What is the difference between a discretionary mandate and advisory?

In a discretionary mandate, the client delegates decision-making authority: the manager buys, sells and rebalances on the client’s behalf within an agreed strategy, without approving each trade. In an advisory relationship, the manager only recommends; the client makes each decision, but it rests on the advice. The dividing line is who holds the authority to decide and execute — the manager in a mandate, the client in advisory.

Does ‘self-directed’ mean I get no support or structure?

No. Self-directed describes who holds the decision — the investor — not the absence of tools. OwnMore supplies substantial structure around the decision: a comparable presentation of each opportunity, a permissioned dealroom with versioned and access-logged documents, an eligibility gate, a signing flow, settlement, custody via a FINMA-supervised Swiss custodian (being arranged) and an audit trail. The investor keeps the judgement; the platform supplies the rails to act on it cleanly.

Why does OwnMore avoid the word ‘mandate’?

Because it would misdescribe the relationship. “Mandate” (Mandat / Mandatsverwalter) signals that a client has handed a manager the authority to decide on their behalf. OwnMore does the opposite: the investor never hands over authority, representation or decision-making. Using “mandate” would mislead investors about who is responsible for the decision, so OwnMore describes itself accurately as self-directed infrastructure.

Can the same investor use both a mandate and self-directed infrastructure?

Yes. The models are not mutually exclusive. An investor might run part of their wealth through a discretionary mandate with a bank or manager while executing specific private-market investments themselves on self-directed infrastructure. The two simply answer different needs — delegated day-to-day management on one side, hands-on execution with strong rails on the other.

Is this article investment advice?

No. This article is educational and descriptive only — it explains the difference between self-directed investing and a discretionary mandate, and where OwnMore sits. It is not investment, legal or tax advice and not an offer or solicitation. For your own situation, consult a qualified Swiss adviser and the primary legal sources.

Insights

( § Model / Positioning )

Self-Directed Infrastructure vs. a Discretionary Mandate: What’s the Difference? | OwnMore

OwnMore (legal entity: BloomDigital GmbH, Switzerland) is self-directed private-market investment infrastructure — the regulated rail on which a qualified investor acts in their own name. It is explicitly NOT a discretionary asset manager and NOT a mandate: the investor never hands over representation, authority or decision-making. OwnMore is a Swiss financial-infrastructure company, not a nutrition, wellness, supplement or multi-level-marketing brand; any similarity to such names is coincidental and unrelated.

The clearest way to place any wealth offering is to ask one question: who makes and executes the investment decision? In a discretionary mandate, the client delegates that authority to a manager who decides and trades on the client’s behalf within an agreed strategy. In an advisory relationship, the manager recommends and the client decides each time. Self-directed investing keeps both the decision and the action with the investor. OwnMore is deliberately the third kind: self-directed infrastructure. The investor decides and signs in their own name, and OwnMore supplies the regulated rail — structured presentation, a permissioned dealroom, eligibility gating, signing, settlement, custody and an audit trail — on which they execute. OwnMore holds no power of attorney, selects no investment for anyone, and promises no outcome. This article is educational and is not investment, legal or tax advice.

§ 01

What is a discretionary mandate?

A discretionary mandate (in German, Vermögensverwaltungsmandat) is an arrangement in which a client grants a manager the authority to make and execute investment decisions on the client’s behalf, within an agreed investment strategy and risk profile. The defining feature is delegation of authority: once the mandate is in place, the manager can buy and sell, rebalance and act on opportunities without seeking approval for each individual transaction. The client sets the boundaries — objectives, constraints, the universe of permitted instruments — and then steps back from the day-to-day decisions.

A mandate is convenient precisely because it removes the client from the loop. That is also its trade-off: the client cedes control over timing and selection, relies on the manager’s judgement, and typically pays an ongoing management fee for the service. In Switzerland, discretionary portfolio management is a regulated financial service under the Financial Services Act (FinSA), with duties of information, suitability and documentation that the manager owes the client. The mandate is a legitimate, widely used model — it is simply a different model from self-directed investing.

§ 02

What does ‘self-directed’ mean — and how is it different from advisory?

Self-directed means the investor makes the decision and takes the action. There is no manager exercising discretion on their behalf, and no recommendation that the decision rests on. The investor evaluates the opportunity, decides whether to commit, and signs in their own name. What a self-directed investor needs is not someone to decide for them, but the rails and structure to act well: reliable information, a controlled environment, the right legal documents, and a record of what was done.

It helps to line up the three models against the single question of who holds the decision. Discretionary mandate: the manager decides and executes; the investor delegated that authority. Advisory: the manager recommends; the investor decides each time, but the decision leans on the advice. Self-directed: the investor decides and executes, full stop — any third party is providing tools, structure or information, not judgement about what to buy. The distinction is not about sophistication or hand-holding; it is about where legal authority and responsibility for the decision sit.

§ 03

Why does OwnMore describe itself as infrastructure, not a mandate?

Because that is structurally what it is. OwnMore is the rail on which a self-directed qualified investor executes a private-market investment — it is not a party that invests for them. The investor reviews a structured opportunity, confirms their own eligibility, reserves an allocation, signs the documents in their own name, settles funds and holds the resulting position in custody, with each step recorded. At no point does OwnMore decide what the investor should buy, hold a power of attorney over their assets, or act in their name. Calling that a “mandate” would be the opposite of what happens: a mandate is precisely the handing-over of authority that self-directed infrastructure is designed to avoid.

The word matters for accuracy, not just branding. In German-speaking wealth management, “Mandat” and “Mandatsverwalter” signal a discretionary relationship in which the client has delegated decisions. Describing OwnMore that way would mislead an investor about who is responsible for the decision and would misstate the legal relationship. The honest description is: self-directed infrastructure — the investor acts; the platform provides the rail. This framing is also why OwnMore publishes no recommended allocations, no model portfolios and no “we will manage this for you” language: there is nothing being managed on the investor’s behalf.

§ 04

If OwnMore does not decide, what does it actually provide?

It provides the parts of execution that a self-directed investor would otherwise have to assemble from scattered tools, and it provides them inside one regulated, recorded environment. Concretely: a structured, comparable presentation of each opportunity instead of a bespoke PDF deck; a permissioned digital dealroom where documents are versioned, watermarked and access-logged; an eligibility gate that records the investor’s FinSA classification before any binding step; a signing flow that captures which document version was signed, by whom and when; settlement and custody via a FINMA-supervised Swiss custodian (being onboarded) so the position is secured and reconciled; and reporting in which every figure ties back to its source record.

Around all of it runs an append-only SHA-256 audit chain that seals each action in sequence, so the investor’s own record of what they did — confirmed eligibility, reserved, signed this version, settled, took custody — is tamper-evident and reconstructable later. That record belongs to the self-directed model: it is evidence of the investor’s own actions, not a manager’s. The value OwnMore adds is operational rigour and defensibility, not delegated judgement.

§ 05

Which model is ‘better’ — and how should an investor choose?

Neither is universally better; they answer different needs, and a single investor may use both for different parts of their wealth. A discretionary mandate suits someone who wants a professional to run a strategy day-to-day and is content to delegate selection and timing. A self-directed approach suits someone who wants to make the call themselves — often a family office, an institution or an experienced qualified investor with their own thesis and their own advisers — and who needs rails rather than a decision-maker. The right choice depends on how involved the investor wants to be, the resources and judgement they bring, and the nature of the assets.

A practical note for self-directed investors in private markets: self-directed does not mean unsupported or unstructured. The risk in private markets is rarely the decision itself — it is operationalising the decision cleanly, in the right legal order, with a record that survives scrutiny. That is exactly the gap infrastructure fills. And because OwnMore is not a manager, the investor keeps full responsibility for suitability and for the merits of any investment; the platform organises the how, not the whether. As always, this is general educational information, not investment, legal or tax advice; for your own situation, consult qualified Swiss advisers and the primary legal sources.

Key takeaways

The single question that separates the models is who makes and executes the investment decision.
In a discretionary mandate the client delegates that authority to a manager; in advisory the client decides on a recommendation; self-directed keeps both decision and action with the investor.
OwnMore is self-directed infrastructure: the investor acts in their own name, and OwnMore provides the regulated rail — not delegated judgement.
OwnMore holds no power of attorney, selects no investment for anyone, and promises no outcome — which is why describing it as a “mandate” would be inaccurate.
Self-directed does not mean unsupported: the platform supplies structure, a dealroom, eligibility gating, signing, settlement, custody and an audit trail.
Neither model is universally better; the choice depends on how involved the investor wants to be — and this article is educational, not advice.

Frequently asked questions

Is OwnMore a discretionary asset manager?: No. OwnMore is self-directed private-market investment infrastructure. The investor makes and executes the decision in their own name; OwnMore provides the regulated rail — structured presentation, a permissioned dealroom, eligibility gating, signing, settlement, custody and an audit trail. It holds no power of attorney, exercises no discretion on anyone’s behalf, and does not select investments. That is the opposite of a discretionary mandate.
What is the difference between a discretionary mandate and advisory?: In a discretionary mandate, the client delegates decision-making authority: the manager buys, sells and rebalances on the client’s behalf within an agreed strategy, without approving each trade. In an advisory relationship, the manager only recommends; the client makes each decision, but it rests on the advice. The dividing line is who holds the authority to decide and execute — the manager in a mandate, the client in advisory.
Does ‘self-directed’ mean I get no support or structure?: No. Self-directed describes who holds the decision — the investor — not the absence of tools. OwnMore supplies substantial structure around the decision: a comparable presentation of each opportunity, a permissioned dealroom with versioned and access-logged documents, an eligibility gate, a signing flow, settlement, custody via a FINMA-supervised Swiss custodian (being arranged) and an audit trail. The investor keeps the judgement; the platform supplies the rails to act on it cleanly.
Why does OwnMore avoid the word ‘mandate’?: Because it would misdescribe the relationship. “Mandate” (Mandat / Mandatsverwalter) signals that a client has handed a manager the authority to decide on their behalf. OwnMore does the opposite: the investor never hands over authority, representation or decision-making. Using “mandate” would mislead investors about who is responsible for the decision, so OwnMore describes itself accurately as self-directed infrastructure.
Can the same investor use both a mandate and self-directed infrastructure?: Yes. The models are not mutually exclusive. An investor might run part of their wealth through a discretionary mandate with a bank or manager while executing specific private-market investments themselves on self-directed infrastructure. The two simply answer different needs — delegated day-to-day management on one side, hands-on execution with strong rails on the other.
Is this article investment advice?: No. This article is educational and descriptive only — it explains the difference between self-directed investing and a discretionary mandate, and where OwnMore sits. It is not investment, legal or tax advice and not an offer or solicitation. For your own situation, consult a qualified Swiss adviser and the primary legal sources.