Braden Warwick

Yeah, it's the same finding that John had.

It's just I looked at it also through the lens of the DMS data and made sure that the results were still consistent, and they were.

So then I moved on to answering the bigger question, which is how is this going to impact the financial advice that we're giving to our clients?

I started by looking at the success rates, the Monte Carlo success rate, using the new model compared to the Gaussian model.

And remember, for the Gaussian, I benchmarked the spending rate so that it would result in an 80% success rate.

That's what we see exactly with both the DMS and the index data.

We see an 80% success rate.

And then we see the new model improves that success rate by roughly 2% to 3% on average.

Not like an earth shattering difference in terms of the difference in success rates.

I don't imagine it would really lead to much different financial advice if you're looking at it through that lens of the success rate only.

If we were to do a financial planning update and the new success rate went from

80% to 83%, we probably wouldn't change the financial plan.

So I think it fits in that same lens where this change isn't going to completely overhaul the financial plans that are already in place with clients.

And I personally view that as a good thing.

I mean, of course, if we did find something out that drastically changed the financial advice through the lens of the success rate, we would have to implement it, but it would just be a much more difficult conversation.

I did, but there wasn't really anything drastic to note.

I also looked at that success rate change over different asset mixes as well.

And I found pretty consistent results.

Using the index data, there was a bit of a relationship.

It was still within 1%.