Irregular Bonus Income and Competing Education Goals
Mei and Daniel, ages 47 and 45, both work. Combined gross income is USD 185,000 and has been stable for five years. They have USD 340,000 in retirement accounts, USD 95,000 in a taxable brokerage account, and USD 28,000 in cash. Their mortgage balance is USD 410,000 at 5.9% with 24 years remaining; the home is worth USD 620,000. They have two children, ages 12 and 9, and want to fund 75% of a four-year public university cost, currently USD 26,000 per year per child. They plan to retire at 62 and estimate USD 72,000 of annual after-tax spending in today's dollars. Their current savings rate is 9% of gross income. They ask to reduce cash to one month of expenses and invest it at an assumed 8% return because a relative earned that in a technology fund. Daniel's income includes a 30% annual bonus that has varied between 0% and 40%. They have no disability or life insurance beyond group coverage of one times salary. They want a written plan within two weeks.
1. Identify the three most important inconsistencies in the clients' assumptions and explain how you would resolve each before producing projections.
Read the worked answer
The first inconsistency is the emergency reserve. One month of expenses is not adequate when 30% of Daniel's income is a bonus that has ranged from 0% to 40%. A reserve of six to nine months of fixed obligations, roughly USD 45,000 to USD 65,000, should be held in cash or short-term deposits. Cutting cash to one month would force borrowing or selling investments in a zero-bonus year.
The second is the 8% return assumption. A relative's technology-fund result is a survivorship anecdote, not evidence for a diversified plan. Use a net-of-fee expected return for the actual asset allocation, perhaps 5% to 6% nominal, and test a range of outcomes. The plan must show what happens at 4%, 6%, and 8%, not assume the highest.
The third is goal funding. A 9% savings rate is unlikely to fund both retirement at 62 and 75% of education costs. Using 5% education inflation, the first child's four-year cost is about USD 127,000 and the second about USD 154,000; funding 75% means roughly USD 95,000 and USD 116,000. Retirement at USD 72,000 after tax over 25 years needs a much larger capital base. Resolve by separating mandatory retirement funding from flexible education funding, documenting assumptions, and presenting the funding gap rather than accepting the clients' assumptions.
2. How would you prioritize the competing goals and recommend a savings sequence?
Read the worked answer
Priority should follow consequences of failure, not client enthusiasm. First, restore the emergency reserve to six months of fixed costs. Second, capture any employer retirement match and protect the household against disability and premature death, because Daniel's income supports the mortgage and two children. Third, fund retirement at a level that supports the USD 72,000 target; retirement is non-negotiable and cannot be borrowed for later. Fourth, fund education to the 75% target, but treat it as a flexible goal: the children can attend lower-cost schools, receive scholarships, or take modest loans.
The savings sequence should use the bonus deliberately. Set a base-case budget on salary alone, then allocate at least half of each bonus first to the emergency reserve, then to retirement accounts, then to education. The mortgage at 5.9% is a moderate return on prepayment, but it should not outrank the emergency reserve or retirement match. Because education costs begin in six years, use a separate moderate-risk account for the first child and a slightly more growth-oriented account for the second. Present the trade-offs explicitly: reducing retirement savings by USD 10,000 per year for education may require several more working years or a lower retirement lifestyle.
3. How would you communicate the probability of success without implying a guarantee?
Read the worked answer
I would separate deterministic projections from probabilistic ones. A single-path chart is useful for illustrating assumptions, but it is not a prediction. A Monte Carlo or scenario analysis can show a range: for example, 'under these assumptions, the plan succeeds in roughly 70% of modeled scenarios' means that in 30% of scenarios the clients would need to adjust spending, work longer, or save more. I would show the specific adjustments that restore confidence, such as retiring at 64 instead of 62 or spending USD 65,000 instead of USD 72,000.
I would also state the limits: models depend on capital-market assumptions, inflation, fees, tax law, and the clients' actual behavior; they do not guarantee results. I would use guardrails, such as cutting discretionary spending after a portfolio decline of more than 10%, and schedule annual reviews. Finally, I would document that the clients understand the assumptions and the possibility of shortfall, and that they accept the plan on that basis rather than on an 8% return promise.