What funds are you actually using to achieve this?
CSIF (CH) Equity Switzerland Large Cap Blue ZB
CSIF (CH) Equity Emerging Markets Blue DB
CSIF (CH) III Equity World ex CH Blue - Pension Fund ZB
You actually have to change the percentages slightly. VT would be 2.3% CH, 11.3% EM and 86.4% World ex CH. But VT is based on FTSE and not MSCI, so South Korea (1.8%) isn’t included in EM. By MSCIs definition it would be 2.3% CH, 13.1% EM and 84.6% World ex CH. So:
1% cash
2% SMI
13% EM
84% World ex CH
3 Likes
Release note for VIAC 3a version 3.2.2 on the App Store:
“Preparation for an expansion of the investment universe.”
4 Likes
They’ve reactivated the iShares Listed Private Equity fund, so that’s one more (expensive) option available already.
With the rising Swiss Franc and the increased risk of investing into the US and EU markets due to inflation etc. I am considering switching from a custom strategy, which has given me great returns so far, to the Schweiz 100 strategy. I am interested in hearing your thoughts and VIAC strategy for 2022.
On viac, you could use a custom strategy to avoid the home bias and reproduce a world exposure by picking your own etf.
In the 40% chf exposure, you could select
|—|—|—|
|CSIF SMI|2%|CH|
|CSIF SPI Extra|1%|CH|
|CSIF World ex CH hedged - Pension Fund|37%|CHF|
For the rest balance it with world exposure to get close to a market share by gdp instead of market cap:
|CSIF Europe ex CH|23%|Euro|
|iShares Core S&P500|17%|USD|
|CSIF Canada|3%|CAD|
|CSIF Pacific ex Japan|6%|Asia|
|CSIF Japan|4%|Asia|
|CSIF Emerging Markets |7%|Asia|
Schweiz 100 has 8.2% in Roche, 8.0% in Nestle and 6.4% in Novartis. That’s 22.6% in just three companies, which wouldn’t be enough diversification for me. Besides the lump risk of individual companies, I also wouldn’t like the sector diversification (e.g. very little in tech).
Also keep in mind that the large companies listed in Switzerland are global companies. Their revenue comes from lots of different countries. I.e., even if Switzerland will do better next year, this won’t mean that these SMI companies will do better than e.g. S&P 500 companies.
I’m not planning on changing my Viac strategy next year. I have some Swiss home bias but a lot less SMI/SPI than Schweiz 100 (or even Global 100):
- 7% CSIF SMI
- 6% CSIF SPI Extra
- 36% CSIF World ex CH
- 6% CSIF World ex CH Small Cap
- 5% CSIF Emerging Markets
- 16% CSIF CH Real Estate
- 4% CSIF Gold
- 20% Cash
I have a relatively large pillar 3a and no pillar 2, which is a reason why I don’t invest 100% of pillar 3a in stocks. And cash instead of bonds due to the negative SNB rate.
2 Likes
Hi Mazo,
The Balance Sheets of Novartis, Roche and Nestlé is heavily composed of foreign currencies. You focus too much on the price tag, which is labeled in CHF… An apple which is produced in Spain but sold in CHF is subject to the currency risk of the EUR in term of production cost. The fact that this product is labeled in CHF or in USD is not relevant.
If you really want to decrease your currency risk, you should buy companies which profit is derived from CHF revenues and costs. Therefore you should focus on real estate companies operating in Switzerland and so on. I doubt that this is a great strategy in term of risk diversification.
I hope that the explanation of @jay and mine will give you material to rethink your strategy.
Cheers,
[EDIT: Typos 
]
7 Likes
…all these Swiss exporting companies will have lower foreign revenues, due to foreign currencies losing value against the CHF. Conversely, Lindt will buy their cocoa beans and other imported ingredients cheaper. In theory. In practice, companies will hedge their currency risks somewhat.
For curiosity, I just took a look at the next biggest company in SPI Extra, the small- and medium-sized companies index. It’s Straumann Holding. Dental implants and equipment - I don’t know much about dental implants and equipment. Even less than on chocolate. Let’s take a brief geographic look:
- 55% of their shares are held by Swiss shareholders
- 19% of their non-current assets (property, plants, equipments, intangibles)
- 17% of their employees are in Switzerland
- 2% of their revenue comes from Swiss customers
2 Likes
Also, forex movements are notoriously very hard to predict. If you think you can (I don’t think I do), there’s a lot of money to be made trading forex pairs directly.
I wouldn’t change my allocation based on the information you’ve provided.
4 Likes
Fair enough, hadn’t really thought of all that. I was mainly contemplating what to do with my VIAC portfolios (stock vs. cash) in preparation for a market crash, which I personally expect to happen in the next two years, even though my 3 Pillar will most likely be left untouched for another 20 years or so.
I have been using the following strategy on all my portfolios and for a couple of years now, which has given me returns of 40% and 63%, and 8% on the portfolio I had recently opened.
CSIF SMI - 2%
CSIF SPI Extra - 35%
CSIF US - Pension Fund - 35%
CSIF World ex CH Small Cap - Pension Fund - 15%
CSIF Emerging Markets - 10%
1 Like
If you’d want to use that money in the short term (before a potential crash has the opportunity to recover), then moving to cash is the right option.
If you don’t need the money for the next 10 years, then riding the wave all the way down and all the way up probably has the most chances to get you the best outcome. In order to do that, you’d have to assess what asset allocation would allow for you to sleep at night during the potential downturn.
I’m personally very fond of the Account Plus solutions, which allow to still capture some market gains while being very stable due to 95% cash, without fees.
Another option is to build a type of “All Weather” portfolio trying to minimize risks while still attaining good returns. You can search for “Golden Butterfly”, “Permanent Portfolio” or “All Weather” to get an idea of their composition, why they’re built that way and a handful of articles pondering what effect the current interest rates environment could have on them. Portfolio Charts has a good article on the topic of choosing the right assets to get good risk-adjusted returns, albeit US centered : Three Secret Ingredients of the Most Efficient Portfolios – Portfolio Charts
I’d also consider my 3a assets as part of my global portfolio, which would include 2nd pillar and taxable assets, including any equity in a home you might have. The purpose is to have the right global asset allocation to allow for you to reach your goals while still sleeping soundly. If you have a taxable account, money is fungible. If you’ve got all your equities in your 3a, want to sell some and use the proceeds, you can sell the equities in the 3a, buy an asset that you hold in your taxable account with the proceeds (cash, gold, bonds, RE fund…) then sell an equivalent amount of that asset in your taxable account and use that as you please.
Edit: to answer your question about our own strategy, I’m using my 3a to buy international equities (focusing on swiss stocks in taxable), so I’m at 60% World ex CH and 37% World ex CH hedged.
I may want to access these funds to buy a home in the short term but my life plans don’t depend on it (I’m willing to wait if the funds are not available anymore) so I’m willing to take some risk and am pairing that allocation with a plan to get out and in the market in case of significant movements. That plan is likely to get me less returns than a simple buy and hold strategy at the correct asset allocation. Risk assessment is a very personal thing, mine is that factoring in the learning experience and entertainment value makes it worth the try.
4 Likes
I am about to open a new account on VIAC mimicking “Global Sustainable 100”, but with lower fees.
Global Sustainable 100 (0.53% fee)
- SPI ESG: 37%
- MSCI EMU SRI: 7.44%
- MSCI UK SRI: 3.16%
- MSCI USA ESG Leaders: 33.44%
- MSCI Pacific SRI: 7.00%
- MSCI EM SRI: 8.96%
My idea is to replace the expensive assets “EMU SRI, UK SRI, USA ESG Leaders, Pacific SRI” by the single, cheaper one “CSIF World ex CH ESG – Pension Fund Plus”. Does this make sense or am I missing something? It’s a cost reduction by roughly 0.05% by keeping the ratio constant, i.e. 53%.
Only 35% SPI ESG are possible if you use an individual strategy. I have to add a certain amount of SPI Extra. How would you balance those two? I am aware that they are partially covering the same companies.
1 Like
Yes. I don’t know why this is not the standard strategy. SPI ESG is a joke bc there isn’t enough company in Switzerland to make a good index.
Otherwise, you can choose Finpension with 100% CSIF World ex CH ESG.
It makes sense, though CSIF World ex CH ESG - PF+ doesn’t hold Emerging Markets. I wouldn’t fret it, the lower fees are more attracting to me (others may beg to differ).
[edit: rereading your message, I realize that you would keep the UBS ETF MSCI Emerging Markets SRI allocation, so almost no difference, but less fees. Good spot!]
If you’re interested in ESG, I would consider taking more CSIF World ex CH ESG hedged - PF+ instead of the CSIF SPI Extra, and potentially some CSIF SPI ESG, 37% is a huge home bia for a stock market as small as the swiss one. It’s ultimately your choice.
You can get close to it with VIAC with 60% CSIF World ex CH ESG - PF+ and 37% World ex CH ESG hedged - PF+. There’s a cost to hedging but it’s still with VIAC, and good enough in my book.
5 Likes
Thanks for the hint of considering CSIF World ex CH ESG hedged - PF+. This reduces the home bias, but it costs extra for the hedging. The TERs for the hedged and unhedged funds are the same (0.03%). I guess that the hedging costs are hidden somewhere else.
What are your thoughts about home bias vs. hedging? What is considered worse?
1 Like
You could maybe replicate their vested strategy here: VIAC-Global-durable-100-FZ-FR.pdf
By doing this setup:
- CSIF SPI ESG - 35%
- CSIF World ex CH ESG Hedged - Pension Fund - 5%
- CSIF World ex CH ESG - Pension Fund - 52%
- CSIF Emerging Markets ESG - 8%
1 Like
I finally decided for this allocation:
- CSIF SPI ESG: 32%
- CSIF World ex CH ESG PF+: 51%
- CSIF World ex CH ESG hedged PF: 5%
- UBS ETF MSCI Emerging Markets SRI: 9%
Total costs: 0.44% + 0.04% TER = 0.48%
2 Likes
None is inherently worse, or even bad.
Swiss home bia exposes you to concentration risk (being invested in few companies concentrated in healthcare, financials and consumer staples (Nestlé)). Nestlé, Roche and Novartis make up 46% of the CSIF SPI ESG fund).
On the short term, hedging can have beneficial or negative effects. It adds stability to investments in foreign currencies, reducing both positive and negative impacts of currency fluctuations and generates additional fees, which would be why it can be considered as a cost when considered on a long term perspective. In this specific situation, the costs would be part of the performance of the funds. Since the fees are probably minimal in regards to the currency effects, they get mixed in the noise.
Since bonds are usually taken for their low volatility (among other desirable properties), it is usually considered that it’s worth hedging investment grade bonds denominated in a foreign currency. Since stocks fluctuations are bigger than currency swings, it’s usually considered that hedging a stock position held for the long term is not worth it.
Pictet has a good piece on it for individual investors (just ignore the part selling their solutions): https://www.am.pictet/en/uk/global-articles/2018/educational/demystifying-currency-hedging
My own take is that having 20% of assets in a single stock (Nestlé) is a bigger risk than the small cost of hedging, which can also have beneficial effects on the short term. Unless I had a specific reason to want more swiss stocks, I’d personally go for foreign stocks hedged in CHF to reach the 40% allocation to CHF denominated assets required by VIAC.
3 Likes
While I agree that hedging investment grade bonds in foreign currency often makes sense and currency hedging stocks is less useful, my argument against the latter is slightly different.
(Non-inflation-linked) bonds are directly tied to a nominal value of a particular currency. I.e. you have 100% exposure to that foreign currency (incl. the corresponding interest rate policy), which you can hedge.
However, the valuation of stock is based on expected future earnings. For one, most (mid-to-large) companies have revenue in different countries with different currencies, which means that the exposure to the currency of the stock listing is only partially relevant. Second, when there is inflation, companies raise their nominal prices. I.e. their nominal earnings and thus also the valuation of the company may rise when inflation is expected. With that, nominal currency hedging doesn’t make much sense to me. That said, depending on various factors, inflation may still result in reduced real earnings but that’s not directly relevant to this discussion.
Agreed. I have a home bias but I limit SMI/SPI such that (roughly) the largest company in that index doesn’t get a higher allocation in my portfolio than the largest company in the world.
1 Like