Dukascopy’s 2025 report contains three different client-deposit totals

Dukascopy Bank’s 2025 annual report presents three different figures that can all be read as client deposits, depending on where the reader looks. The opening key-figures page gives total client deposits of CHF188.6 million. The audited standalone balance sheet records CHF185.451 million of amounts due in respect of customer deposits. The audited consolidated balance sheet records CHF190.912 million. None of the three numbers is inherently implausible, and the difference between standalone and consolidated accounts has a conventional explanation: subsidiaries and consolidation adjustments change the reporting perimeter. The unresolved issue is that the management-level CHF188.6 million number is not explicitly reconciled to either audited total in the report.[1][2]

That matters because ‘client deposits’ is a high-salience measure for a bank and broker. It is used to describe scale, customer trust, funding and growth. A difference of CHF3.149 million between the headline and standalone figures, and CHF2.312 million between the headline and consolidated figures, is not vast relative to the balance sheet. Yet it is large enough that rounding cannot explain the entire relationship. CHF188.6 million rounded to one decimal place would ordinarily represent an underlying amount between CHF188.55 million and CHF188.65 million. Neither CHF185.451 million nor CHF190.912 million falls inside that range. A separate definition, scope or measurement date is therefore likely, but the key-figures page does not state one.[2]

Three totals, three reporting contexts

The standalone-to-consolidated difference is CHF5.461 million. That gap can arise naturally where consolidated subsidiaries hold customer balances, where intercompany amounts are eliminated, or where accounting classifications differ across group companies. It is not evidence of a missing balance. The report’s consolidated accounts are the appropriate measure for the group perimeter, while the standalone accounts describe the licensed bank on its own. The point is not that one of those audited numbers must be wrong. The point is that a public-facing key figure positioned between them requires a definition before it can be compared with another bank’s deposits or used to calculate growth.[2]

The distinction also prevents a common category error. Customer deposits are liabilities owed by the bank to customers. They are not synonymous with client assets under custody, trading notional, assets under management, annual turnover or cash held under a separate broker client-money regime. Dukascopy Bank is a Swiss bank, so its balance sheet presentation follows banking-account classifications. A comparison with a non-bank CFD broker’s segregated client money, or with an investment platform’s assets under custody, would mix different legal and accounting concepts. The report’s terminology has to be retained even when the figures appear in marketing-oriented key facts.[1][2]

The balance-sheet ratios differ only slightly

The scope difference changes ratios, but not dramatically. The standalone customer-deposit figure equals about 72.30% of standalone assets of CHF256.519 million. The consolidated figure equals about 73.20% of consolidated assets of CHF260.820 million. Those ratios describe the prominence of customer deposits in the two reporting perimeters; they do not measure liquidity coverage, capital adequacy or deposit protection. They do show why the exact denominator matters. A researcher using the CHF188.6 million headline with consolidated assets would calculate 72.31%, while using the audited consolidated figure produces 73.20%. The numerical difference is under one percentage point, but the conceptual difference is a switch between an undefined KPI and an audited liability.[2]

The annual report gives other context for the bank’s 2025 economics. The standalone income statement recorded CHF16.525 million of trading result, CHF3.199 million of commission income and CHF1.070 million of interest and discount income. Trading therefore represented about 79.5% of those three core income lines. Operating expenses were CHF18.753 million and profit was CHF1.151 million. The key-figures page rounded net profit to CHF1.2 million. It also reported CHF137.5 million of deposits and CHF4.9 million of gross revenue associated with the bank’s multi-currency account offering. Those figures show that the deposit base supports a business whose reported earnings remain heavily dependent on trading income.[2]

A plausible reconciliation is not a documented reconciliation

Several benign explanations could produce the CHF188.6 million KPI. It may exclude a subset of balances included in consolidation; include a management adjustment to the standalone figure; apply a different definition of ‘client’; reflect an average or near-period-end value; or combine selected entities before full consolidation eliminations. The report may also use a banking operational definition that differs from the balance-sheet caption. Each is possible. None is stated next to the number. An investigation should not convert that absence into an accusation. It should preserve the distinction between a reasonable hypothesis and a documented accounting bridge.[1][2]

The report’s presentation makes the issue easy to miss. The key figures appear near the front, where readers often take headline indicators into models, comparisons and media coverage. The standalone statements appear later, and the consolidated balance sheet much later still. A reader using only one section can therefore cite a number accurately while describing a different perimeter from another reader who also cites the same annual report accurately. The risk is not just a few million francs. It is false comparability: league tables, growth calculations and deposit-per-client estimates can look precise while using unlike definitions.[2]

Why the bank’s corporate structure matters

Dukascopy’s consolidated reporting perimeter includes more than the Swiss bank as a solo legal entity. Consolidation is intended to show the group as one economic unit after applying accounting rules, whereas the standalone statement shows the bank’s own assets and liabilities. For clients, the relevant contractual and protection analysis still depends on the exact entity that holds the account. A consolidated deposit total cannot be assumed to be covered by one national deposit-protection arrangement, and a group headline cannot replace the terms and regulator applicable to a particular customer. The annual report is therefore most useful when the headline KPI, solo bank balance and consolidated balance are kept separate rather than blended.[1][2]

The same discipline applies to the multi-currency account numbers. CHF137.5 million of deposits associated with that offering is a commercial operating indicator, not a fourth audited balance-sheet total. It may overlap substantially with the customer-deposit liability, but the report does not present it as a complete reconciliation. Dividing it by the headline CHF188.6 million suggests that the product accounts for roughly 72.9% of the headline deposit measure. That may be directionally informative about product concentration, but it should not be treated as an audited segment ratio unless the product and denominator definitions are confirmed.[2]

What would resolve the question

A short reconciliation would be sufficient. The bank could identify the entities included in the CHF188.6 million KPI, state whether the figure is period-end or average, specify the customer categories included, and bridge it to both CHF185.451 million standalone and CHF190.912 million consolidated. If the difference arises from a management classification, the relevant balance-sheet captions could be shown. If it arises from consolidation, the subsidiary contribution and elimination could be identified. That would make the figure usable across periods and prevent external analysts from manufacturing their own incompatible definitions.[1][2]

The evidence presently establishes a reporting-scope question, not a shortfall. Dukascopy’s annual report contains an undefined CHF188.6 million client-deposit KPI, an audited CHF185.451 million standalone customer-deposit liability and an audited CHF190.912 million consolidated liability. The standalone and consolidated totals are expected to differ because they cover different perimeters. The management KPI is neither of them and cannot be derived by rounding. Until the bank supplies the bridge, the audited figures should be used for legal-entity and group analysis, while the headline figure should be labelled as a separately defined management measure.[1][2]

That distinction is material to readers comparing brokers and banks. A league table that ranks Dukascopy at CHF188.6 million, another at CHF185.5 million and a third at CHF190.9 million could be internally accurate yet analytically unsound. The next annual or interim report could settle the matter with one footnote. In the meantime, the responsible conclusion is narrow: the report’s three deposit figures describe at least two clear accounting perimeters and one unexplained KPI, and they should not be treated as interchangeable.[1][2]

The unresolved KPI should also be kept separate in time-series work. If the same definition is used consistently, the management figure may still show direction within Dukascopy even before its perimeter is explained. It cannot safely be mixed with audited standalone or consolidated balances, or with competitors’ protected deposits and client assets. A one-line reconciliation would convert a useful but ambiguous headline into a comparable measure.[1][2]

Report an error or submit an update