The 7 Most Common Savings Plan Mistakes
September 4, 2026
5 min read
- The most expensive savings plan mistakes are behavioural, not selection errors. Pausing during a crash costs more than any fee difference.
- More building blocks are not more diversification — usually just more overlap at higher cost.
- The most common mistake of all is waiting for the right moment. It costs years, not percentages.
A savings plan is built simply enough that almost everything that can go wrong happens outside the product.
If you invest regularly, you have already done the hard part. Even so, a manageable number of patterns recur and cost substantial sums over decades. Here they are, ordered by damage potential.
01Pausing when prices fall
By far the most expensive mistake. It inverts the principle: you stop buying precisely when the same amount buys the most units.
The cost can be quantified. At CHF 500 a month over 30 years, a 24-month pause that is never made up forfeits roughly CHF 43,000 — on missed contributions of CHF 12,000. The remainder is compounding lost over the years that followed.
The distinction matters: pausing because your budget requires it is a legitimate decision. Pausing out of fear inverts the mechanism. If you must cut back, reduce the amount rather than suspending entirely.
02Waiting for the right entry point
The hardest mistake to notice, because it looks like prudence. Waiting to start until prices are cheaper usually means waiting years — and then starting at higher prices than the ones originally deemed too expensive.
The cost is measured not in percent but in time. And time is the strongest variable in compounding: CHF 200 a month from age thirty produces more than CHF 500 a month from forty-five, on lower total contributions.
03Too many building blocks
Seven ETFs are no more diversified than one if they overlap. A world ETF, a Europe ETF, a technology ETF and a sustainability ETF contain largely the same companies — only with four positions, four expense ratios and considerably more work.
Additional building blocks make sense when they express a deliberate decision: a measured Swiss allocation because you want part of your wealth in your own currency, or an emerging markets allocation because a developed-markets index leaves those markets out. Adding to increase the count does not.
04Chasing performance
The ETF with the best three-year return is rarely the one with the best next three years. Switching regularly means systematically buying after strong periods and selling after weak ones — the most reliable way to end up below the market return.
That gap is exactly what Vanguard, Morningstar and Dalbar measure: 1% to 1.5% a year between what funds deliver and what investors keep.
05Looking only at the management fee
A low management fee with expensive products beneath it is not a cheap offer. Only the sum of management and product costs is comparable.
Then come the items rarely shown in tables: FX surcharges on every purchase, fixed execution fees that weigh heavily on small contributions, and withholding tax inside the fund, which depends on domicile. The full comparison is in ETF Savings Plan Comparison Switzerland.
06Investing without an emergency fund
A savings plan without a liquidity buffer has a built-in breaking point. When an unexpected expense arrives, something has to be sold — and unexpected expenses tend to cluster in exactly the periods when markets are weak.
Three to six months of expenses in an instantly accessible account is not wasted capital. It is the condition that allows everything else to stay invested.
07Checking the portfolio too often
The probability of seeing an equity portfolio down on any given day is close to half. Over ten years it has historically been very small. Checking daily means experiencing mostly volatility; checking quarterly means experiencing mostly progress.
This is not a call for negligence. An annual review of contribution, goals and allocation is sensible. What adds nothing is daily price watching — it creates pressure to act without adding information.
08Frequently asked questions
What is the most expensive ETF savings plan mistake?
Pausing or liquidating during a market decline. It prevents the cheapest purchases and converts paper losses into permanent ones. Over decades this pattern costs more than any fee difference.
How many ETFs should a savings plan hold?
Usually one broad world index is enough. Additional blocks make sense when they express a deliberate decision, such as a measured home allocation or emerging markets. More positions do not automatically mean more diversification.
Should I rebalance or switch regularly?
No. Switching based on performance systematically leads to buying high and selling low. An annual review of contribution and allocation is sufficient.
How often should I check my portfolio?
For most people an annual review is enough. Checking more often mainly increases perceived volatility and with it the pressure to take action.
Is holding only one ETF a mistake?
No, provided it is a broad world index. A single instrument holding over a thousand companies is more diversified than four overlapping thematic products. More positions do not automatically mean more diversification.
Should I pause when markets are at an all-time high?
No. Rising markets continuously produce new highs, and historically an all-time high is not a poor entry point. Waiting for a decline usually means waiting too long and buying higher later.
How often should I rebalance?
With a single world index, not at all — it reweights itself. Rebalancing only becomes relevant with several building blocks, and then once a year or on larger deviations from target is enough.
Is it a mistake to raise the plan instead of investing a lump sum?
No, both are fine. But extraordinary inflows should be invested immediately rather than fed in slowly through a higher monthly rate, which only extends the time the money stays uninvested.
09Keep reading
Simple enough to get right
One world index, invested weekly. A 0.39% management fee plus 0.06% TER, 0.45% all-in.
This article was written by Thierry Borgeat, co-founder of arvy, and reviewed by Patrick Rissi, CFA, and Florian Jauch, CFA.
Disclaimer: arvy AG is a manager of collective assets authorised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA under Art. 24 of the Collective Investment Schemes Act (CISA). This article is for information purposes only and constitutes neither investment advice nor tax or legal advice, nor an offer or solicitation to buy or sell financial instruments. The calculations shown are model calculations based on the stated assumptions and are not forecasts; they assume a constant return compounded monthly at the stated nominal annual rate. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Equity investments are subject to price fluctuations; losses up to the total loss of the capital invested are possible. Tax consequences differ by canton and by individual situation — please clarify yours with a professional.
