What if financial planning were approached the same way engineers design aircraft, medical treatments, or complex systems—with clearly defined objectives, constraints, and rigorous trade-off analysis? In this episode, Benjamin Felix is joined by Braden Warwick for a deep dive into what it means to engineer financial outcomes. Drawing on Braden's background as a PhD-trained mechanical engineer and his work building financial planning software at PWL Capital, the conversation reframes financial planning as a design problem rather than a speculative exercise. They explore the critical distinction between a financial plan and a financial projection, why uncertainty does not invalidate good planning, and how professional communication under uncertainty can build trust with clients—especially those from technical backgrounds. The discussion highlights the importance of goals-based planning, sensitivity analysis, and explicitly quantifying trade-offs when clients have multiple competing objectives. Key Points From This Episode: (0:00:04) Introduction to Episode 393 and the return of Braden Warwick (0:02:50) Braden's role at PWL and his experience deploying Conquest Planning software (0:05:46) The tension between low industry entry barriers and professional standards in financial planning (0:07:54) Braden's background in mechanical engineering and academia 0:09:33) Financial plans vs. financial projections: why uncertainty doesn't make a plan "wrong" (0:12:59) Lessons from medicine and engineering on communicating decisions under uncertainty (0:15:15) An engineering framework for financial planning: objectives first, then solutions (0:18:42) Why surface-level goals like "minimize tax" or "maximize returns" often miss what really matters (0:21:19) Evaluating plans against goals using projections, scenario analysis, and sensitivity analysis (0:24:28) Why sensitivity analysis helps planners focus on what actually drives outcomes (0:29:27) Handling multiple competing goals using trade-off analysis and Pareto frontiers (0:36:46) Practical ways planners can present trade-offs without complex math (0:39:25) Case study setup: professional financial planning with corporate clients (0:40:20) Salary vs. dividends for business owners when optimizing for legacy goals (0:44:26) Why financial planning software outputs can be misleading without context (0:48:23) The importance of understanding how planning software calculates key metrics (0:50:22) Using PWL's free retirement tool to analyze CPP and OAS timing decisions (0:53:44) Approximating Monte Carlo outcomes using standard error of the mean (0:56:16) Linking "bad" and "terrible" outcomes to plan success probabilities (0:58:44) How CPP and OAS deferral affects sustainable spending and downside protection (1:02:46) What makes PWL's CPP calculator different from typical break-even tools (1:05:15) Why wage inflation assumptions materially affect CPP deferral decisions (1:07:46) Closing framework: goals, constraints, sensitivity analysis, and quantified trade-offs (1:09:36) Financial planning as an emerging discipline rooted in engineering-style thinking Links From Today's Episode: Meet with PWL Capital: https://calendly.com/d/3vm-t2j-h3p Rational Reminder on iTunes — https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-rational-reminder-podcast/id1426530582. Rational Reminder on Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/rationalreminder/ Rational Reminder on YouTube — https://www.youtube.com/channel/ Benjamin Felix — https://pwlcapital.com/our-team/ Benjamin on X — https://x.com/benjaminwfelix Benjamin on LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminwfelix/ Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com)

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.