“In-house products are better – they meet internal standards, and we control the risk.” He wasn’t wrong. In-house solutions align structure, consistency, and risk management with bank frameworks, offering a sense of safety.
However, the dynamic changes when one moves into the independent space, particularly to an External Asset Manager (EAM).
Open architecture sounds attractive: it offers broader access, more flexibility, and tailored solutions. Yet it can become a liability without the right investment, governance, and human capital.
No single person (or even two) can master the full scope of today’s investment universe. From thematic investing to private markets, the complexity demands deep expertise, processes, and oversight.
Key Questions Before Making the Move
So, before leaping, Relationship Managers should ask: – Who makes the investment decisions? – Is there a formal Investment Committee? – How are products sourced, assessed, and monitored? – Is there absolute independence, or just a patchwork of preferences?
Crucially, most EAMs have no incentive to promote products. That’s a strength—if matched by robust investment capabilities.
It’s Not About Access — It’s About Integrity
We’re not product distributors. We’re wealth managers and must act in our clients’ best interests with freedom and responsibility.
Bottom line: Open platforms only work when backed by professional infrastructure. If you’re considering moving to an EAM, please take a look. The brand may be independent, but is the investment team honestly sound?
Choose wisely. Trust is built on more than just access. For the institutional perspective – which banks still run proprietary shelves, and why – see how open architecture compares with proprietary products.
Source: LinkedIn
To see how in-house product margins add up in francs, try our fee comparison between private banking and independent wealth management.
Source: https://vapa.ch/in-house-products-vs-open-architecture-wealth-management/ · vapa.ch
