Dynapartners

Dynapartners operates as an independent asset manager without a banking license, meaning it cannot hold client deposits or operate its own custody platform. Client assets are held at named Swiss custodian banks, while Dynapartners retains full investment discretion and the direct client relationship. This removes the conflict of distributing proprietary banking products and lets the firm select third-party funds and securities across the open market.

Swiss independent asset managers fall under the supervision of FINMA, either directly or through a delegated supervisory organization (SO). Since the Financial Institutions Act (FinIA) and Financial Services Act (FinSA) came into force, independent managers have been required to hold a license, meet organizational and capital requirements, and affiliate with an ombudsman's office. Dynapartners' regulatory standing is a function of this post-2020 licensing framework.

Swiss independent wealth managers face material cross-border compliance obligations when dealing with US-person clients, including FATCA reporting and potential SEC registration triggers. The firm's posture on US-connected accounts is not publicly detailed, but the operational norm among Swiss independents of Dynapartners' profile is to accept only non-US domiciled clients or to fully ring-fence US accounts through a specialized compliance infrastructure.

The firm does not publicly disclose its custodian relationships. Typical Swiss independent asset managers custody assets with institutions such as UBS, Credit Suisse (now UBS), Julius Baer, Vontobel, or LGT. Client assets are held in the client's own name at the custodian, with Dynapartners holding a limited power of attorney to execute investment decisions.

Independent asset managers typically charge an all-in management fee calculated as a percentage of assets under management, without layering on bank custody fees, product trailer commissions, or retrocessions unless disclosed and waived or credited back to the client. Swiss regulation now requires independent managers to formally address retrocessions, creating a fee model that is structurally more transparent than the embedded-cost model of a bank-based managed account.