A recent communication from FINMA, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, has caused considerable concern among the Swiss asset management industry, with significant repercussions also in Ticino. The 2025 supervisory fee invoices, based on FINMA's 2024 financial statements, reveal a significant increase in costs, bringing the average expenditure per individual firm to approximately CHF 6, a marked increase from CHF 500 in 3. This increase, combined with the fees of the Supervisory Bodies (SBs), could increase the total cost of supervision to CHF 148 or more for some operators.

The Swiss Association of Asset Managers (SAAM), a leading voice in the industry, promptly expressed its concerns, highlighting how, in most cases, the share directly attributable to FINMA far exceeds the fees charged by the Supervisory Authorities themselves for their oversight activities. This situation has sparked a debate on the principles governing cost allocation and the remedies available to supervised companies.

The principles and critical issues of the FINMA system

Swiss law stipulates that FINMA's entire financial burden falls on the supervised financial sector. These costs are divided into two main categories: "Fees," direct charges for specific services (authorizations, amendments), and "Supervisory Fees," general operating costs allocated among the sectors and passed on to FINMA licensees. For asset managers, FINMA forwards the invoice to the supervisory bodies, which distribute it among their affiliates, often evenly.

The main criticism raised by the ASG concerns the limited application of the "causes principle" in the allocation. In 2024, in the "supervision of supervisory bodies," only 30% of costs were related to direct charges, while the remaining 70% consisted of the supervisory fee. This mechanism, according to the association, lacks transparency and penalizes entities with simpler business models, forcing them to bear part of the costs generated by more complex practices and cases handled by the Authority.

Limited avenues of appeal and false myths

Asset managers have legal recourse only for directly invoiced fees, which, in most cases, are considered reasonable. In contrast, the supervisory fee, passed indirectly through the supervisory bodies, offers no legal recourse either to the SAAM or to individual managers. Although the supervisory bodies can challenge this fee, no one has yet done so due to the low likelihood of success.

The SAAM also sought to dispel some common misconceptions. The idea that "small pays for big" is unfounded; an institution's size is not a legally valid criterion for cost allocation, and the regulation is based on the number of affiliated entities. Similarly, FINMA's expansion of its "Supervision of Supervisory Bodies" staff was a necessary response to the surge of over 1 authorization applications processed in a short timeframe, and not a sign of growth at the expense of small businesses.

Political initiative as the only solution to rising costs

Faced with this situation, the SAAM is convinced that only a political initiative can bring about lasting change. The association has already begun coordinating with other umbrella associations to address the issue, focusing in particular on the resources deployed by FINMA for the supervision of asset managers.

With the flood of licensing applications now over and fewer cases to process, the SAAM believes it is legitimate to expect a reduction in FINMA's overstaffing. The association opposes the use of staff initially hired for licensing purposes to overburden the Supervisory Bodies, which, by their nature and by law, operate independently. The SAAM's political intervention will focus on this crucial point, with the next steps being prepared this summer.

For more information on the activities of the SAAM, please visit their official website: Swiss Association of Asset Managers (SAAM).