A recovery potential of around CHF 100k is required (very country specific).
Sample calculation:
Konkretes Anwendungsbeispiel bei 100'000 CHF Rückforderungspotenzial:
Client: 46'150 (50'000 – 7.7% MWST)
Drittanbieter: 30'000 & 2'310 MWST
I did some research and a Cayman HF, without the associated and necessary Investment Management Company (IMC) costs about USD 25-50k setup and annual running USD 56-78k (USD 20k Cayman Islands associated fees & Fund Admin USD 36-48k). The audit costs about USD 15k per year. All exclusive of fund custody fees. If these figures correspond to reality, the AMC solution is much cheaper, as we would only apply the minimum fees for e.g. USD 5 million AUM. https://investmentcache.com/drowning-in-expenses-hedge-fund-start-ups/
At the big banks, actively managed ETFs are only launched for clients from AUM 100 million.
Your client must be able to run the fund for two years with estimated total costs of at least EUR 250-300k p.a..
As far as I remember, no minimum AUM has been defined, but via the running fees the necessary size can be estimated based on the intended management fees.
Our solution provider needs a concrete case in order to conclude a cooperation agreement with us. For this reason it would be great if you could get all this information from a suitable, serious and willing lead.
It is important to know that rebalancing takes place with one day delay. It is not possible to change the allocation of an ETF intraday.
Leonteq is more flexible in terms of investment strategy (discretionary), while UBS requires very clear limits in the investment strategy (predefined weightings).
AMCs on structured products could be implemented more easily as Leonteq accepts smaller structured products, e.g. CLNs of CHF 400-500k, while UBS requires CHF 1-1.5 million per structured product.
Leonteq can issue AMCs on cryptocurrencies.
The client faces UBS' issuance risk, while Leonteq can offer Triparty Collateral Management (TCM) and offset this risk.