Frequently asked questions

Tax efficiency preference controls how freely the optimizer can place assets across accounts for tax efficiency while keeping your overall portfolio mix the same. At Target allocation only, every account stays locked to the mix. At Maximum tax efficiency, individual accounts may look very different (for example bonds concentrated in brokerage and equities in retirement accounts) as long as the Total Portfolio still hits the target mix (here, a 60/40 example). The other preferences sit between those poles. The green band marks the portfolio mix; bar colors match equities and fixed income elsewhere in the product.

No. Your asset mix and investment choices stay yours. We don’t second-guess your strategy, replace your portfolio, or sell you products. The focus is placement and sequencing of moves across the accounts you already use.

A full results workspace for the objective you chose: typically including an Overview of headline outcomes, a concrete Action plan of optimized moves, Tax analysis versus a baseline, Historical backtests, Cash flow views of how money moves through the portfolio, and Multi-run Compare so you can weigh scenarios side by side. Same idea throughout: your mix stays yours; the plan shows where money sits and how moves can unfold over time.

Each scenario optimizes toward one primary goal: Retirement Paycheck (sustainable spending), Build After-Tax Wealth (maximize spendable wealth), Minimize Taxes (reduce lifetime tax drag), or Legacy (maximize what you leave after taxes). Run different objectives to compare tradeoffs.

For the Legacy objective specifically: yes. Smart placement doesn’t just shave a little off your tax bill each year; over a full retirement it can meaningfully change the size of what your beneficiaries actually receive, without asking you to spend less along the way.

The scenario results themselves are produced the proven, old-fashioned way: with math. An optimizer solves placement, sequencing, and tradeoffs under your assumptions and constraints. We do take advantage of large language models (LLMs) for what they do best: helping summarize, interpret, and extract insights from those results so the numbers are easier to read. The plan is calculated; the commentary is assistive.

They are genuinely helpful for educating consumers: explaining concepts, walking through examples, and helping you think about planning in plain language. That is valuable. What they typically do not do is run your full household picture as a multi-year optimization: projecting contributions and withdrawals across time toward a stated goal, while balancing contribution limits, account rules, tax treatment, and the other constraints an optimizer is built to respect. A chat answer is a great starting point. Like our scenario output, it is a recommendation for learning and discussion (not a substitute for a qualified professional’s second opinion. And if you are choosing among recommendations, would you rather they be grounded in math under explicit constraints) or inferred from a conversation?

No. Scenarios are hypothetical models for learning and exploration. Results depend on the assumptions you provide and can differ from real outcomes. Consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.

People planning toward or through retirement who hold (or expect to hold) money in more than one account type and want to see how tax-aware placement and withdrawal sequencing can change outcomes: without changing which investments they chose. These strategies work best as long-term planning tools: tax savings from better location and sequencing are often modest in a single year, but they compound when the same logic repeats over many contribution and withdrawal years. Short horizons leave less time for that compounding (and less room for a multi-year plan of moves) to matter.

Good question: you shouldn’t take our word for it. Several independent studies from asset managers and academic finance journals have measured the value of tax-aware placement, sequencing, and planning, separately from any one company’s product.

Asset allocation is your mix: how much in equities, bonds, cash, and so on. Asset location is which account holds each piece of that mix. Two households with the same mix can end up with very different after-tax results if placement differs.

Taxable brokerage, traditional 401(k)/IRA, and Roth accounts tax growth, income, and withdrawals differently. The same fund can leave more (or less) in your pocket depending on which “bucket” it sits in, and when you contribute or withdraw.

Taxable accounts (e.g. brokerage) typically tax dividends, interest, and realized gains along the way. Tax-deferred accounts (traditional 401(k)/IRA) usually defer tax until withdrawal. Tax-free / Roth-style accounts are funded with after-tax dollars and generally allow qualified withdrawals tax-free. Each plays a different role in a long-term plan.

Tax drag is the reduction in compounding from taxes paid along the way, for example on dividends or realized gains in a taxable account. Lowering unnecessary drag doesn’t change market returns; it changes how much of those returns you keep invested.

Where each new dollar goes, and which account you draw from first in retirement, changes taxes year by year. Small sequencing differences can compound over decades: similar to playing the same cards in a different order.

It usually means a sustainable annual (or monthly) spending level you can support from savings and other income over a planning horizon, under stated assumptions. Plans often compare how long that paycheck lasts under different placement and withdrawal strategies.

Rules of thumb can be a starting point, but they ignore your full picture: multiple account types, contribution room, withdrawal timing, and your goal (paycheck vs. wealth vs. legacy). Holistic planning looks at the whole household over time, not one shelf at a time.