paid (fees, bank, products) supplied?
• Whom to contact in case of disagreement, and which ombudsman service is the provider affiliated with?

The directory profiles show, for each firm, its type, its supervisory organisation and, when published, its remuneration methods. See the lists of independent asset managers and private banks. See also the guide to choosing a wealth manager.

What can be checked before signing?

• The licence. Look the firm up in the official FINMA list and note its status.
• The supervisory organisation. For an independent manager, check the affiliation to an authorised supervisory organisation, whose name appears in the FINMA list.
• The custodian bank. Obtain its name, the powers granted to the manager and the bank's tariff.
• Fees in writing. The complete tariff of the manager, the bank and the products, with the calculation basis of each line, before signing.
• Retrocessions and third-party remuneration. Prior written information on their type and extent, in line with art. 26 FinSA, and the consequence chosen: pass-through or waiver.
• The ombudsman service. The provider's affiliation and contact details, to be requested in the documentation supplied.

Firms by type are listed in the directory: wealth management in Geneva, family offices and trustees. The collection method and the dates of the data are described on the methodology page.