Call for more transparency and justice.
If you receive an invoice from your car mechanic for CHF 3,000, you are right to demand a detailed breakdown of the costs before you pay - a principle that applies throughout the economy.
However, this fundamental right does not seem to apply to the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), the monopoly authority for granting licenses to financial institutions. FINMA charges the supervisory organizations (SOs) arbitrary amounts without being accountable to the financial institutions. Inquiries regarding the FINMA levy are referred to the AOs, but their answers raise more questions than they clarify.
A total levy of CHF 1.875 million was passed on to 591 authorized persons, which corresponds to a levy of CHF 3,147.40 per asset manager. These costs, which are made up of personnel, material and other expenses, as well as a reserve amounting to an annual budget, were passed on to the members of the AOs without transparent justification.
FINMA claims that not all the costs of the licensing procedure were charged to the applicant institutions, but without specifying which costs this relates to or which fundamental legal issues led to the additional charges. These are amounts in the millions, the allocation and calculation of which remain in the dark.
The claim to have temporarily hired additional employees to process the approval applications also raises questions. Despite this alleged reinforcement, the procedures do not appear to be processed more efficiently, which calls into question the appropriateness of this measure.
IGUV has repeatedly tried to obtain clarity and transparency from FINMA regarding the levies, but so far without success. The authority's answers remain meaningless or evasive.
The flat-rate FINMA levy does not take into account turnover, number of employees or any other principle of cost allocation based on the polluter-pays principle, which leads to a redistribution that distorts competition and places a disproportionate burden on smaller asset managers.
In contrast, the supervisory costs for banks are calculated in accordance with FINMASA Art. 15 are determined on the basis of various criteria such as business size, turnover and income, which enables a fairer and more causal allocation of costs. This differentiated approach for banks reflects a system that takes into account economic performance and the actual use of supervisory resources, while the flat-rate levy for independent asset managers lacks such consideration and thus undermines the principles of fair and efficient financial market regulation.
The current practice not only violates the principles of cost allocation in accordance with FINMASA Art. 15, but also jeopardizes the existence of professional, independent asset management for broad sections of the population.
We therefore request, based on the provisions of administrative procedural law and in accordance with the principles of FINMASA Art. 15a transparent, fair and fair distribution of FINMA levies. Affected parties have the right, based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in particular Article 30 VwVGas well as the Administrative Procedure Ordinance (APO) and the FINMA Fees Ordinance, to request detailed information on the basis for calculating fees. This includes the right to inspect the files and a comprehensive justification of the fees charged.
It is in the interests of trustworthy and functioning financial market regulation that FINMA makes its procedures transparent and faces up to critical questions.
For our part, we have received more than CHF 7,700 from FINMA when the authorization was granted without any explanation. We would like to request the details of this astronomical sum, which was invoiced to us without justification and in breach of Article 394 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and the obligation to render accounts.