That’s basically the question. Deadline for input on this was somewhere mentioned to be January 25.
I assume the process then involves reviews, discussions, and eventually a revised version scheduled to be voted on?
If I understand correctly, it’s still ongoing.
Yeah, I don’t think any revised proposal has circulated yet (at least publicly).
An update on this topic:
The Federal Council has proposed a revision of the Federal Act on Vested Benefits (LFLP), mainly in connection with 1e plans. One of the key goals is to ensure that vested benefits don’t remain parked in vested benefits institutions when they should be transferred to the new employer’s pension fund.
Under the proposed changes, insured persons would still be responsible for arranging the transfer when they change jobs. But if they don’t, pension funds would be required to actively track down any vested benefits and request the transfer themselves—without needing the person’s consent.
Importantly, this wouldn’t be limited to 1e plans but would apply more broadly to all insured persons, reflecting the fact that these assets are not always transferred in practice.
The Federal Council adopted its message and submitted the draft to Parliament in December 2025, and it’s currently being examined by the relevant parliamentary committees.
For reference:
– Federal Council dispatch on the amendment of the Federal Act on Vested Benefits of 5 December 2025
– Press release 16.10.2024 (communiqué du Conseil fédéral du 16.10.2024)
– Explanatory report 16.10.2024 (rapport explicatif)
– Draft amendment to the LFLP 16.10.2024 (avant-projet / projet de loi)
– Parliamentary file (Curia Vista)
EDIT: Here is the incentive for the insured person to fulfill their obligation of transferring their funds:
Les assurés sont toutefois déjà tenus de faire transférer leurs avoirs de prévoyance à leur nouvelle institution de prévoyance. Si les assurés s’acquittent de leurs obligations, les institutions de prévoyance n’auront pas à supporter de frais supplémentaires. Si ce n’est pas le cas, les institutions de prévoyance pourront prévoir dans leurs règlements que les assurés qui n’ont pas respecté leur obligation d’annonce supportent directement les frais supplémentaires occasionnés. Cela permettra d’éviter que ces frais soient répercutés sur l’ensemble des assurés.
Die Versicherten sind allerdings bereits heute verpflichtet, ihre Vorsorgeguthaben auf die neue Vorsorgeeinrichtung übertragen zu lassen. Kommen die Versicherten ihren Pflichten nach, entstehen somit keine zusätzlichen Kosten für die Vorsorgeeinrichtungen. Kommen sie den Pflichten nicht nach, haben die Vorsorgeeinrichtungen die Möglichkeit, in ihren Reglementen vorzusehen, dass die entsprechenden Zusatzkosten direkt von den Versicherten getragen werden müssen, welche den Mehraufwand aufgrund der Verletzung der Meldepflicht verursacht haben. Damit kann vermieden werden, dass die Mehrkosten vom Versichertenkollektiv getragen werden müssen.
Is this all 2nd pillar amounts or just the obligatory part?
This applies to all parts, not just mandatory.
If this passes (i.e. the responsibility falls upon pension funds to get all pension balance of their members from previous pension schemes / vested benefits accounts), there are 2 ways I could see this implemented in practice:
I don’t understand why this is so complex. All pension accounts are linked to AHV. They could easily build a database to reflect which AHV have pension accounts with which VB providers. They don’t even need to share amounts, just the list of providers where active accounts exist for given AHV can be shared with Pension funds.
If government wants to enforce something they can. Question is if they are serious
Plus at least for vested benefits there’s already a central registry right?
Exactly.
Bit of a shame. Feels like they can tell you what to do with the obligatory part, but whatever you saved on top should be yours to hold in your VB of choice.
While I would personally enjoy something closer to 401k, it would be a fairly large departure from the current system.
If the system became like this, I assume you’d also lose the possibility of getting a pension out of those funds (which could be problematic for the majority of people, most people aren’t super on top of their retirement plans like we are).
I mean in theory pillar 1 plus pillar 2 obligatory should cover basic pension. Let people save more for retirement on their own. Or at least allow people to say “ok I keep it with the pension fund but have the fund invested in All World”. I mean crashes happen, but over time markets go up and you always have people still paying into the fund, as if you’re DCAing in at the dip/crash. Norway does it with their state fund.
I’m just saying we’re debating a different system than the current one.
(And in any case the current system is unlikely to change much, simpler tweaks don’t pass the referendum bar…)
Isn’t that what 1E plans are meant for. They do exactly that.
Mandatory part goes into Base plan and anything above goes into 1E plan which doesn’t provide annuity options and is like 3a.
Mandatory BVG applies to annual income between CHF 22,680 and CHF 90,720
1e pension plans apply to annual income exceeding CHF 136,080
Offering 1e depends on the wishes of employer.
Even if offering 1e becomes mandatory, there is a huge gap between the annual income of CHF 90,720 and CHF 136,080.
Any contributions and investment decisions on that portion are at the discreion of Pension fund. It is not mandatory by law, but mandated by the Pension fund, and the employee gets no say whatsoever.
You can have 1e starting from 136k.
But not every pension plan covering salary above that are 1e. You may be in a very “normal” plan with 200k.
And I guess that’s also why 1e are sometimes seen for larger income.
Since you can’t get a pension from 1e, that transfers a lot of responsibility to the employee.
(Which is great imho)
Some may prefer ensuring that a comfortable retirement income is insured before stacking up on an investment capital to be withdrawn at once.
People earning 400k being financially completely illiterate, and expecting money to flow in as usual during retirement are countless.