Can you share more on what you noticed there?
I’m not @TeaGhost, but I‘d agree that they seem to be „pushing the envelope“ more than others. Less portfolio restrictions on 3a products than others (VIAC), probably one of the first to operate a second vested benefits foundstion, their „look-through“ tax reporting for US WHT in equity fonds, etc…
It is kind of innovative and might benefit consumers but doesn’t feel far away from bending the rules…
Don’t get me wrong, I have a substantial part of my 3a assets with them (the biggest, in fact) - but still will be diversifying through other providers.
2 Likes
Really?
They say something else on their website
How is finpension regulated?
finpension is licensed as an account-holding securities firm and is directly subject to the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA.
Yes. I even looked that up at FINMA.
…about the AG, no doubt.
That’s not the (your) contractual party for their 2nd pillar and 3a products though.
Hence the question about FINMA, depositor protection and segregation of assets.
1 Like
Is this situation the same for Viac?
Maybe we could ask them directly? @finpension @VIAC_Daniel
Vested Benefits Foundations are, by pension fund supervisory bodies, e.g. in the case of finpension(‘s) the Zentralschweizer BVG- und Stiftungsaufsicht.
Cash enjoys protection as a prviliged deposit according to art. 37a Bankengesetz. Holdings in investment fund units should also be segregated. So I could that google it…
That said, what you should protect against or the reason for diversifying isn’t really “oops, bankruptcy” IMO. It rather it “oops, what’s supposed to be there isn’t there (anymore)”.
So how and where your shares held? I have, admittedly, never been a vested benefits account customer - but for my 3a accounts with both VIAC and finpension, reading all the regulations and statements doesn’t really answer it quite definitively and clearly for me.
In the case of pillar 3a securities or vested benefits securities, the retirement savings foundation or vested benefits foundation is always the rightful economic owner. This applies regardless of whether you are with UBS, finpension, or have a 3a insurance policy. Consequently, pillar 3a securities or vested benefits securities are not considered part of the bankruptcy estate in the event of a bank or provider going bankrupt. The same regulations for pillar 3a apply to all 3a providers. Additionally, cash deposits up to CHF 100,000 are classified as privileged assets during bankruptcy proceedings.
4 Likes
Interesting, thanks! Is my understanding correct that securities are safer than cash in the 3a world in case of bankruptcy?
This, plus the fact that they by allowing to de-activate re-balancing no longer truly manage the funds but offer more something like a brokerageservice for 2nd/3rd pillar… or that they offer Institutional Private Equity Funds with no permission for private investors.
If you ask me, the finpension model can go right and they carve they way for us educated investors. But they could as well cause a lot of harm to uneducated investors… and you never know what happens to them if ahit hits the fan (and they get heavily sued by an investor that pretends he didn’t realise and understood what he signed up to.
This could happen to any finance company, no? Do you see a much larger risk for finpension than for similar companies?
Yes, exactly.
Thankfully, yes.
It‘s not as if those funds had a riskier investment approach (rather the contrary) - they’re limited to pension funds for tax reasons.
Why would you want to pay (the higher level of) dividend taxes for personal investors, when your holding is part of a tax-privileged retirement scheme?
1 Like
Is this not a standard among all pension fund providers? The UBS Vitainvest funds are only available through their 3a offerings. If you want to check their factsheets you have to declare yourself as a professional investor.
My bad. I should not have included the remarks about 3a.
I referred to their private equity offering - not their 2a/3a products. In my view, this is the place where they pushed beyond the „normal“ in the most extreme way.
1 Like
I do not really understand what you mean. Do you say 3a providers are not regulated/ reviwed and therefor there is a risk of fraude and our assets might not be safe? And that it is different from the free assets (ex: vwrl on swissquote), regular bank accounts (privatkonto ubs) or pension funds (Pensionskasse)? @San_Francisco