Popular financial planning apps relying on Monte Carlo are no longer enough, not for a fiduciary.
The most popular programs are criticized for making overly optimistic projections. Left to default settings, your plans for clients may not be reflecting the unusually low inflation environment and expected bond returns.
This new app and its approach are simple. No sign-in is required, it’s inexpensive and you can use it for lead generation.
At this webinar, you will learn about calculations driving retirement income plans in an app created by J.R. (John H.) Robinson and Dr. Jack DeJong, cofounders of Nest Egg Guru, including:
• The flaws and limitations of existing retirement planning tools
• Practical planning and the importance of a user interface
• The lag between research findings and implementation at the practitioner level
• The disconnect between academia and the practitioner community
• The disconnect between the practitioner and the client
• Advisor heuristics
• Factors that influence retirement income sustainability and the relative importance of each
• The most under rated factor in retirement planning - withdrawal strategy
• Quantifying depletion risk - making it tangible
J.R. Robinson is the Founder and Owner of Financial Planning Hawaii. As a domain expert, he is responsible for Nest Egg Guru’s design and inbound marketing strategy. He is a frequent contributor to academic and professional journals. Papers he co-authored on retirement income sustainability have won the CFP Board of Standards and International Foundation for Retirement Education (InFRE) Outstanding Paper Awards. He holds a B.A. in Economics from Williams College
2.0 |
||
Average Attendee Rating | ||
Poor | Average | Excellent |
4.0 |
||
Average Attendee Rating | ||
Poor | Average | Excellent |
Good stuff, but too much history we already know. He could skip to the studies of the past 6 years.
4.0 |
||
Average Attendee Rating | ||
Poor | Average | Excellent |
4.0 |
||
Average Attendee Rating | ||
Poor | Average | Excellent |
4.0 |
||
Average Attendee Rating | ||
Poor | Average | Excellent |