Asset management: significant cost differences
Traditional wealth management is still expensive in Switzerland. But the cost differences between the banks are striking. This is shown in a new analysis by moneyland.ch.
Clients in wealth management are in high demand. This is also due to the fact that banks can earn a lot of money with wealthy clients. One reason for this is the persistently high fees in private banking. For an analysis, the online comparison service provider moneyland.ch took a close look at the fees in Swiss wealth management and investment advice and examined three different investment strategies and investment amounts for this purpose. The result: wealth management in Switzerland has its price. But the cost differences are large. "Depending on the strategy, the most expensive mandates cost more than three times as much as the cheapest banks," says Benjamin Manz, Managing Director of moneyland.ch. It is therefore worth comparing fees. Good to know: Depending on the assets and bank, the fees are not set in stone, so it can be worth asking or negotiating.
Mandate fees on average 1.32 percent
Traditional asset management with a pure equity strategy for an investment amount of CHF 250,000 costs an average of CHF 3289 per year in mandate fees at the Swiss banks surveyed. This corresponds to 1.32 percent of the investment amount per year. This does not include various additional costs such as foreign currency costs, taxes, stock exchange and fund fees. In particular, the funds used are often just as expensive as the mandate itself.
On the other hand, digital investment apps, sometimes also called "robo advisors", are cheaper and cost less than half the price of traditional asset management on average, as various comparisons by moneyland.ch show. Hybrid models that combine digital apps with advice are also on the rise.
Costs vary with the equity strategy
At many banks, the rule still applies: the more shares are used, the more expensive it becomes. For example, asset management for assets of one million francs with a pure equity strategy (80 to 100 percent equities) costs an average of 12,574 francs per year, which corresponds to around 1.26 percent. With an average equity share of 40 to 60 percent, customers still pay 1.16 percent for the mandates, and 0.92 percent for a strategy without equities.
The most favorable asset management mandates
There are large cost differences in the flat fees between the mandates examined. The most favorable of the providers examined are Sparkasse Schwyz, Alpian, Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank and, depending on the equity strategy and assets, other banks.
An example: with assets of CHF 500,000 and a pure equity strategy, customers of Sparkasse Schwyz pay CHF 3500 per year with an ETF mandate. At Alpian it is CHF 3750, at Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank CHF 5000, followed by Privatbank Piguet Galland with CHF 5400.
The most favorable consulting mandates
In addition to asset management mandates, Swiss banks also offer investment advisory mandates. In the case of investment advice, clients can choose between various investment recommendations, whereas in the case of asset management they no longer have a say once the strategy has been chosen.
For a pure equity portfolio of CHF 500,000, the investment advice of Sparkasse Schwyz is the cheapest with costs of CHF 1,500 per year, followed by the Uno mandate of Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank with costs of CHF 1,750. However, in addition to the mandate fees, most banks usually also charge product fees.
Source: moneyland.ch. You can find all interactive comparisons at https://www.moneyland.ch/de/vergleiche
