How to choose a trustee in Switzerland: a decision method

If you are wondering how to choose a trustee, the honest answer is that the decision rarely fails for lack of candidates. It fails because the comparison is done by feel: a good lunch, a familiar name, a recommendation from a friend. A trustee will hold legal title to the trust assets for years, sometimes for generations, so the choice deserves the discipline you would apply to hiring a chief executive. This guide gives you a method you can run yourself, on paper, before you speak to anyone at length.

The method rests on five criteria: licence and supervision, track record, conflicts of interest, continuity and communication. You score each candidate against each one, write down the evidence behind the score, and only then compare. A blank scoring grid is included below so you can use it straight away. It is general information, not advice: the weight you give each criterion depends on your residence, your beneficiaries, the assets and the structure you have in mind.

Why a scored method beats a gut feeling

Most people who choose a trustee do so once. They have no benchmark, so the first confident presentation sets the standard against which the others are judged. A scoring grid removes that anchoring effect. It forces you to ask the same questions of every candidate and to record the answers in the same format, which matters when an adviser, a spouse or an adult child needs to see why one name was preferred over another.

A scored method also protects the relationship later. If a decision is documented, the reasons survive memory and personalities. Should you ever need to revisit the choice, for example after a change of ownership at the trustee or a long silence on the other side, you can compare the file you built at the start with what you see today. If it comes to replacing the trustee, the same file helps you follow the steps in changing trustee step by step.

Three principles keep the method honest:

• Score evidence, not impressions. A score is only as good as the document, register entry or reference behind it.
• Score every candidate on every criterion. A gap in the grid is itself information: a candidate who cannot answer a question has told you something.
• Decide the weights before you meet anyone. If continuity matters more to you than anything else, say so first, in writing, so that charm cannot move the goalposts.

Step one: what a trustee in Switzerland actually is

Before scoring, make sure you are comparing the right kind of provider. Under Swiss financial-sector legislation, trustees are financial institutions. Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b of the LEFin (FinIA, FINIG) lists them alongside asset managers, managers of collective assets, fund management companies and securities firms.

The definition is functional. Under Article 17, paragraph 2 of the LEFin, a trustee is anyone who, on a professional basis, manages or disposes of a separate estate for the benefit of a beneficiary or for a specific purpose, on the basis of a trust deed within the meaning of the 1985 Hague Convention. Article 3 adds that an activity is professional when it is an independent economic activity carried out to earn a regular income. Article 19, paragraph 2 describes the core duty: the trustee manages the separate estate, preserves its value and uses it in line with its purpose.

Two practical consequences follow. First, a friend or relative who acts as trustee without a professional business is not what this guide scores; that is a different decision, covered under individual or corporate trustee. Second, a firm that does this work professionally in Switzerland is not free to operate on reputation alone. It needs an authorisation, and that is where the first criterion starts.

Criterion one: licence and supervision

This is the only criterion that can be checked against an official register, so do it first and do it yourself.

The legal frame is straightforward. Article 61 of the LEFin places asset managers and trustees under the supervision of FINMA, which involves a supervisory organisation; day-to-day supervision is carried out by supervisory organisations that hold a FINMA authorisation. In practice, FINMA grants the authorisation, while an organisation de surveillance (supervisory organisation, or SO) checks on an ongoing basis that the conditions are still met. The SO is itself authorised and supervised by FINMA, and changes to the facts on which the authorisation was based must be notified to the SO in advance. Article 62 requires an annual audit by an audit firm within the meaning of Article 43k of the FINMASA.

The transition history is useful context. In a communication of 7 July 2020, FINMA explained that asset managers and trustees had until the end of 2022 to apply for authorisation and prove their membership of a supervisory organisation. The first two supervisory organisations authorised, with effect from 6 July 2020, were OSIF in Geneva and OSFIN in Neuchâtel. At 30 June 2020, 272 trustees had notified FINMA, alongside 1,934 asset managers. Under Article 74, paragraph 2, institutions not previously subject to authorisation had to notify FINMA within six months of the law entering into force and then meet the requirements and apply for authorisation within three years, while remaining active if they belonged to a self-regulatory organisation under the anti-money-laundering rules; paragraph 4 lets FINMA extend those periods in certain cases. A candidate that still describes itself as "in transition" today deserves a follow-up question.

What to check, and how to score it:

• Entry on the FINMA list. FINMA publishes a list of asset managers and trustees authorised and supervised by a supervisory organisation. The edition printed on 31 October 2026 runs to 69 pages and names, among others, OSFINcontrol AG, AOOS, SO-FIT and OSIF as supervisory organisations. FINMA also publishes a list of authorised supervisory organisations and a list of institutions supervised directly by FINMA, namely Swiss group companies under the LEFin.
• Legal form. Under Article 18, a trustee based or domiciled in Switzerland must be a sole proprietorship, a commercial company or a cooperative, entered in the commercial register.
• Management depth. Article 20 requires at least two qualified persons in management, meaning adequate training and sufficient professional experience. A one-person dependency is worth noting under continuity as well.
• Financial backing. Article 22 sets minimum capital for asset managers and trustees at CHF 100,000, paid in cash, plus appropriate guarantees or professional liability insurance. Ask which of the two the candidate relies on.

Our page on what FINMA and SO-FIT approval means for you explains how the supervisory chain works and what it does and does not tell you. The short version: a licence is a necessary condition and a good filter, but it is not a ranking. Two licensed trustees can differ widely in how they serve a family. Score this criterion as a gate: a candidate without a verifiable authorisation is out, whatever else they offer.

Criterion two: track record

Track record is the hardest criterion to score because the best evidence is confidential. A trustee cannot name clients, and you should be wary of one who does. What you can do is test the experience that sits behind the firm.

Ask about the type of structures the trustee administers most often, and compare that with yours. A team that mostly runs discretionary trusts for internationally mobile families will have a different reflex set from one that mostly handles trusts holding an operating company or a portfolio of property. Look for the same features you will need: beneficiaries in more than one country, a protector, a settlor who keeps some powers, a business that may be sold. The point is not size; it is relevance.

Useful questions to put to every candidate in the same words:

1. How long has the firm been authorised, and under which supervisory organisation?
2. Who would be your day-to-day contact, and how long have they been in the role?
3. How many structures of your type does the team administer, in general terms, and how many were taken over from another trustee?
4. Has the firm ever been replaced by a family, and what did the handover look like from its side?
5. Has a supervisory organisation or FINMA ever raised a matter about the firm that it can discuss openly?

Ask for references where the firm can provide them, such as an adviser who works regularly with the trustee. A candidate who can describe a handover from another trustee in concrete terms, without naming anyone, usually has real experience of the difficult moments. Our guide to due diligence on your trustee goes deeper on the questions and the documents to request.

How to score: high where the experience matches your structure and the person who will do the work can be named; medium where the experience is general but credible; low where answers stay at the level of marketing.

Criterion three: conflicts of interest

A trustee owes duties to the beneficiaries and must administer the assets in line with the trust deed. Any commercial relationship that could pull the other way needs to be known, and ideally managed or avoided. Conflicts are not always disqualifying, but undisclosed ones are.

Typical areas to examine:

• Group relationships. Is the trustee part of a bank, a law firm, an asset manager or an administration group? If so, does it have to use group products, and who decides?
• Investment and custody. Who selects the portfolio manager and the bank for the trust accounts? Is there any benefit to the trustee or its group from that choice?
• Related appointments. Does the same group supply a company administrator, an accountant or a protector? Duplicated roles reduce the checks the structure was designed to have.
• The introducer. If a bank, lawyer or adviser introduced the trustee, is there any arrangement between them? You are entitled to ask, and the answer should be plain.
• Remuneration model. How the trustee is paid influences incentives. We explain the main models in how trustees are paid. The level of remuneration is agreed individually and given after a confidential assessment; what matters at this stage is whether the model rewards activity for its own sake.

A good trustee will answer these questions without defensiveness and will provide a written conflicts policy on request. Score high where conflicts are disclosed, documented and managed through independence arrangements; low where you receive reassurance but no document.

Criterion four: continuity

A trust is a long-term arrangement, and the person you meet on day one may not be the person administering it ten years later. Continuity is about what happens when people change, when the firm is sold, or when the individual you rely on is unavailable.

Look at four layers:

• People. Is the relationship tied to one individual, or does a team know your file? Management depth matters here, and the legal requirement for at least two qualified persons helps, though it is a floor and not a promise of coverage.
• Ownership. Who owns the firm, and what happens to your trust if the owners sell? Ask how the trustee would inform you and what your rights would be under the deed.
• Succession in the deed. Does the trust deed name a mechanism for appointing a successor trustee, and who holds that power? A deed that is silent leaves the family to improvise.
• Records. Are minutes, decisions and accounts kept in a form another trustee could pick up? The ease of a future handover is a useful test of present quality. See the handover file from the outgoing trustee for what a clean transfer contains.

Continuity also touches on the structure you choose. Whether a single trustee or several is more resilient is addressed in one trustee or co-trustees, and the broader question of planning for absence is covered in continuity planning when the trustee is not there. Score high where the answers are specific, documented and consistent across candidates' staff; low where continuity rests on one person's goodwill.

Criterion five: communication

Communication is where families most often feel let down, and where a trustee most easily gives itself away in the first weeks. It covers three things: how quickly and clearly you are answered, what information you receive without asking, and how the trustee handles disagreement.

Test it during the selection process itself. Notice how long a candidate takes to reply to a precise question, whether the answer addresses what you asked, and whether the same person follows up. Ask to see a sample of what a client receives in a typical year: statements, a summary of decisions, a note on regulatory matters. Ask who attends family meetings and how decisions are recorded.

Also ask what the trustee will tell the beneficiaries and when. A trustee has to balance the settlor's wishes, the terms of the deed and the beneficiaries' interests, and the answer to "what do you disclose, to whom?" shows how it understands the balance. Our guide on what information your trustee must give you sets out what a reasonable baseline looks like.

Score high where communication is proactive, written and predictable; medium where it is responsive but reactive; low where you must chase.

The blank scoring grid

Copy this grid for each candidate. Assign the weight first, then fill in the evidence, then score. Use three levels (low, medium, high) so the exercise stays about judgement and not false precision.

Notes on using it:

• The first row is a gate. A candidate who fails it does not proceed, so there is nothing to weigh.
• "Fit with your structure" is the sixth row because a trustee can score well on the five and still be wrong for a trust holding, say, an operating business or assets in several countries. It is deliberately the most personal row.
• Keep the evidence column factual: a document name, a date, a person's role. If you cannot write evidence, leave the score blank.

If you prefer a longer worksheet, the twelve steps to choose a trustee turns the same logic into a sequence of actions.

A worked example: three candidates, one settlor and her adviser

The following is an illustration with fictional people. A settlor, whom we will call Claire, lives in Lausanne and has built a family company. She wants to place shares and a portfolio in a discretionary trust for her two children and, later, grandchildren. Her adviser, Marc, a lawyer who does not act as trustee, helps her run the comparison. They shortlist three Swiss trustees and call them A, B and C.

Gate. All three appear on the FINMA list of authorised trustees under a supervisory organisation. Marc records the entry and the organisation for each. Candidate C, however, belongs to a group in which the same company would also act as administrator of the family company, a point that moves to the conflicts row, not the gate.

Track record. Candidate A is a long-established team with broad experience but mostly of larger, institutional mandates; the person Claire met would not be her day-to-day contact. Candidate B has taken over trusts from other trustees and can describe the handover process in practical terms; the named contact has been in the role for years. Candidate C is newer to this type of structure and answers in general terms.

Conflicts. A is independent and holds no custody or investment links. B is also independent and gives Claire a written conflicts policy within days. C has the group link mentioned above and says it can be managed but offers no document.

Continuity. A relies on a small number of senior individuals. B describes a team model, a succession plan for the partner who would oversee the trust, and a clear statement on what happens if ownership changes. C is part of a larger group, which helps depth, but the people change often.

Communication. A replies slowly. B replies precisely, shares a sample annual pack, and explains how it would handle a request from the children as adults. C is quick but vague.

Fit. Because the trust will hold shares in a family company that may one day be sold, Claire values a trustee that has handled a business exit. B has; A has seen a few; C has not.

The result is shown in the diagram below, which plots the profile of the candidate Claire and Marc preferred, Candidate B, across six criteria. It does not show every candidate; the grid does that. The diagram is a qualitative appraisal, not a measurement.

Notice what the exercise did. It did not produce a perfect candidate; B still has to prove itself on the terms of the deed and on remuneration, which Claire will discuss after the confidential assessment. But it removed a name that looked attractive for the wrong reasons (A's reputation), and it made a specific concern about C explicit enough to put to C in writing. Had C produced a clear conflicts policy and independent oversight for the administration role, its score would have moved. The method rewards good answers; it is not a way of excluding people.

What changes the weights

The same grid gives different answers for different families. Some situations shift the weights in predictable ways:

Do not read the table as a rule. It shows how the weights tend to move, and the right weights for you depend on your own facts. Where the answer turns on residence, the nationality of beneficiaries or the nature of the assets, an individual analysis is required.

Common traps in the selection process

Even with a grid, a few errors recur:

• Treating a licence as a quality mark. It confirms the firm is authorised and supervised; it does not rank it.
• Choosing the trustee that introduced itself first. Early contact is not evidence of fit.
• Letting the adviser who introduced the trustee run the comparison alone. Involve someone with no stake in the outcome.
• Ignoring the deed. A well-chosen trustee operates within the powers the deed gives; a poorly drafted deed limits even a strong candidate. Settlor powers, a protector and the ability to replace the trustee all belong in the discussion.
• Skipping the exit. Ask every candidate how you would leave. A trustee that is relaxed about the departure process is usually a trustee that expects to keep clients through service.

If you are choosing for a trust that already exists and the trustee is changing, treat the same five criteria as your baseline and add the practicalities in changing trustee step by step.