Market access 

Switzerland will not be able to safeguard and improve market access by acting alone: it must arrive at a political understanding with the various partner states. A range of approaches should be pursued simultaneously to this end, since some goals can be attainable quite quickly, whereas others will require more time. 

There are three types of market access:

• Onshore presence: A Swiss bank serves its foreign customers through a subsidiary and/or branch in their home country.
• Active cross-border: Staff based in Switzerland serve existing foreign customers and actively acquire new ones.
• Passive cross-border: Existing foreign customers receive standard services, while new foreign customers are acquired only when the latter approach the banks themselves.

Why is market access important? 

• Private banking: More than half of the assets managed in Switzerland originate from foreign clients, with Europeans estimated to account for more than 40% of these assets.
• Asset management: Swiss banks can manage foreign-based collective investment schemes, provide institutional asset management for foreign-based pension funds, and sell Swiss financial products abroad.
• Corporate banking: Market access makes currency transactions as well as bond and equity issuance abroad easier for Swiss banks.

Objective: gain non-discriminatory access to foreign markets 

Switzerland is striving to secure non-discriminatory access to EU / European Economic Area (EEA) markets as well as to growth regions in order to preserve its ability to export Swiss financial services and foster future growth.  

What does the banking sector need? 

In contrast to goods-exporting industries, restrictions on market access are increasingly hampering export-oriented Swiss banks’ efforts to meet legitimate customer needs and keep value creation, jobs and tax income in Switzerland. Unlike Switzerland, key target markets have in recent years adopted protectionist measures which severely restrict cross-border financial transactions. Customers’ needs have also changed significantly. In the past, the focus was on secure custody of assets in a reliable jurisdiction, and the confidentiality that went with it. Today, customers are increasingly looking for active service provision geared to performance. Both personal contact with client advisors and interaction through new means of communication are important aspects of this. Many studies show that international wealth management remains a growth business. Without regulated market access, Swiss banks are at a significant competitive disadvantage compared with their rivals in the EU. Market access is just as essential for the finance industry as it is for the watch, engineering or wine industries. It is therefore not merely “nice to have” but rather a clear necessity if Switzerland and its financial industry are to grasp the opportunities that lie ahead. 

Free trade agreements and the Swiss financial centre 

The SBA is committed to open markets because trade creates prosperity both in Switzerland and abroad. It therefore also supports the conclusion of free trade agreements, which are a key instrument of Swiss foreign trade policy.  

Free trade agreements are important to the Swiss financial centre for the following reasons:  

• They enhance the competitiveness of the Swiss economy.
• They open up new growth opportunities for our companies’ exports.
• Closer business ties create the potential for new agreements on financial services.

Free trade agreements make Switzerland more competitive and prosperous over the long term, benefiting the country’s people and economy as well as its financial centre.

Relations between Switzerland and the EU

Switzerland’s main export market is the European Union. To achieve improved access to that market, the sector has in the past pursued a number of mutually independent approaches: 

• Bilateral agreements: These allow for improvements to market access with individual, strategically important EU countries. So far, Switzerland has reached an agreement with Germany on a simplified exemption procedure. Negotiations are also currently under way regarding an agreement with the UK to improve Swiss banks’ access to the UK market.
• Equivalence strategy: Key elements of Swiss financial market regulation are recognised as equivalent to EU regulations. However, the relevant recognition procedures are currently one-sided, inefficient and, in some cases, heavily politicised.
• Financial Services Agreements (FSAs): A financial services agreement would cover the entire Swiss financial sector, including insurers. Furthermore, a key component of an FSA in the traditional sense would be extensive alignment of Swiss financial market legislation with EU regulations. For this reason, an FSA is not the chief objective at present.
• Onshore presence in EU countries: A number of Swiss banks have established subsidiaries in the EU, but EU customers continue to be primarily interested in cross-border services provided from Switzerland.

The sector is currently focusing on the following approaches: 

• Finding practicable market access solutions, both at the EU level and bilaterally with individual Member States. The Swiss banking sector is firmly committed to the institution-specific approach, which aims to open the EU market up to interested institutions by having them register with the EU supervisory authorities.
• Putting the existing procedures for recognising equivalence in the financial sector on a more stable and reliable foundation, while at the same time targeting improvements in the current equivalence regime.

 The institution-specific approach

By international standards, market access for banking and securities services from the EU into Switzerland is very open. Conversely, however, there is currently little or no access for the active provision of cross-border banking and securities services from Switzerland, either at the EU level or in most Member States of the EEA. Market access at the EU level is subject to ever tighter restrictions. The current rules limit the cross-border provision of services for EU investors to instances of passive “reverse solicitation” – in other words, situations where customers seek out services exclusively on their own initiative.

The institution-specific market access approach should be pursued further, in order to maintain and further expand cross-border business with customers in the EU. Institution-specific – or, from a regulatory perspective, licence-based – access to the EU market involves interested Swiss banks registering once with a central EU authority (the European Banking Authority or European Securities and Markets Authority) and being issued with a passport allowing them to actively provide banking and securities services throughout the EU/EEA. The scope of access would extend to all relevant customer categories, including private clients, and would cover providing services to existing customers as well as soliciting and acquiring new customers domiciled in the EU/EEA.

When registering, Swiss banks would individually undertake to accept and comply with the relevant EU law when serving EU customers. That would include the EU rules of conduct with regard to investor protection, market integrity and a level playing field. In addition to primary supervision by FINMA, registered Swiss banks would be subject to oversight by an EU authority when engaging in cross-border activities in the EU. The details would have to be set out in a cooperation agreement between the Swiss and EU supervisory authorities. The Federal Council also acknowledged that the institution-specific approach is a viable solution in its draft Assessment of Swiss-EU relations dated 9 December 2022 (page 21).

One model might be the accord reached between Switzerland and Germany establishing an exemption procedure. Germany offers banks outside the EEA the option to obtain licence exemptions under the applicable German laws and regulations. A memorandum of understanding between the Swiss and German supervisory authorities also grants Switzerland access to more far-reaching licence exemptions granted by the German supervisory authority BaFin. Institutions that have obtained such an exemption can actively acquire and serve German customers on a cross-border basis without going through an institution licensed in Germany, but are broadly required to adhere to German regulations. Additionally, their cross-border business is reviewed by Swiss audit firms, while BaFin has some audit powers of its own.

A potential alternative would be to set up an EU registration system of the kind that already exists in countries such as the US. The US Investment Advisers Act of 1940 allows Swiss financial institutions and their advisors to offer their portfolio management and advisory services cross-border on American soil. Institutions wishing to do so must register with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or a state supervisory authority. Here too, registered financial institutions and their investment advisors must comply with US law in their dealings with US customers.

Equivalence procedures

In the interests of safeguarding and improving access to the EU market, the focus in the near term will remain on equivalence procedures. Such recognition is essential to EU market access for the entire Swiss financial sector.

Relations between Switzerland and the EU are very close and multifaceted, with more than 120 agreements signed in the past 25 years. The two are very close trading partners. This high degree of interconnectedness puts Switzerland in an exceptional situation vis-à-vis the EU in that it trades much more intensively with the EU than other third countries do. Swiss banks are subject to competent and comprehensive financial market supervision in Switzerland that is also recognised by the EU. On top of this, Swiss legislation is designed to be equivalent to EU law in areas that are relevant for market access. Switzerland enjoys a high level of political and financial stability by international standards.

For all of these reasons, the EU should recognise Switzerland as a reliable trading partner and give it priority treatment in matters of equivalence. The industry wants full recognition of the equivalence of Swiss financial market regulation where provided for under EU law and where it is important for Switzerland. It argues that the EU’s politicians should assess equivalence using a reliable, clearly defined and principles-based process. The pending equivalence procedures should be concluded as swiftly as possible on the EU side, particularly in cases where the technical process was concluded long ago by the competent authorities.

From the banks’ perspective, legal uncertainty currently stems from the existing procedures for achieving EU equivalence not being defined clearly or reliably enough. There are no specific timelines, for example, nor is there a uniform benchmark for equivalence. There is no right to equivalence; it is instead a political decision taken by the European Commission. In addition, the scope of the existing EU third-country equivalence regime is restricted to certain activities, customer categories (professional clients) and products.

In June 2019, the European Commission allowed its temporary recognition of the equivalence of Switzerland’s stock exchange regulation for the purposes of Article 23 of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) to lapse. This prompted the Swiss Federal Department of Finance (FDF) to invoke its contingency measure to protect the Swiss stock exchange infrastructure as of 1 July 2019. The EU still did not recognise Swiss stock exchange regulation as equivalent, and on 17 November 2021 the Federal Council therefore extended the validity of the contingency measure until 31 December 2025. At the same time, it launched the consultation on incorporating the contingency measure into the Financial Market Infrastructure Act (FinMIA). Even after this is done, the measure will remain temporary and will initially apply for a period of five years, with the option to deactivate it at any time.

The SBA finds it regrettable that, for political reasons, recognition of stock market equivalence was not renewed. It therefore shares the Federal Council’s assessment. The arbitrary linking of technical recognition of equivalence with the progress made in the negotiations for a framework agreement is incomprehensible. We believe that Switzerland – just like other third countries – should be granted equivalence with no time limit, especially since technical equivalence has been acknowledged by the EU authorities.

We also believe that further decisions on equivalence in other areas are of great importance. These should be finalised as swiftly as possible. The key pending equivalence procedures are as follows:

• Article 67 of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) relates to the extension of the EU passport to third countries, i.e. other countries as well as Switzerland. A favourable decision would result in the admission of Swiss alternative investment funds throughout the EU, with their management and marketing subject to uniform regulation in all EU Member States. This would open up new opportunities for Swiss-based business that have up to now been the preserve of locations inside the EU (primarily Luxembourg and Ireland). ESMA gave positive advice on extending the passport to Switzerland back in July 2016. The Commission’s political decision is still pending and could remain so for years due to a possible review of the AIFMD.
• Articles 46 and 47 of MiFIR relate to the direct cross-border provision of services to professional clients in the EU from a third country. A favourable decision would make it possible to provide investment services to eligible counterparties and “per se” professional clients throughout the EU without the need for any branches in the EU. Swiss institutions would benefit from EU passporting for third countries, which would significantly enhance their scope for providing cross-border services. Luxembourg, an EU Member State, offers an interesting precedent in this regard, having deemed Swiss financial market regulation and supervision to be equivalent for this very purpose under its national regime in June 2020. More information is available here.
• Article 13 of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) relates to recognition of Swiss derivatives regulation. A favourable decision on equivalence would mean that it would be sufficient to meet certain obligations (such as clearing, risk mitigation and reporting) under Swiss law rather than having to ensure compliance with EMIR. This is referred to as substituted compliance. For intragroup transactions, it would even result in an exemption from certain obligations under EMIR (in particular with regard to clearing and risk mitigation).
• Article 25 of the Central Securities Depositories Regulation relates to the processing and settlement of securities transactions by providers in third countries. Recognition of equivalence in this area allows central securities depositories from third countries to provide custody services for customers in the EU. This process is also relevant with regard to member states of the European Economic Area. SIX SIS is the central securities depository not only for Switzerland, but also for Liechtenstein, and therefore performs functions centrally for the Liechtenstein financial centre. Equivalence is a prerequisite for continuing to provide these services.

Relations between Switzerland and the UK

Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) have enjoyed intensive and multifaceted bilateral relations for many years. Both countries also have leading global financial centres. Because the UK is one of the key markets for Swiss banks’ export business, it is very important that post-Brexit and after the end of the transition period, relations with the UK not only remain as undisrupted as possible, but are also deepened in a targeted manner.

After intensive negotiations and several postponements of the exit date, the UK government and the EU reached an agreement in October 2019 on the conditions for an exit on 31 January 2020, including a transition period. Shortly before the end of the transition period, an agreement was reached on 24 December 2020 on future trade relations with regard to the movement of goods. However, this agreement does not provide for a new transition period for financial services or for new regulations to replace the “passporting rights” in place until that time for UK financial service providers. Future market access between the EU and the UK in this area remains for the most part unaddressed. Now that the UK is no longer bound by EU law, the Swiss banks believe that an ambitious liberalisation and expansion of reciprocal market access in the area of banking and securities services should now be pursued bilaterally by Switzerland and the UK. 

Far-reaching liberalisation of market access is the sector’s declared objective 

• The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020. At the end of the transition period, the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU ceased to apply to the UK. From 1 January 2021, a series of follow-up agreements came into force instead, which were reached with the UK as part of the Federal Council’s “Mind the Gap” strategy. The bulk of the applicable rights and obligations between the two states thus remained in place.
• However, Swiss banks engaging in cross-border business with private clients in the UK face complex and in some cases unclear UK rules and concomitant risks, especially with regard to individual clients domiciled in the UK. For this reason, Swiss banks are calling for an ambitious expansion of reciprocal market access for banking and securities services, to allow them to serve interested UK client segments more easily and in line with their needs. First and foremost, they want to see improvements and simplifications with regard to the high-net-worth individuals segment, as these account for a large proportion of cross-border banking business.
• On 30 June 2020, the then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak and former Federal Councillor Ueli Maurer signed a joint statement on deepening relations between the two nations in the financial sector. A joint sector position paper published by economiesuisse and TheCityUK on 28 April 2020, to which the SBA also actively contributed, outlined a number of issues to be addressed, most of which have been taken up. Since then, the two governments have been working on a mutual recognition agreement (MRA). The negotiations are aimed at liberalising and expanding reciprocal market access in the areas of banking and securities services, asset management, insurance and capital markets (including financial market infrastructure). The agreement is to be based on mutual recognition of the respective financial market regulations and supervision. After a meeting at ministerial level in February 2022, the two sides reaffirmed their commitment, and the goal remains to conclude the agreement by summer 2023.
• The aims of the joint statement are ambitious and implementing them will be challenging. The SBA welcomes the determination to expedite the technical work involved, with the goal of concluding an international treaty within the foreseeable future.