At time of job transfer 1e needs to go to the regular pension plan of new employer if they don’t offer 1e.
But currently it’s easy to “forget” it. In the future it’s likely you’ll have up to two years before transferring (and then you won’t be able to forget it).
OK, this was super valuable input.
I plan to stay with the current employer for quite a while, then potentially move abroad (EU) to my partner‘s home country. I assume moving abroad would also trigger a move to a „normal“ pillar 2 account? (Very specific question and not assuming someone here knows but if you do, please share.)
Anyway, I modeled the whole thing with switching to another, typical P2 (1 % real return with 5 % vol), regime after five years, and even then P2 comes out on top for my specific situation.
So if I haven’t made any grave mistake, this seems like a no-brainer.
No, moving abroad is a best case scenario for you. You can either withdraw, or move the money to a vested benefits account (which can be setup with low fee and similar strategy as your current 1e).
(the latter can be beneficial, this depends on countries, e.g. you can wait out to optimize a later withdrawal while it continues growing tax free).
2 Likes
Doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence of pension providers when you read such stories (from ktipp, link):
«Ihre Pensionierung rückt näher. Gerne informieren wir Sie über Ihre Altersleistungen», schrieb die Axa-Stiftung Berufliche Vorsorge der 64-jährigen Aargauerin Sandra Trachsel (Name geändert). Im Abschnitt «Leistungen per 1.12.2024» war die Rente für die teilinvalide Floristin erwähnt. Die Pensionskasse offerierte ihr eine Rente von monatlich Fr. 584.85. Der Umwandlungssatz für das obligatorische Alterskapital belief sich laut der Axa auf 6,379 Prozent, beim kleinen Überobligatorium waren es 4,632 Prozent.
Trachsel hatte gestützt auf Ihre Einzahlungen und den jährlichen Pensionskassenausweis mehr erwartet. Sie erkundigte sich bei der Rechtsschutzversicherung des K-Tipp, ob die Rente richtig berechnet worden sei. Ein Jurist nahm sich der Sache an, verlangte von der Pensionskasse die Berechnungsgrundlagen und rechnete nach. Ergebnis: Die Berechnungsgrundlagen waren teilweise falsch.
Die Versicherte hatte über 90 Prozent ihres Altersguthabens im obligatorischen Teil der Pensionskasse angespart. Laut Axa betrug der Umwandlungssatz für das obligatorische Alterskapital wie erwähnt 6,379 Prozent – das Gesetz verlangt dafür aber mindestens 6,8 Prozent. Das ergab eine Differenz von jährlich rund 330 Franken. Zudem war die Teilinvalidenrente der Floristin nicht richtig in eine Altersrente umgerechnet worden.
Die Axa war anderer Ansicht. Deshalb beauftragte der K-Tipp einen Anwalt zur Durchsetzung der korrekten Rente. Nach dem dritten Schreiben mit Klageandrohung war die Axa schliesslich bereit, die geschuldeten Leistungen zu bezahlen. Fazit: Sandra Trachsel erhält dank dem K-Tipp insgesamt 646 Franken mehr Rente pro Jahr – lebenslang.
4 Likes
A 10% difference! Sad that it took 3 letters and a threat from a lawyer before they would pay up.
2 Likes
Hi guys, just wanna share one peculiarity I recently learned. My pension plan has a rule if one buys into the early retirement pot, the balance hits 105% of the max allowed balance and you’re 58 and above, the company stops contributing and u also don’t get any interest anymore. Supposedly it caught some people by surprise and they were not planning to retire by that point.
3 Likes
Mine has a similar rule, not just that, but if you go over a threshhold, you lose the money and you basically are gifting any gains to the pension fund. e.g. you are at 105% limit and due to great stock market, it goes to 200%, you lose the excess 95% and are capped at 105%.
6 Likes
This is essentially an edge case where you buy heavily into the 2nd pillar for early retirement but then don’t actually retire. Because you keep working, your total assets eventually overshoot the limit. It boils down to Art. 79b Abs 1 BVG and the tax principle of “Adequacy”. You’re allowed to close gaps, but you aren’t allowed to be “over-insured.” If your projected pension exceeds 105% of the target at age 65, authorities view it as tax avoidance, basically, you can’t use tax-deductible buy-ins to accumulate more than the maximum regulatory benefits.
6 Likes
I wonder why it only gets triggered by the age 58 though, if that’s the intention of the rules wouldn’t trigger at any age?
It triggers at age 58 because in Swiss pension law, 58 is the earliest legal retirement age (for most funds). Before age 58, you cannot technically “retire” (unless you get self-employed, move abroad etc.), you can only “leave” (vested benefits).
1 Like