Switzerland, the EEA and the UK: three systems, one decision framework

“Europe” is not a single market-entry instruction. Switzerland, the EEA, and the UK are distinct systems, and even within one system the route depends on the regulated activity, customer, legal entity, distribution model, and use of partners. A credible programme therefore starts with a decision model, not a preselected licence label.

Start with the activity, not the geography

Two propositions that appear commercially similar can sit in different regulatory perimeters. Holding client money, issuing a payment instrument, providing payment initiation, advising on investments, managing assets, or supplying technology to a regulated institution can lead to different answers. The relevant question is not simply “Can we enter this market?” but “Which entity will perform which activity, for whom, from where, and through which partner?”

That distinction prevents the programme from treating authorisation, distribution, operations, and implementation as sequential topics. They constrain one another from the beginning.

Switzerland: identify the precise authorisation type

FINMA describes several forms of authorisation and different levels of ongoing supervision. It also makes the important qualification that Licensing differs from case to case.¹ A Swiss plan should therefore avoid using “FINMA-regulated” as a broad design assumption. The relevant activity may require licensing, authorisation, recognition, approval, registration, supervision through another organisation, or no FINMA authorisation at all.

The practical consequence is to settle the perimeter with authorised Swiss advisers, then translate it into substance, governance, staffing, systems, controls, partner, and evidence requirements. A legal conclusion that does not change the operating model remains difficult to implement.

EEA: a harmonised regime is still activity-specific

EEA market access is sometimes described as if one authorisation opens every financial-services activity. It does not. Harmonised rights arise under particular legislative regimes and only for the services covered by the relevant authorisation.

Payment services provide a useful example. Under PSD2, an authorised payment institution’s authorisation may be valid across Member States for the payment services it covers.² Article 28 then requires information to pass through home- and host-state authorities before the institution first provides services through establishment or on a cross-border basis. The notification can include the services, branch or agent structure, and outsourcing in the host state.²

This is a payment-services example, not a general passport for every financial product. A programme still needs to establish the relevant regime, home state, host-state obligations, customer protections, distribution route, and national requirements.

UK: structure and supervisory reach belong in the design

For international firms that require UK authorisation, the FCA’s published approach asks whether the firm will use a branch or subsidiary and whether the regulator can supervise the business effectively. The FCA states that it generally expects an establishment or physical presence in the UK; for a branch, authorisation can apply to the legal entity, including its overseas offices.³

The FCA also notes that some regimes require UK incorporation. Its examples include entities authorised or registered under the UK Payment Services Regulations 2017 and certain entities under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011.³ Legal form is therefore not a late company-secretarial choice. It can affect governance, personnel, decision-making, systems, controls, capital, operations, and the scope of supervision.

The Berne agreement is relevant—but deliberately narrow

The Berne Financial Services Agreement took effect on 1 January 2026. The FCA describes an outcomes-based mutual-recognition route for eligible UK and Swiss firms serving wholesale and sophisticated clients, subject to the covered services, domestic authorisation, and registration process.⁴

It should not be treated as a general Switzerland–UK passport. The eligibility, service, client, and notification conditions need to be tested against the actual proposition.

One decision framework for all three systems

A useful comparison should be built from the same seven questions in each jurisdiction:

• Activity: What precisely will the business do, and which entity performs each regulated or supporting function?
• Customer: Which customer categories are served, where are they located, and how are they protected?
• Presence: Is a local entity, branch, establishment, representative, or domestic management arrangement required?
• Distribution: Is the proposition direct, introduced, intermediated, white-labelled, or delivered through an authorised partner?
• Operating model: Where do people, decisions, data, controls, customer service, complaints, safeguarding, and reporting sit?
• Dependencies: Which banks, schemes, suppliers, outsourcers, and intragroup services are critical to the route?
• Sequence: Which legal, commercial, supplier, technology, operational, and readiness decisions must precede the others?

The output is a route, not a jurisdiction score

A defensible comparison does not declare one market “easier.” It shows how each route changes time-critical dependencies, internal capacity, control ownership, partner reliance, and delivery risk. The board or executive sponsor can then choose a route with its implementation consequences visible.

Legal and regulatory advice remains jurisdiction-specific. The programme task is to make sure those conclusions reach the proposition, operating model, supplier requirements, mobilisation plan, and readiness decision.