�۶���Ƶ

His wife’s unexpected resolve in this matter had made Mathias slightly nervous before that first advisory consultation. Afterwards, they were both positively surprised about the great starting point they were in. Mathias actually has a gross yearly income of 170,000 Swiss francs, pension fund assets of 1.3 million francs, employee shares worth 200,000 francs and, finally, a pillar 3a pension provision in the same amount, split between several accounts. Their single-family house has a market value of 800,000 francs with a mortgage of 650,000 francs. Gertrud has a gross income of 50,000 francs, a small amount of pension savings and pillar 3a savings of 50,000 francs. Together, they are entitled to an AHV spouse’s pension of 42,300 francs per year.

“It’s important to understand your spouse’s needs and to align them with your financial situation,” says Sascha Näf, a pension expert at �۶���Ƶ Wealth Management Switzerland. Women express their worries about the monetary future more frequently than men. Men often require – such as in this case – the confirmation of their own thoughts and calculations. A sound financial plan with a graphical illustration that shows the development of income and wealth over the years often quells the fears and concerns of both spouses.

In most cases, as with the Stäubles, it's not about the question of whether to get a lump-sum payment or a pension, but rather about the right mix of these components. According to Näf, there are interesting options for combinations, especially if both partners are employed. Often, both their pension funds offer different benefits. It pays off to compare them – especially the conversion rates, the services for surviving dependents in the case of death and also the financial health of the pension fund. “As a rule of thumb, the largest part of regular expenses should be covered by current revenue such as pensions, investment income and other forms of regular income, and assets for extraordinary expenses should be invested in the long term,” says pension expert Sascha Näf. When you at least choose the partial withdrawal option, a key advantage is that survivors can inherit assets should you die, which is often not the case when you draw a pension.

The difference is in the mix

What was the concrete solution for Mr. and Ms. Stäuble in the end? They also found that it was not an “either/or” scenario, but a combination. They decided to follow the rule of thumb and cover their yearly fixed expenses of 110,000 francs with pensions from the AHV and pension funds. The Stäubles withdrew Mathias’ remaining pension fund assets as a lump-sum to have more flexibility. At the same time, they planned to stagger the withdrawal of their pillar 3a assets. “This approach to pension funds and pillar 3a assets is an optimal solution,” explains Näf. The precondition for this was that the Säubles started saving in a targeted manner in good time, meaning from the age of 50.

The married couple distributed their pensions and savings into three asset pots. They each follow a different investment strategy and represent different needs.

The first pot is for current expenses and serves to maintain the level of cash. With the return and consumption from the second pot, the Stäubles primarily intend to finance planned vacations and potential health costs later on. This pot is filled with investment assets of around 400,000 francs that are invested strategically. In the third pot, the married couple is investing 300,000 Swiss francs over the long term.

After all was said and done, Mathias was particularly happy that it was possible to gift the children 150,000 francs. This is financed by withdrawals from pension fund assets as well as savings. The sharp-minded chemist Mathias Stäuble was finally happy and put the "Retirement" binder back on the shelf next to his tidy desk.

This article was written by NZZ Content Solutions on behalf of �۶���Ƶ.