# Fee Schedule — Draft v0.1

> **Status:** DRAFT for discussion. All numbers are proposals, nothing client-facing yet.
> **Design requirement (user):** fully flexible — every parameter changeable at any stage. Implemented as a single YAML config (below) that the future fee engine / proposal generator / reporting pipeline reads. Changing a fee = editing one value, regenerating outputs.
> **When firm launches:** this file migrates into the build repo as `brand/fees.yaml` + rendered into proposals, client agreements, and the AM database fee fields (asset-mgmt-db already has per-portfolio fee + floor + soft-alert fields from Slice 03 — the schema side exists).

---

## 1. Market comparables (researched 2026-10-08)

| Source | Segment | Fee (p.a.) |
|---|---|---|
| moneyland.ch study 2025 | Swiss bank discretionary, CHF 1M, 80–100% equities | avg 1.23% |
| moneyland.ch study 2025 | Swiss bank discretionary, CHF 1M, 40–60% equities | avg 1.14% |
| moneyland.ch study 2025 | Swiss bank discretionary, CHF 1M, no equities | avg 0.86% |
| BNP Paribas WM CH 2025 (bank list) | Bonds 0.90→0.50% / Conservative 1.35→1.30% / Balanced 1.55→1.50% / Dynamic 1.75→1.70% / Equity 1.85→1.40% (AUM-tiered, all-in) |
| Campio Group 2024 (bank list) | FI 1.00% / Defensive 1.40% / Balanced 1.60% / Dynamic 1.80% / Equity 2.00% |
| vapa.ch comparison 2026 | Independent managers, all-in: 0.85–1.00% (CHF 2–5M), 0.75–0.90% (5–20M), 0.65–0.80% (20M+) — 15–25% below private banks |
| WealthArc EAM fee study | EAM management-fee avg: 0.76% (<$1M mandates) → 0.51% (>CHF 10M); dynamic strategies 0.87% avg; 85% of EAMs charge management fee only |
| Simon-Kucher Swiss EAM study | Pricing heavily negotiated off list; retro-free models growing; ~60% of market controlled by 3 banks |

**Read-through:** banks list 1.35–2.00% all-in; independents effectively 0.85–1.00% at mid-size mandates. EAM management-fee average 0.76–0.87%. A new independent firm charging **0.80–1.30% by strategy tier, direct securities, low turnover, retro-free transparency** is priced above the EAM average (justified: institutional-grade systems, direct-line portfolios, personalized service) but clearly below bank all-in costs (justified to clients and RMs). The launch plan's working assumption of 0.8% blended gross sits at the conservative end of this — the schedule below blends to ~0.9–1.0% on a realistic mix, which *improves* the launch-plan break-even math.

---

## 2. Fee model (components)

1. **Management fee** — per strategy tier, AUM-tiered, billed quarterly in arrears on average AUM, excl. VAT. Core revenue.
2. **Performance fee (optional module)** — off by default; enable per mandate or per custom strategy variant. Hurdle + high-water mark, annual crystallization.
3. **No entry/exit fees** — deliberate positioning vs. banks (clean sheet for RMs to sell).
4. **Custody & transaction costs** — passed through at custodian's EAM/wholesale schedule, disclosed ex-ante (FinSA cost transparency). We take no markup, no retrocessions (retro-free model — market trend + regulatory headwind-proof + simplifies US/SEC side).
5. **Minimum fee** — annual floor per mandate (protects economics on small accounts; also an upsell lever for RMs).
6. **RM revenue share** — share of gross management fee per introduced asset; per-RM configurable within a defined band. Founding-RM step-up available.

## 3. The schedule (YAML — single source of truth)

```yaml
# fees.yaml — v0.1 DRAFT (2026-10-08)
# Every value here is a proposal pending user decision. Nothing client-facing.
meta:
  version: 0.1
  status: draft
  currency_basis: per reference currency of mandate (CHF/USD/EUR identical % rates)
  billing: quarterly in arrears, average AUM over quarter, excl. Swiss VAT
  aum_definition: market value of all managed assets incl. cash, excl. leverage

management_fee:                      # % p.a. by strategy tier × AUM band (blended on total mandate AUM)
  strategies:
    fixed_income_only:   [ {up_to: 5e6, rate: 0.0075}, {up_to: 20e6, rate: 0.0065}, {above: 20e6, rate: 0.0055} ]
    conservative:        [ {up_to: 5e6, rate: 0.0090}, {up_to: 20e6, rate: 0.0080}, {above: 20e6, rate: 0.0070} ]
    balanced:            [ {up_to: 5e6, rate: 0.0105}, {up_to: 20e6, rate: 0.0095}, {above: 20e6, rate: 0.0080} ]
    offensive:           [ {up_to: 5e6, rate: 0.0120}, {up_to: 20e6, rate: 0.0110}, {above: 20e6, rate: 0.0095} ]
    equity_only:         [ {up_to: 5e6, rate: 0.0135}, {up_to: 20e6, rate: 0.0120}, {above: 20e6, rate: 0.0100} ]
    custom_model_variant:                # e.g. client-specific screens or bands off a base strategy
      rule: base_strategy_rate + uplift
      uplift_default: 0.0010             # +10bp; negotiable per mandate, recorded per portfolio in AM db
  interpolation: per-band blended on tiered AUM slices (standard Swiss practice)

performance_fee:                     # optional module, OFF by default
  default:
    enabled: false
    rate: 0.10                       # 10% of excess return
    hurdle: "SARON + 4%"             # USD books: SOFR + 4%
    high_water_mark: true
    crystallization: annual
    basis: net-of-management-fee return
    allowed_for: [offensive, equity_only, custom_model_variant]

minimums:
  minimum_mandate_size: 500000       # CHF/USD/EUR — keeps client "qualified investor" under FinSA Art. 10 (discretionary mandate > CHF 500k)
  minimum_annual_fee: 6000           # per mandate, all strategies; pro-rated on mid-year onboarding
  founding_client_waiver: true       # first 12 months fee-floor waived — RM selling lever, costs us almost nothing

rm_revenue_share:                    # share of GROSS management fee on RM-introduced assets
  default_share: 0.60                # per launch-plan assumption
  negotiation_band: [0.50, 0.70]
  founding_rm_stepup: {share: 0.65, duration_months: 24, then: 0.60}   # optional inducement for first 1-2 RMs
  direct_clients: 0.00
  basis_note: share applies to management fee only — never to performance fee (clean incentive structure; performance fee split negotiable separately if module enabled)
  rm_borne_costs: none               # firm bears compliance, reporting, systems — that's the RM pitch

cost_pass_through:
  retrocessions: none_accepted       # retro-free: rebated to client where received; simplifies FinSA + SEC disclosure
  custody: custodian EAM schedule, billed by custodian directly
  transactions: custodian wholesale rates, billed by custodian directly
  our_markup: 0

vat: swiss_vat_excluded_in_listed_rates
```

**Blended-economics check (vs. launch plan break-even):**
- Launch plan break-even used 0.8% gross / 60% RM share → 0.32% net to firm, break-even CHF 24M–131M.
- This schedule, on a plausible launch mix (e.g. 20% FI / 40% Conservative / 30% Balanced / 10% Offensive, RM share 60%): blended gross ≈ 0.93% → net ≈ 0.37%. Break-even at low-opex end improves from ~CHF 24M to ~CHF 21M. Directionally favorable, same order of magnitude — no change needed to launch-plan conclusions.
- At 100% direct clients (0% RM share), blended gross ≈ 0.93% net 0.93% → break-even ~CHF 8M AUM. The direct-client build path (launch plan's core thesis) is what makes this work.

## 4. Open decisions for user

1. Ratify or adjust the five tier rates (§3 `management_fee.strategies`).
2. Minimum mandate CHF 500k OK? (FinSA qualified-investor rationale) or higher (CHF 1M) for positioning?
3. Minimum annual fee CHF 6k OK?
4. Performance fee module: keep as optional/off, or cut entirely for launch simplicity?
5. Founding-RM step-up (65% × 24 months → 60%): offer this lever or keep flat 60%?
6. Custom-variant uplift +10bp default OK?
7. Founding-cohort expiry terms (per client-deck-storyline §6): cohort size (e.g. first 20-30 clients) and/or end date for the time-limited founding-phase terms (fee-floor waiver, shadow access, founding pricing) — must be defined in the YAML so all documents state them identically.

## 5. Changelog

- v0.1 (2026-10-08): first draft from market research (moneyland 2025, BNP WM CH 2025, Campio 2024, vapa 2026, WealthArc, Simon-Kucher). YAML-configurable design per user flexibility requirement.