SRF on 3a insurance scams


I find FINMA’s statement in the video strange: They want insurance companies to make it clearer that money can also be lost on the stock market. But that’s not the problem here, the problem is that the fees are very high and that people don’t know how much of the total amount goes into insurance (after all, this should also become more transparent).


I think even FINMA is clueless on that matter. Or the lobby behind insurances is just way too strong.


One thing I find irritating is the part where a person complains that he paid in X amount and now he doesn’t have X amount in his savings fraction. So the person who sold him this product didn’t even make it clear enough (or the customer forgot) that of course you don’t have the full amount if you have insurance fees on top (not to speak of the rest of the outrageous fees).

Or did they promise great returns on their savings account that compensate all of these other fees?

Why not make it mandatory when giving the various scenario (at retirement payout) to also list the amount paid into insurance and amount paid in fees?


And additionally make it mandatory to show the scenario when investing the 3a with Finpension/VIAC/Frankly. Now THAT would be a law that protects citizens. :smiley:

The transparency of the different parts of the premium, mandated from 2025, will hopefully really help but I guess we’ll see.


Those who sell the insurance will find new ways to still sell the same amount of these insurances.

They are not obliged to make it clear unless specifically asked. If the person forgot, didn’t think, didn’t know…their problem.
In my case they didn’t say the whole truth, but didn’t lie either. They showed me past performance…which is not guaranteeing future results…which is essentially what we do when we buy VT etc.

That’s as ass covering as it gets isn’t it?

Or is it? The fees are certain, stock market returns can’t be :smiley:

I’ve gone on crusade against Insurance 3A, however calling it a scam is plain wrong. It’s a shitty deal, and nobody goes to jail…because it’s not a scam.

1 Like

That would be comparing apples with oranges. Yes, you can invest in the stock market with both. But they have different characteristics (insurance vs. non-insurance).

If you are someone with a need to insure something, then there are options. But if you do not want to insure something, then don’t?

I meant that they separately show the simulations of the savings part with Finpension/VIAC/Frankly, so that you can see how much money you lose when you make a deal with them (both due to unattractive funds and the added fees for the insurance part).
→ this is hypothetical, of course they will never do that voluntarily and will lobby hard to not make such a comparison mandatory

If people would see black on white how much this deal costs them in opportunity cost compared to other options (e.g. making a normal 3a and do a separate insurance), no one would ever fall for this.

Is the definition of a scam that it is illegal?
Many times it is indeed illegal, but I would say there are also some scams that are legal.
Merriam-Webster says “or deceptive act or operation”. I would very much call their behavior a deceptive act to the customers, yes.


Scam ≠ fraud. Disgraceful either way :grin:

1 Like