Not since those articles. I expect it to take ages and not have retroactive impact.
1 Like
Could you share details for your strategy?
I thought I have VT replication as well and (since 06.2020) I’m getting 45% only. Bummer.
I adjusted my strategy since I moved my 3rd pillar accounts to Finpension. Now it’s basically VTI in my brokerage account and ex-USA at Finpension. So it’s not really useful for you.
- CH Large 22%
- Europe ex CH 20%
- CH Small & Mid 12%
- USA 10%
- Japan 9%
- EM 8%
- UK 7%
- Canada 6%
- Pacific ex Japan 5%
- Cash 1%
Combined with the brokerage account I’m getting: 74.3% North America, 10.5% CH, 8.3% Europe, 4.3% Pacific and 2.6% EM. I’ll probably aim for 70% US, 10% CH, 10% Europe and 10% rest long-term.
No Bitcoin?
I have 2 Finpension accounts (2nd pillar) and oddly enough was only allowed to go for Bitcoin in one of them (max 5%).
1 Like
Makes no sense. Bitcoin gets you capital gains only, which isn’t taxed as income. But it will get taxed in 3a eventually (withdrawal tax). So don’t ever hold assets with capital gains only in your retirement accounts.
6 Likes
I didn’t imply only holding it in a retirement account. Set that aside, wouldn’t you be happy with a large tax bill on 2nd or 3rd pillar withdrawel given it implies lots of gains?
No I wouldn’t. Because I could have just bought BTC outside of retirement accounts with no taxes at all?
2 Likes
So your 2nd pillar strategy is to avoid all capital gains? interesting…
1 Like
FWIW, the only case where it matters is when the withdrawal tax is very progressive. With a flat tax rate, how much growth/gain you get during the accumulation doesn’t matter for the end result (I think there’s quite a few threads with the details).
Isn’t this a case of “the more withdrawel tax you pay, the better” (aside from tax optimization based on which kanton you live)? I.e. you don’t want to pay too much (vs the rules) but sure the more you pay implies the more your investments gained which is a good thing?
Depends on how long you hold them and the tax at the end. You’ll be paying wealth tax on it the whole time it is out of the pension fund, so there’s a trade-off between wealth tax and the withdrawal tax.
2 Likes
I think you‘re not getting my point. You look at it too 1-dimensional. Lets say you have 50k at Finpension and 150k outside of retirement accounts. You goal is to be invested 10% in BTC and 90% in stocks overall, so 20k in total in BTC and 180k in stocks. Then it would be more ideal to have those 20k BTC outside 3a/FZK.
7 Likes
I think it’s a good idea in theory but in practice one doesn’t necessarily want so many bond like things. Especially something like a pillar 2 the big advantage is that the BVG obligatorium has a minimum RoR: what the fund invests in in terms of income vs appreciation orentated isn’t so relevant. Pillar 3a fine why not tendencially hold ones bonds there „cash with a bit of returns“ I believe CubanPete called it! 
is bitcoin still a thing? Why would anyone want that junk again? It has no income and will eventually have -100% capital gains so seems not so relevant to the discussion
could be an argument to have it in your 3a to reduce the eventual withdrawal taxes 
7 Likes
Profond published an update on this and an interview in AZ about it (behind Paywall)
1 Like
Any interesting insights from the interview?
1 Like
In general yes if someone is only looking at return of 2nd pillar. But for most people here , total portfolio return matters which includes all wealth including taxable accounts & retirement accounts.
first investor should decide where (which investment assets - US stocks, bonds, non US stocks, Swiss stocks, Bitcoin, Gold, RE etc) they want to invest & second step is to decide where to place those assets.
Normally speaking income generation is better positioned when sheltered within retirement accounts while capital gains are better suited for taxable accounts.
Since Bitcoin and Gold by default have no income, there is no real advantage of keeping them in sheltered accounts. Unless one of following is true
- Allocation to BTC & Gold exceeds allocation to taxable accounts
- Assumption is that BTC & Gold will have lower total returns versus other assets. In that case yes keeping them in sheltered accounts reduces exit tax
2 Likes
and the yearly report/press conference from OAK BV is pretty explicit about this (the fact that all the fund that are competing tend to not build reserve / increase risk).
btw it’s yet another year where the redistribution is in favor of workers instead of retirees.
Maybe one day people will stop assuming second pillar is unbalanced and a ponzi scheme. 
1 Like
En 2025, sur un total de 39,8 milliards de francs alloués aux assurés actifs et aux bénéficiaires de rentes (voir fig. 46), 60,9%, soit 24,2 milliards de francs, auraient dû revenir aux assurés actifs en cas de répartition proportionnelle (voir fig. 47). En réalité, les assurés actifs ont perçu 27,1 milliards de francs, soit 2,9 milliards de francs de plus. Cette valeur correspond donc à la redistribution estimée des bénéficiaires de rentes vers les assurés actifs pour l’année 2025.
This was similar for the past 5y.
1 Like