Second pillar split

[gaijin]

Trying to consolidate a discussion:

What is your second pillar performance?

I’m changing employers in March, leaving behind the amazing UBS Pillar 2 for a mediocre plan at a big tech company. I’m considering entering the “gray area” by transferring the funds to Finpension to get that 99% stock exposure. Here is the situation and potential risks as I understand them: Death & Disability Benefits: According to the benefits documents of my new employer, these are tied to my salary and not my pension pot, so there shouldn’t be any negative effects. Buy-in potential: I ju…

Since you already have a new employer and therefore a new pension fund, I think your case is quite black with only a few pigments of gray. There will be a direct transfer from your old pension funds to your new pension fund, no vested benefits.
Still, if you really want to go the vested benefits route, you could open two vested benefits accounts, split the money half-half, leave one half on the vested benefits account and transfer the other half to your new pension fund.
Independently, you will not have to declare or pay wealth tax on vested benefits.

[gaijin]

Consolidating from a different thread:

Finpension (2nd/3rd pillar investing)

It’s stronger than that: you must have it transferred. The law is pretty clear: Full text of the law: [DE] Bundesgesetz über die Freizügigkeit in der beruflichen Alters-, Hinterlassenen- und Invalidenvorsorge (Freizügigkeitsgesetz, FZG): Fedlex [FR] Loi fédérale sur le libre passage dans la prévoyance professionnelle vieillesse, survivants et invalidité (Loi sur le libre passage, LFLP): Fedlex [IT] Legge federale sul libero passaggio nella previdenza professionale per la vecchiaia, i supers…

It looks interesting to me that the employee has to inform both the new pension fund and the existing vested benefits company. I wonder how Finpension still manages to not transfer one part of the vested benefits if the are notified.

As for enforcement, I read in the law:

Vorsorgeeinrichtungen und Einrichtungen, welche Freizügigkeitskonten oder ‑policen führen, melden der Zentralstelle 2. Säule jährlich bis Ende Januar alle Personen, für die im Dezember des Vorjahres ein Guthaben geführt wurde.

This would suggest to me that Zentralstelle 2. Säule has an overview of all such accounts. So it would be easy for them to check if one person has money in more than one place.

[Guillaume_GVA]

They thought about the Zentralstelle 2. Säule in 2021, but the idea was rejected by Parlament.

Request Rejected

However, in December 2025, the Federal Council adopted the project for a new “Loi sur le libre passage”.

The new pension fund will be able to look if there is money sitting somewhere (details to be defined) and asks for the transfer without seeking the insured’s consent.

Fedlex

Transfert de la prévoyance 1e à des institutions de libre passage : le...

It will still be possible to split assets between the pension fund and a vested benefits account for individuals who were better insured under their first pension scheme. For example, if you accumulated CHF 500,000 in Fund 1, but would only have accumulated CHF 400,000 under Fund 2’s rules, the CHF 100,000 difference can be transferred to a vested benefits account and invested according to the insured person’s wishes.

[Strabor]

Enquiry about Occupational Benefit Credit Balances | LOB Guarantee Fund

[covfefe]

@Guillaume_GVA

However, in December 2025, the Federal Council adopted the project for a new “Loi sur le libre passage”.

The new pension fund will be able to look if there is money sitting somewhere

What would be next steps in terms of legislation and potential timelines for implementation ? (asking for a friend)

[nabalzbhf]

@covfefe

What would be next steps in terms of legislation

Typically takes a few years. Parliamentary process hasn’t started yet: Geschäft Ansehen

(Once it’s done, then probably have to wait for potential referendum and then the change to FZV/OLP for the actual implementation).

[gaijin]

@Guillaume_GVA

The new pension fund will be able to look if there is money sitting somewhere (details to be defined) and asks for the transfer without seeking the insured’s consent.

I’m a bit confused. The title of this information (‘Transfer de la prévoyance 1e …’) suggests that this only applies for 1e assets. All other 2nd pillar assets are not concerned by this.
Still, there is one sentence that lets me doubt my assumption:

De même, la majorité des participants a soutenu l’introduction de nouvelles obligations d’annonce et de réclamation visant à éviter les avoirs oubliés.

Are these ‘avoirs oubliés’ limited to 1e assets? It would be strange to inform about changes to 1e assets and then, at the end of the information, include a short sentences that also concerns regular second pillar assets.
Regardless of this doubt, the word ‘oubliés’ implies to me that the government is planning on punishing people who did not declare their full pension assets to their new pension fund.

[nabalzbhf]

@gaijin

Are these ‘avoirs oubliés’ limited to 1e assets? It would be strange to inform about changes to 1e assets and then, at the end of the information, include a short sentences that also concerns regular second pillar assets.

It’s all VB assets, they’re aware that it’s a common strategy and since now it would be allowed (for 1e, limited to 2y), they wanted to actually enforce it.

@gaijin

punishing people who did not declare their full pension

Not really punishing (there’s no sanction), but enforcing it.

[gaijin]

@nabalzbhf

It’s all VB assets, they’re aware that it’s a common strategy and since now it would be allowed (for 1e, limited to 2y), they wanted to actually enforce it.

You’re right. I have now read through all the document, especially the ‘20251205 Plans 1e Message du Conseil fédéral’.
My personal opinion: I find the wording a bit sneaky. They should have stressed it more clearly that this reform touches the complete 2nd pillar system, not just 1e.

[nabalzbhf]

@gaijin

My personal opinion: I find the wording a bit sneaky

I think for people who followed the object, it was there almost from the start. (It’s VB related legislation, not just 1e indeed).

It should have no impact on anyone following rules, and positive impact on people who truly forgot to transfer (and have a VB at the AEIS with low yield and no insurance).

I think that the motion Dittli was initially indeed focused on 1e, but the final project is pretty clear (and doesn’t say 1e in the title):

Il convient également de veiller, de manière générale, à ce que les avoirs de prévoyance ne restent pas dans des institutions de libre passage lorsque les assurés sont tenus de les transférer à nouveau dans une caisse de pension