Same Banker, Same Book, Different Number

Same Banker, Same Book, Different Number

Why the same CHF 300 million portfolio is worth a different multiple in Zurich, Dubai, and Singapore

A banker managing CHF 300 million in Zurich receives two offers. One from a bank in Geneva. One from a bank's DIFC entity in Dubai.

Same book. Same clients. Same fifteen years of relationship history.

The banker assumes the portability math from the Geneva conversation simply carries over to the Dubai one, adjusted for currency and cost of living.

It doesn't.

The legal environment underneath the deal has changed, and that changes how a move should be assessed.

A banker's probability-adjusted portable AUM, the number I've argued elsewhere is a more useful basis for assessing a move than headline AUM alone, is not a fixed property of the banker. It is a function of the banker, the client relationships, the existing platform, the destination platform and the legal environment surrounding the transition.

Most senior RMs do not run this comparison properly.

They assume Swiss logic transfers to Dubai or Singapore with minor adjustments.

It doesn't.

And getting this wrong can materially distort how a banker reads two offers that look identical on paper.

The Swiss baseline most bankers already half know

Start with the system most PWP readers operate inside.

Under the Swiss Code of Obligations, Articles 340–340c, post-employment non-compete clauses are subject to specific conditions. Among other things, enforceability depends on whether the employee had access to the employer's clientele or business secrets and whether using that knowledge could significantly harm the former employer. Swiss law also requires restrictive covenants to remain appropriately limited in geography, duration and subject matter.

For senior Relationship Managers, another distinction matters enormously.

A client's attachment to the individual banker is not economically identical to a relationship that exists primarily because of the institution.

That distinction is relevant not only commercially, but potentially when restrictive covenants are assessed.

This does not mean that a banker can simply assume that personally developed relationships are freely transferable. Client confidentiality, data protection, contractual obligations and the specific wording of the employment agreement remain critical.

But it does mean that the quality and origin of a banker's relationships matter far more than a headline AUM number suggests.

Dubai: one city, different legal frameworks

Move the same discussion to Dubai and the picture becomes more complex.

A senior banker can be employed under different legal frameworks depending on the employing entity. Mainland UAE employment relationships are governed primarily by federal labour legislation, including the UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021. The Dubai International Financial Centre Employment Law operates within the DIFC's own legal and institutional framework.

For a banker considering a move, that distinction matters.

A non-compete provision cannot be assessed simply by asking: “How long is the restriction?”

The more important questions include:

Which entity employs me?

Which law governs the contract?

Which court or tribunal has jurisdiction?

What precisely is being restricted?

What remedies could the former employer realistically seek?

And how quickly could those remedies be pursued?

That is a very different exercise from simply transferring a Swiss portability assumption to Dubai.

It is also why two Dubai offers can carry different transition risk despite having almost identical economics.

Singapore starts from another legal tradition

Singapore introduces another framework again.

Post-employment restraints are generally analysed through the common-law doctrine of restraint of trade. The key questions typically include whether the employer has a legitimate proprietary interest to protect and whether the restriction is reasonable in scope. Singapore courts have described restraints in employment as prima facie subject to that analysis, rather than automatically valid or invalid; see the Singapore Court of Appeal's Man Financial judgment and subsequent decisions.

For a senior private banker, the practical lesson is not that Singapore is automatically “easier” than Switzerland or Dubai. It is that the legal test, enforcement environment and contractual analysis are different.

The portability assumption therefore needs to be rebuilt rather than copied.

And non-competes are only one part of that calculation.

Confidentiality, client data, solicitation, fiduciary duties, garden leave, notice periods and the banker's actual method of originating relationships can all affect the transition.

What this does to the four-number bridge

I have argued before that every senior RM considering a move should understand four numbers: Current AUM. Relationship-led AUM. Probability-adjusted portable AUM. Revenue attached to that portable AUM.

The first number does not change when an RM crosses a border.

The second may not change either.

The third can.

That is the key.

Consider a hypothetical banker managing CHF 300 million. Suppose CHF 220 million comes from relationships the banker personally developed or genuinely leads. That does not automatically mean CHF 220 million is portable. The banker still needs to discount for client institutional loyalty, multi-banking behaviour, product dependencies, geographic constraints, transition timing, contractual restrictions and the legal framework surrounding the move.

The result may be a probability-adjusted case of CHF 140 million.

Change the destination platform or legal environment and the assumptions supporting that CHF 140 million may need to change as well.

This is why portable AUM should never be treated as a permanent number attached to someone's CV. It is a scenario.

Two identical guarantees may not be identical offers

Now take the analysis one step further.

Imagine the banker receives two offers. Both provide the same base salary. Both offer the same guaranteed first-year bonus. Both have similar titles. Both appear economically equivalent.

They may not be.

One platform may offer considerably better product capabilities for the banker's clients. Another may have a stronger booking centre for the target market. One may create considerably more contractual or transition friction. Another may make the banker's revenue assumptions easier to achieve.

The real comparison is therefore not: Which bank pays me more?

It is: Which platform gives my franchise the highest probability of reproducing and then growing its economics?

That question is much harder.

It is also much more valuable.

AUM portability is not simply a percentage

This is where I think senior bankers sometimes oversimplify their business plans.

“I can move 60%.”

“I can move 70%.”

“I can move 80%.”

Those percentages can sound impressive. Without the assumptions underneath them, they are almost meaningless.

Which clients? Over what period? At what probability? At what revenue level? On which platform? Under which contractual constraints? And what happens if the largest relationship does not move?

A serious portability assessment should behave more like an underwriting model than a confidence statement. The objective is not to produce the biggest number. It is to produce the most defensible number.

The same banker can therefore have three different values

Return to our Zurich banker.

The clients have not changed. The banker's skill has not changed. The history of those relationships has not changed.

But place that banker into three different hiring situations, Switzerland, Dubai and Singapore, and the commercial case can change.

Not because one jurisdiction is universally better than another. Because the interaction between the banker, their clients, the old bank, the new platform, the contract and the legal framework is different.

That changes probability. Probability changes expected portable AUM. Expected portable AUM changes expected revenue. And expected revenue changes how a hiring bank should value the move.

This is the part of portability that a single headline AUM number cannot capture.

The question every RM should ask before comparing offers

Before comparing international offers, I would therefore ask one question first:

What does my business case look like on this specific platform, under this specific set of constraints?

Then rebuild the model.

Do not assume the Geneva case equals the Dubai case. Do not assume the Dubai case equals the Singapore case. And do not assume that a CHF 300 million book is worth CHF 300 million to the next bank.

The book may travel. The economics surrounding it do not necessarily travel unchanged.

If you want to test the assumptions behind your own book, the EP Portability Score provides a confidential starting point. The existing AUM portability framework sets out the questions behind the number; market context is also available for Zurich, Dubai, and Singapore.

This article is for general market information only and does not constitute legal advice. Employment restrictions and client-related obligations should be assessed based on the relevant contract and jurisdiction.

Private Wealth Pulse is published weekly by Executive Partners, Geneva. Subscribe at execpartners.ch/subscribe.