In the course of the lawsuit against UBS, we were also asked by various investors about the topic of retrocessions. This topic has been bothering investors in Switzerland for a long time. You can find a brief overview from the Consumer Protection Foundation (Stiftung für Konsumentenschutz) here.
Retrocessions generally occur with every investment in an actively managed fund such and in structured products such as options. Banks in particular often take advantage of their customers' trust and place numerous bank-owned, actively managed funds in their portfolio - i.e. the UBS UBS funds, the Migros Bank Migros Bank funds, etc. In this way, the bank earns twice for the same service.
In a recent decision, the Zurich Commercial Court confirmed its case law, according to which investors are entitled to retrocessions in any case (HG210223). This means: Regardless of whether you have entrusted the management of your assets to a bank or an independent asset manager, received advice on investment decisions or made your investment decisions on your own, retrocessions in connection with the chosen financial investment must be passed on to you as an investor.
Investors can waive the issuance of retrocessions in advance. However, the Federal Court places relatively high demands on such an advance waiver. In addition, the commercial court made it clear in the judgment mentioned above that older waiver clauses in particular are often worded misleadingly and are therefore invalid.
Based on various indications, the SASV has also found that insurance companies that offer investment opportunities do not always adhere to federal court case law. The SASV sees a need for action here.
Check the composition of your portfolio. If you find investment funds in there, there is a good chance that you have a claim against your bank for retrocessions. If the investment funds in your portfolio are bank-owned funds, it is likely that your advisor is acting primarily in their own interest - and not in yours.