Client Deliverables
One engine,
five strategies.
Most strategy comparisons are rigged before they start — each option quoted with its own favorable assumptions, on its own time frame, against its own benchmark. This examination runs five income approaches through a single set of assumptions, so the only thing that varies is the strategy itself. That discipline is the whole point: nothing is mixed and matched.
The question we actually answer
An honest comparison holds everything constant except the variable being tested. Same starting capital, same spending need, same tax treatment, same horizon — applied identically to every approach. When five strategies pass through one engine, the differences that remain are real structural differences, not artifacts of inconsistent assumptions. We report the two metrics that are least sensitive to optimistic guesswork: how much of the spending need each approach covers in year one, and how many years it takes each to fund itself from income alone.
On an illustrative $1,000,000 base against a $30,000 spending need, only one of the five approaches covers the spend from cash income in year one. The others require selling holdings for two decades before their income alone catches up — a structural difference, surfaced only because the assumptions were identical.
| Approach | Cash yield | After-tax cash | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Covered-call income overlay | ~4.35% | ~$39,150 | ~1.31× |
| 70/30 stock-bond | ~1.97% | ~$17,685 | ~0.59× |
| 80/20 stock-bond | ~1.81% | ~$16,290 | ~0.54× |
| All Nasdaq-100 (lower-ER twin) | ~0.45% | ~$4,050 | ~0.14× |
| All Nasdaq-100 (overlay twin) | ~0.45% | ~$4,050 | ~0.14× |
| Approach | First self-funding year |
|---|---|
| Covered-call income overlay | Year 1 |
| 80/20 stock-bond | ~Year 21 |
| All Nasdaq-100 (either twin) | ~Year 21 |
| 70/30 stock-bond | ~Year 24 |
Illustrative, deterministic. The growth-heavy approaches may compound to large totals over long horizons, but they fund spending by selling shares for ~20 years first. High-growth terminal values rest on extrapolating an exceptional historical run and should be read as a directional ceiling, not a base case. Not a recommendation of any approach.
"Hold the assumptions equal, and the real differences show up on their own."
How the examination is built
- One engine, one assumption set. Same capital, spend, tax, and horizon flow through every approach — no per-strategy favoritism.
- Lead with low-guesswork metrics. Year-one coverage and self-funding year depend far less on optimistic return assumptions than terminal-wealth figures do.
- Use realized inputs. Bond returns at their honest long-run rate; equity income at real yields, not headline distributions.
- Caveat the ceilings. Where an approach's appeal rests on extrapolating an exceptional past run, we label it a ceiling, not a forecast.
- Let the structure speak. The surviving differences are reported plainly, with no winner crowned for the household.
What this examination is — and is not
This is a methodology demonstration: five approaches compared on equal footing. It is not a ranking, a recommendation, or a forecast. It models how to compare strategies honestly — identical assumptions, low-guesswork metrics, labeled ceilings — and leaves the choice entirely to the household.
Want this checked against your actual account?
This examination shows one way money can quietly leave a portfolio. If you want us to examine what may be happening in your actual accounts, request a confidential fee review.
Related examinations
The Cash-Coverage Benchmark — Whether a portfolio's income actually covers a household's fixed yearly cash need in year one, or forces a sale to make up the shortfall.
The Same-Exposure Examination — Five funds tracking the same slice of the market tie on return, leaving the expense-ratio gap as the only thing that moves the result.
The Yield-Mirage Examination — Why a fund's headline distribution yield can sit well above its true long-run compound return, with the gap hidden in the price.