CRD VI Spares the Portfolio. It Reprices the Banker.

From January 2027, the EU rule that Swiss banks filed under "compliance" starts rewriting how EU books are built, kept, and moved.

CRD VI looks like a compliance problem. For Swiss private banking, it is increasingly a book-portability problem. From 11 January 2027, the directive starts changing the way a relationship manager in Geneva or Zurich wins, grows, and carries an EU client.

I have read the business plans. Italian entrepreneurs with Lombard lines. French families financing a second home through the Swiss relationship. German clients who were served across the border for years under a national waiver. Those plans rest on something the EU has now decided to regulate, and very few bankers have noticed how directly the rules affect their own business model.

What actually changes

The sixth Capital Requirements Directive was published in the EU's Official Journal in June 2024. Under Article 21c, a Swiss bank generally cannot provide core banking services cross-border into an EU Member State after 11 January 2027 without an authorised third-country branch in that Member State, a compliant EU subsidiary, or a valid exemption. Core banking services mean three things: taking deposits, lending, and issuing guarantees or commitments.

Member States had until 10 January 2026 to transpose the directive. Most measures applied from 11 January 2026, but the Article 21c branch requirement applies from 11 January 2027. That is just over three months away.

Until now, a Swiss bank could lend to or take deposits from an EU client from Geneva where the relevant national regime permitted it. Germany, for example, has granted case-by-case exemptions to foreign institutions under its Banking Act. From January 2027, those national arrangements cannot replace Article 21c's harmonised branch requirement for in-scope core banking services, except where the directive itself preserves an existing contract or another exemption applies. The patchwork that let cross-border private banking work is being replaced by a single, harder floor.

Why the portfolio survives

Here is the good news, and it is why many banks feel relaxed. The branch requirement does not apply to the investment services and activities listed in Section A of MiFID II Annex I, which include portfolio management, investment advice, and order execution. A discretionary mandate for a client in Milan can, in principle, continue to be run from Geneva without an Article 21c branch, subject to MiFID's own third-country rules and the applicable national regime.

The directive also exempts accommodating ancillary services, including related deposit-taking or credit whose purpose is to provide those MiFID services. That sounds like it protects the Lombard loan. It might. But the text does not define the boundary of that ancillary exemption.

That ambiguity is where the problem starts. A Lombard facility used to carry out investment transactions is one thing. A Lombard facility drawn to buy a property in Provence, fund a business, or pay a tax bill is something else. When a rule is unclear and the downside is a regulatory breach in another jurisdiction, Swiss compliance departments do not interpret generously. They draw the line where it protects the bank.

So the portfolio survives. What does not obviously survive is everything around it that turns a portfolio into a relationship.

The most expensive phrase in the directive

The second escape route is reverse solicitation. A Swiss bank does not need an EU branch where the client approaches it "at its own exclusive initiative."

Read that phrase slowly, because it describes the opposite of what a hunter does for a living.

The exemption is narrow by design. Where the bank solicits the client through an affiliate, an intermediary with close links, or anyone acting on its behalf, the service does not count as client-initiated. Even where a client does come on their own initiative, the bank cannot use that opening to market other categories of products. Supervisors must be able to demand information about how the service came about, and third-country branches must report services their head undertaking provides through reverse solicitation.

Now think about how an EU book is actually built. The banker flies to Milan for a client dinner. Attends a family office event in Paris. Asks an existing client to introduce a friend. Mentions to a portfolio client that the bank can also help with the mortgage on the new house. Every one of those behaviours is the normal craft of private banking. From 2027, each of them is also potential evidence that the client did not act at their own exclusive initiative.

Reverse solicitation was never designed to be a business model. Yet in many Swiss boardrooms it is being discussed as if it were one. The banker who relies on it is the one whose diary, CRM notes, and email trail will be read by compliance first.

The portability problem nobody is pricing

This is the part that matters most from where I sit.

Article 21c protects existing contracts entered into before 11 July 2026. That date has already passed. The directive frames that protection around clients' acquired rights and does not define what happens when an existing contract is materially amended, renewed, or extended. Whether a later lifecycle event preserves the protection will depend on the contract, the service, and the relevant Member State's implementation. It should not be treated as automatic.

Consider what happens when a relationship manager moves banks. The client does not transfer a contract. The client opens a new relationship, signs new documentation, and requests a new credit facility at the new bank. That is a new contract, entered into after the cutoff, by a Swiss bank, for an EU client, following an approach that the banker almost certainly initiated. It is hard to imagine a cleaner fact pattern for losing both grandfathering and reverse solicitation at the same time.

In other words, the credit-dependent part of an EU book may be serviceable where it sits, but much harder to move. And a book that cannot move is worth less to the banker carrying it and to the bank considering hiring them.

This next part is my hiring-market prediction, not a requirement stated in CRD VI. I expect the effect to show up in three places over the next twelve months. First, in business plan reviews, where hiring banks will haircut EU assets that depend on lending, deposits, or guarantees unless the bank has a compliant EU booking entity. Second, in offer negotiations, where the question "where will these clients be booked?" moves from the end of the process to the beginning. Third, in guarantee and deferred compensation discussions, because a bank that cannot be sure the assets will follow will not pay as if they will.

Who wins, who loses

The winners are institutions that already have an EU balance sheet: a Luxembourg or other EU subsidiary able to passport its authorised services, or an authorised third-country branch in the Member State that matters. For them, CRD VI is a recruiting argument. They can tell an RM with Italian or French clients that the full relationship, credit included, has a legal home.

Some Swiss banks will examine alternative structures. Whether any structure sits outside Article 21c depends on its activities and regulatory classification, not its label. Others will open or expand third-country branches, which brings its own capital, governance, and reporting burden.

The likely losers are boutiques without EU infrastructure and bankers whose EU books are built on credit. A pure advisory or discretionary book to EU clients is more resilient. A book where the Lombard line, the mortgage, and the cash balance are what keep the client loyal is exposed.

There is also a hiring consequence that is easy to miss. Every bank setting up or reinforcing an EU branch needs a branch head, a local risk function, and people who understand cross-border rules in practice rather than on paper. I expect cross-border compliance specialists, already scarce in Geneva, Zurich, and Monaco, to become more expensive. Relationship managers who can credibly book clients into an EU entity should be worth more than equally productive peers who cannot.

What a private banker should do now

Start with an honest audit of your own book. Split EU assets by country and by what actually holds the relationship together. How much is pure investment service? How much depends on lending, deposits, or guarantees? That split is now the real measure of your EU portability, not the headline AuM figure.

Look at how each relationship began and whether your records support that story. Not to build a defence after the fact, but because you should know which relationships would survive scrutiny if you moved.

And if you are in conversations with another bank, ask early where your EU clients would be booked and under which legal entity. A bank that cannot answer that question clearly in 2026 is telling you something about how your book will be valued.

CRD VI was written as banking regulation. In practice it reprices the private banker. The portfolio stays in Geneva. The question is whether the relationship can follow it.

---

Sources: - EUR-Lex — Directive (EU) 2024/1619, including Article 21c and Article 2 - EUR-Lex — Consolidated Capital Requirements Directive from 11 July 2026 - European Banking Authority — Report on direct provision of banking services from third countries - BaFin — Guidance on authorisation requirements for cross-border banking business