Back to basics for Cité Gestion. As Christophe Utelli explains, the EFG subsidiary intends to strengthen its long-standing position as a firm serving independent fund managers. By drawing on EFG’s financial, operational and international capabilities, Cité Gestion aims to offer independent fund managers the opportunity to focus on their core business and unlock new sources of growth.
What are your key growth priorities at Cité Gestion?
Our priorities are centred on three areas. The first is to take full advantage of the synergies offered by EFG, our parent company since 2025, in terms of both revenue and costs, whilst providing the group with new avenues for development.
The second is consolidation, a strategic choice defined from the outset of the merger with EFG. We are now backed by a group that manages around 200 billion francs. We are therefore able to offer independent asset managers an alternative that allows them to refocus on their core business and client relationships rather than on administrative and operational constraints, which are handled by dedicated teams. It is therefore envisaged that Cité Gestion will focus even more on its role as a company serving independent asset managers. All models are on the table, from acquisitions to gradual mergers.
With EFG at its side, Cité Gestion now has the necessary resources to pursue this consolidation strategy, including substantial acquisitions, whilst remaining open to smaller-scale structures.
And the third pillar is our positioning. Thanks to technology, we will be able to develop a wider range of services, which are more in line with those of a family office.
What has Cité Gestion gained most from its affiliation with EFG?
First and foremost, the affiliation with EFG has provided Cité Gestion with a more structured governance framework. Above all, it has enabled the firm to significantly expand its range of services. Access to EFG’s balance sheet now enables us to offer mortgages and Lombard loans on a scale far beyond what we could previously envisage, as well as financing solutions extending beyond Switzerland. Finally, EFG’s network, with its nine booking centres, significantly strengthens Cité Gestion’s value proposition to international clients.
What is Cité Gestion’s medium- and long-term development strategy?
The strategy remains unchanged. We intend to continue our growth without setting ourselves specific numerical targets. However, our affiliation with EFG provides us with new opportunities, thanks to loans, mortgages, wealth planning and the group’s network – the full potential of which we have yet to realise.
We will, of course, continue to develop whilst ensuring we preserve our DNA as an independent asset manager and maintain our entrepreneurial spirit. These are two key aspects that position Cité Gestion favourably with independent financial advisers who are considering their future and seeking to rely on a large group without having to change the way they work.
We now have nearly nine billion francs in assets under management. We are in a position to significantly increase our assets under management over the next three years through organic growth alone. We would then be on a solid growth trajectory, and consolidation could further accelerate this development.
What is the actual role of relationship managers in private banks today? Do they still manage client relationships, or do they merely market the Group’s products and services?
It all depends on the strategy being pursued. Some banks still allow their relationship managers genuine autonomy in client relations. Others favour a much more structured approach, where the adviser’s role consists more of rolling out in-house solutions.
The larger a bank becomes, the more this industrialised approach tends to take hold. This is not a criticism; it is often an organisational necessity. Large institutions must ensure a high degree of consistency in their processes, their product range and their risk management. For some customers, this approach meets their expectations perfectly. Other customers, however, are looking for a more personalised relationship, based more on dialogue, a close connection and the ability to tailor solutions to their specific circumstances.
In my view, no single model is universally superior to another, as clients’ expectations vary greatly from one another. And that is the only factor that matters.
Is there not a risk that private banks will evolve into mere execution platforms serving EAMs?
I don’t think so. The two models meet different needs and will, in my view, continue to coexist. A large private bank will be the preferred choice for an entrepreneur who wishes to delegate the management of their wealth entirely. Conversely, a client seeking more interaction, availability and highly personalised support will probably find a better fit with an independent wealth manager.
Independent wealth managers now have access to technological tools that are comparable to those of banks. The real difference therefore lies not in execution capabilities, but in the quality of the relationship and the level of personalisation.
I do not believe that one model will prevail over the other because, as I have just emphasised, clients’ needs vary greatly, and it is precisely this diversity that makes both models valid.
Are independent wealth managers redefining the private banking model, or do they remain structurally dependent on banks?
It is, in fact, a healthy collaboration. Banks influence independent wealth managers, and independent wealth managers, in turn, influence the banks. This results in a very positive dynamic. Independent wealth managers are pushing banks to adopt new business approaches. This is evident in the diversity of models. The differences relate in particular to the countries served, entry thresholds and the management of certain client profiles.
At the same time, banks will continue to impose an increasingly stringent framework on independent asset managers, for example in terms of cyber security and business continuity.
In my view, competition between banks will centre on investment offerings and market access. Clients of independent asset managers will want to invest in everything from a start-up in Taiwan to a large-cap company in Brazil. But it will also hinge on technology. Independent asset managers will want to offer their clients a single app bringing together accounts held with several institutions. Custodian banks will have to meet interfacing requirements and, consequently, also meet growing cybersecurity demands.
Is the market set to organise itself around a handful of highly tech-oriented platform banks and a market with a greater number of EAM specialist firms?
Firstly, one must always start with the client’s needs. That is the fundamental rule. It explains the diversity of the offering. Today, the market offers countless different solutions.
In this environment, highly automated technology platforms with lean cost structures will naturally have a role to play. They will also enable new specialist firms to emerge with highly efficient business models.
However, this will not prevent large players from offering an extremely personalised service. Some clients will continue to favour firms such as Edmond de Rothschild, UBS, Pictet or EFG out of affinity. I therefore do not believe that these models will replace one another, but rather that they will complement one another. This development will drive both independent asset managers and banks to improve their technologies and processes.
How far do you think consolidation in the Swiss EAM sector will continue?
Although the sector is showing great resilience, consolidation is already underway, as evidenced by the decline in the number of players. But the issue goes far beyond mere regulatory or economic constraints. It also concerns the enjoyment of the profession. The ever-increasing administrative burden limits the time that can be devoted to clients and the markets, whilst increasing the responsibilities relating to staff and costs. Those who wish to remain in close contact with their clients will soon have to choose between joining a larger organisation or sticking to a more limited scope of operations.