The question behind every meeting: will I be alright?
Clients rarely ask about asset allocation. What they ask, in whatever words they use, is whether they're going to be alright — whether they can retire when they hoped, whether the money lasts, whether their family is covered if something happens to them.
Those are projection questions, and they're hard to answer credibly on the back of an envelope.
What it produces
Can each year actually be funded?
The central view walks forward year by year and asks, for each one, whether that year's expenses can be met from what's available. Not a single retirement number — a year-by-year answer, which is where plans usually break.
Cash flow, age by age
Where the money comes from in each year of a client's life. When a plan fails, this shows the year it fails and what ran out.
Net worth over time
Assets against liabilities across the whole projection, so the shape of the plan is visible rather than just its endpoint.
Insurance coverage gaps
What's covered, what isn't, and what pays out when. This turns a protection conversation from an opinion about whether cover is "enough" into a number with a gap attached to it.
Financial health checks for today
Ratio checks on the client's current position, separate from the long-range projection.
A range, not a single confident line
Any projection rests on assumptions about returns, inflation and lifespan, and a single line implies a precision nobody has.
Planner can run many randomised versions of the future and show the spread of outcomes. The honest sentence to a client — "in most versions of the future this works, and here's what the poor ones look like" — is far more useful than a single number they'll treat as a promise.
Multiple scenarios side by side
Retire at 60 or 65. Fund the property or don't. Because the comparison is on screen while you're both looking at it, the client can push back and see the answer change, rather than waiting a week for a revised plan.
Local rules where they matter
Retirement projections are only as good as their treatment of local systems, and generic tools tend to gloss over exactly the part that dominates the answer. CORVIX models country-specific retirement and tax rules directly, including Singapore's CPF, so the projection reflects the client's actual system rather than a generalised approximation of it.
Questions advisors ask
How is this different from a spreadsheet?
Mostly in three ways: it walks the plan year by year and tells you which specific year fails rather than only giving an endpoint, it can show a range of outcomes instead of one line, and it models country-specific retirement and tax rules that a hand-built sheet usually approximates.
What does the range of outcomes actually mean?
The projection is re-run many times with randomised assumptions, so instead of a single figure you get a spread. It supports an honest sentence — in most versions of the future this works, and here is what the poor ones look like — rather than a number the client will treat as a promise.
Does it handle CPF?
Yes, in detail, along with Singapore tax rules. The United States is also modelled. This matters because in a Singapore retirement projection CPF often dominates the answer, and a generic tool that approximates it is approximating the main thing.
Can I compare two plans side by side?
Yes — retire at 60 versus 65, buy the property or don't. The comparison is visible while you and the client are both looking at it, so they can push back and watch the answer move.
Does it cover insurance?
Yes. There is a view for coverage gaps and what pays out when, which turns a protection conversation from a judgement about whether cover feels sufficient into a number with a gap attached.
Are the assumptions visible to the client?
They are visible and editable rather than buried. A projection whose assumptions can't be inspected is asking for trust it hasn't earned.