Stop Choosing Your Bank by Its Size

Choosing a bank by its size is one of the laziest decisions a senior RM can make, and one of the most common.

From my desk, the pattern is consistent. When a senior banker starts weighing a move, the shortlist tends to sort itself by category before any real analysis happens. Either the candidate wants the safety of a large platform, or they want the freedom of a boutique. The decision gets framed as big versus small, and everything after that is rationalisation.

The 2025 numbers suggest that frame is wrong on both sides.

What the data actually says

Start with growth. PwC's Private Banking Market Update 2026 shows net new money inflow rates of 5.2% at small banks, 4.3% at medium-sized banks and 2.8% at large banks. Relative to their size, the smaller platforms attracted money fastest.

Now look at the same year through KPMG's Clarity on Swiss Private Banks, which uses a different sample and different size clusters. Small banks grew net new money from CHF 3.8bn to CHF 6.2bn, up 61.4%. Large banks grew theirs to CHF 66.6bn, up 52.7%, while posting the lowest median NNM rate of any cluster, at 2.2%.

Then look at profitability. PwC found that large private banks delivered a combined return on equity above 10% in 2025. The small and medium clusters saw returns decline, to levels below typical investor expectations.

Put those three facts side by side and neither camp gets the story it wants. Small banks are growing faster relative to their size. Large banks are bringing in roughly ten times the money in absolute terms and earning better returns on it. Both are true at once, and a banker who hears only one of them is deciding on half the evidence.

Why the boutique pitch is incomplete

The case for smaller platforms usually goes like this: a new book matters more there, so the banker gets more attention, faster credit decisions and a CEO who knows their name.

Sometimes that is true. But the growth figures do not prove it. A small bank's net new money rate can be high precisely because it has just hired bankers who brought their books with them. That tells you the bank is good at recruiting. It tells you very little about how it will treat the next hire once the welcome period ends.

The margin data is the more serious problem. PwC reports that cost-income ratios rose at small and medium-sized banks in 2025. Costs did not run away; interest income faded, with Swiss reference rates back at zero. KPMG measured interest income down 20% across its sample and a median cost-income ratio of 78.2%. PwC adds that banks unable to generate sustainable returns may increasingly reassess their strategic options. Some of today's fast growers will be tomorrow's acquisition targets. A banker who joined for independence may find themselves inside someone else's integration plan within a few years.

Why the big-bank pitch is incomplete too

The case for scale is balance sheet, brand, product shelf and stability. All real, and the profitability data supports it.

What the scale argument skips is the banker's own position inside that stability. At a large bank with a median NNM rate around 2%, one incoming book rarely moves a number anyone at board level watches. That is not necessarily bad, since some bankers do their best work without the spotlight. But a hunter who needs sponsorship on credit, pricing and onboarding should be honest about whether a platform of that size will give it to them.

Stability for the bank and stability for the banker are not the same thing.

Trajectory, not category

The better question is not how big a bank is. It is where the bank is heading and whether you want to be on board when it gets there. Five questions separate the growing and profitable from the growing and fragile, whatever the size.

First, what has net new money done over three years, not one? A single strong year can be one team lift-out. Three years is a franchise.

Second, how much of the income line is recurring fees, and what happened to the cost-income ratio when interest income fell? The 2025 figures are the first clean test of which business models work without rate support. Most Swiss banks publish annual reports, so this is homework you can do before the first meeting.

Third, who owns the bank, and what has that owner said publicly about wealth management in the last 18 months? Shareholder commitment is the variable bankers ask about least and regret most.

Fourth, where did the last wave of hires come from, and are they still there? That is the direct test of the attention argument. If the bankers hired two years ago are thriving, the platform backs its people. If they have quietly left, the growth figures were the recruiting brochure.

Fifth, what can the bank do for your specific clients that your current bank cannot? Credit appetite, booking centres, product access and speed all count. Growth on its own moves no book.

A large bank that answers these well is not a boring choice. A small bank that answers them well is not a gamble. The category tells you almost nothing, and the answers tell you nearly everything.

The part nobody puts in the pitch

Every platform will tell you it is growing. Very few will volunteer the cost-income trend, the shareholder's intentions or the retention of their last hiring class. You have to ask, and the bankers who ask are the ones who rarely have to move twice.

If you are assessing whether a platform fits your book—not merely whether its logo is large or small—reach out, or test the assumptions behind a move with the EP Portability Score.

---

Sources: - PwC Switzerland — Private Banking Market Update 2026 - KPMG Switzerland — Clarity on Swiss Private Banks 2026