Let’s see how that turns out. Maybe the have to demand it, but what happens if someone ignores that demand?
They then may seek the necessary information without consent of the person. How exactly they would do that remains to be seen though:
"Die Vorsorgeeinrichtung kann verlangen, dass die Versicherten die Richtigkeit der Angaben schriftlich bestätigen. Falls die Versicherten der neuen Vorsorgeeinrichtung nicht melden, in welcher Vorsorgeeinrichtung sie bisher versichert waren, muss diese neu eigene Abklärungen zu treffen, ob Vorsorgeguthaben vorhanden ist. Auf welche Weise sie die Informationen einholt, ist der jeweiligen Vorsorgeeinrichtung überlassen. Es bestehen heute bereits verschiedene Möglichkeiten:
Zu denken ist insbesondere an eine Anfrage bei der Zentralstelle 2. Säule, an welche die Vorsorge- und Freizügigkeitseinrichtungen jährlich alle Versicherten melden müssen (Art. 24a FZG). Der Bundesrat wird die Verordnungsbestimmungen (Art. 19abis ff. FZV) entsprechend anpassen. Allenfalls könnten auch andere Kanäle genutzt werden, etwa die neue Plattform «BVG-Match», welche die Stiftung Auffangeinrichtung BVG aufbaut."
Since there’s no sanctions, my guess is not much is going to change. Pension funds that haven’t had an incentive to demand the funds probably still won’t do it. It remains “soft” law.
Also they can trigger the transfer from their side.
Veranlasst die versicherte Person die Übertragung nicht selber, muss die neue Vorsorgeeinrichtung die Übertragung verlangen.
I think unless you’re sure you won’t be impacted best to review the volatility tolerance of your VBs (ie how much you’d be impacted by a forced transfer in a downturn).
1 Like
At least the french version is fairly clear, legislation would change from:
Art 11 al. 2 LFLP
L’institution peut réclamer la prestation de sortie provenant du rapport de prévoyance antérieur ainsi que le capital de prévoyance provenant d’une autre forme de prévoyance et les créditer à l’assuré.
to
L’institution de prévoyance doit réclamer la prestation de sortie à l’ancienne institution de prévoyance ou à l’institution de libre passage. Elle n’a pas besoin d’obtenir le consentement de l’assuré.
So no consent needed (and stronger wording that it’s not really a choice for the pension provider, it switch from “can request” to “must request”)
edit: the only choice is about being about to delay it by up to two years (but even then if you end up needing the insurance part for old age/invalidity, afaict they can trigger it)
2 Likes
That‘s a big one.
If I would be in that situation, I‘d only do a conservative portfolio like 50/50 stocks/bonds in my VB account, to hedge against that risk.
Still miles better than most pension funds.
So is this already a law? Or is it just a proposal?
I see in the article Jan 2025 as time for consultation
At a minimum it would trigger on the next job change (“forgotten” VBs would be communicated).
Indeed it seems unlikely your current pension would look into existing VBs (but I don’t think there’s anything forbidding it, e.g. if you have a triggering event like disability/old age).
1 Like
Are you sure? It just says funds must actively search for those assets, maybe some even know of VB accounts of their insurees. So they would be obliged to demand those assets, no?
Yes, they may do so, but there are no sanctions if they don’t
If they are serious about enforcing this, then they’ll need to bring in effective sanctions.
1 Like
The motions mentions both 1e and VB for this 2 year period.
Instead of closing a loophole, you could interpret it as in widening it, or rather watering the rules down…
In my understanding
- a similar motion was previously voted down
- this one is just as controversial in the sense of “this only benefits the rich and weakens pillar 2”
- the Finance lobby will likely lobby against any part that will require them to do any leg work or take responsibility
- Pension funds can request details from your previous fund already today
So let’s wait and see what happens on this one 
1 Like
Indeed, good point 
Blending 1e with loophole closing might not be that smart politically 
Yeah the difference is that now they have to actively request the data and request the funds.
I’m not so sure, I mean aren’t they risking their FINMA license if they don’t comply to regulations? Shouldn’t it be sufficient incentives?
I was thinking more on the holder of the funds. Maybe they could even allow it and add a 1% tax/levy per annum. That way people could chose and maybe think it is worth paying 1%.
The new legislation would remove the beneficiary from the loop, it’s all on the VB and pension institutions.
I think once the law is passed, no VB provider in their right mind will let people have VB accounts when they are employed
And if employer pension fund can search for info based on AHV number, it would be rather straightforward exercise
There is nothing to lobby because this was the expectation since the beginning.
But for me the 2 year period is a good improvement to help people recover losses in case they got hit bear markets at time of job change
3 Likes
If you’re right (I still think it’s going to be a nothing-burger), more people will decide to become self-employed, deregister in Switzerland or buy property. There’s no way people will accept the mostly dismal returns of their pension funds. It’s their money, after all.
But I think this has already been discussed passionately 
1 Like
For someone if VB capital growth is more important and relevant than their actual job / employment income then most likely they are already at stage of FIRE and should not seek employment.
Remember transfer of VB is only for employed people. Unemployed or Retired or FIRED people don’t need to transfer anything.
How many people are we talking about? (who forgot to transfer their VB on purpose) My guess is that it’s a rather small number.
4 Likes
It would have to be a fair chunk. Let’s say you earn 120k a year after tax (170k pre-tax) and assume that you can get 4% more in VB than in pension fund.
Then you would need around 3 million in the VB for the growth to be more than your salary.
That said, the returns from the S&P500 were so huge the past couple of decades, it probably would have been worth it in a lot of scenarios!
2 Likes