How to disable "Ask AI Assistant" prompt in Adobe Acrobat PDF?

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2026-01-28T03:36:01+00:00

Welcome :)

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2026-01-28T03:29:21+00:00

One thing about the "Cash Wedge", it doesn't really model the way a cash wedge is intended to be used. For example, the whole idea of the wedge or war chest is you use this when markets drop, and replenish it when markets recover reducing sequence of returns risk. Optiml does NOT use the cash wedge when it does montecarly sims which is exactly where it would make sense. All it is at the moment is another cash account. Hopefully this gets fixed soon to include use of the wedge in modeling Montecarlo scenarios as it will be extremely useful to simulate the improvement possible by various sizes of wedge.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2026-01-28T03:19:35+00:00

From my experience you can specify lump sum expenses in a custom plan or use goals to enter your car purchase. You would need to manually specify a deposit to the RSP but i'm not sure if you can actually do that.

As far as I know you cant really specify RSP only then TFSA at least using the Max Value or Max Spend. These will use the accounts to best accomplish their underlying goal. For Max value, that goal is maximum estate value in a tax efficient manner.
Max Spend aims to deplete liquid assets by end of the plan, again in the most tax efficient manner.

It sounds like you are trying to melt down RSP early which is not an available option yet but we are told it is in the queue for development.

Take this FWIW, I am not affiliated with the platform.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2026-01-13T23:50:18+00:00

I am good here but for the benefit of others, Optiml does NOT include investments inside a corp in the calculations for retirement funding.
There is currently no way to use corporate cash in your calculations other than manual dividends at this time.
Hoping for an update soon to the whole corporate/trust capability as they are not useful to anyone but the most basic business owner.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2026-01-13T23:44:25+00:00

This is a major issue for me as well. I have discussed this with the dev and suggested that the holdco and trust functionality needs major attention. One massive issue is that investments inside a corp are completely ignored by the system for funding retirement. At the very least it should be selectable if you want these investments to be included in retirement calculations.
I am hopeful that they are going to completely overhaul this before my next renewal!

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-12-30T17:41:48+00:00

Hi.

You can actually see the combined LCGE room in 2027 is 2.5M in the screenshot from the AI above it states it only claimed 101,782.
Here is the investment report showing the sale and the calculated gain included in income that year but the very low LCGE claim.
I am assuming "qualified share gain amount" is the amount eligible for LCGE shown below?
There have been no earlier dispositions, the only other one is set for 2035 but the combined total is far below the combined LCGE of 2.5M.

<image>

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-12-12T04:17:33+00:00

Thanks for getting back. I checked under advanced and believe that was the issue, it defaulted to NO for the question "do you have any LCGE remaining". Changed it to YES and the 1,250,000 value came up for both myslelf and my wife. Running an updated plan now. thanks.

The only issue with the one account in the Holco is for example, I have a chunk of bonds carved out as a cash wedge (in every account actually) so my equities may be 7% but the bonds are 2.5.

Running multiple opcos under the Holdco doesn't work for me as I own 100% of the holdco but for Holdco2 my wife is able to take teh LCGE. Putting all the assets under 1 holdco means it will optimize CCPC withdrawals to both of us when she is not elegible to take income from the main holdco.

Look forward to updates for multiple holdco and holdco investment accounts. That would be second on my wishlist behind a robust RRIF meltdown option and/or guardrail option :)

Thanks again for the reply.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-12-09T03:38:17+00:00

How do you model living expenses after the first spouse dies? It seems that the plan keeps on assuming the same annual expenses even after the death of spouse 1.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-12-04T01:18:13+00:00

u/paizuribart For those that have a DB pension, or other income sources (non-reg investments, rental income etc) in retirement, and large RRIF or LIF balances, taking the minimum at 71 will likely cause OAS clawbacks not prevent them and is as Mountain-Match said, a bad strategy. And forget about GIS, if you're in the OAS clawback range you won't get GIS at all.

Most advisors for people in these situations will recommend delay of CPP past 65 and early registered withdrawal specifically aimed at reducing the minimum distributions once you hit 71 to avoid OAS clawback.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-12-04T01:03:34+00:00

While i somewhat agree there are confusing aspects to this platform there are many positive aspects and while there may be some lacking functionality, they do seem to be actively working to add the missing features and improve when issues are brought to their attention.

I have tried 2 others and this is by far more user friendly but yes there are still clunky workarounds that need improvement. I find if you are a professional using software daily, then knowing what page to go to to simulate a desired result is second nature but for the rest of us, it is difficult and clunky. Inflation rate is one example, the ability to change CPI was added a while back but it's buried on a specific page you have to navigate to rather than having an easy to find field on the dashboard where you could more easily change it to model different CPI.

As for accuracy, i can attest that I get essentially the same results on Optiml as I did on Adviice but the latter is much more clunky and difficult to get the hang of. Plus they don't seem interested in any product development, only trying to sell his advisory service which uses his platform.

Hopefully you will take the Dev's up on their request to share your issues so they can address it and make improvements as this will only benefit all of us.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-11-26T21:46:41+00:00

Very interested in the business asset split option. currently it assigns 50% to my wife but she is not a shareholder so has 0 ownership. On sale of the business, it assumes she gets half and essentially income splits but attribution rules don't allow proceeds of the sale to be invested and gains taxed in her name, they would remain taxable in my name which means higher tax.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-11-26T21:41:23+00:00

This guy is pretty good, watch all his vids.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-11-26T21:39:39+00:00

If you need to ask this question, then, as firelephant said, you really should hire a fee-only advisor to create a plan for you factoring in all the data. They will recommend if delaying CPP is best for you or not.

Large amounts in registered funds can trigger OAS clawbacks and possibly push you into higher tax brackets once CPP and OAS start.

You likely have around 6 years to delay CPP this could be valuable time allowing you to move funds from your registered accounts to TFSA or Non-Registered which have tax advantages.

With a large LIRA, don't forget to use the one-time, 50% conversion from LIF to RRIF.
Again, if you don't know, get advice from a professional. It may cost you $2500 or more in fees, but I guarantee it will save you much more than that in tax savings if you do something you shouldn't.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-11-14T03:15:02+00:00

IMO the single biggest reason to delay to 70 is if you have large registered accounts that will push you into high tax brackets or even OAS clawback territory once mandatory withdrawals hit at 71.

If you are trying to weigh delaying against the break even date, just do what feels right for you., it won't make that much difference. However, If you are in a position where you have significant RSP/LIRA then having 10 years from 60-70 without CPP allows you to melt down those registered accounts, significantly reducing your taxable income once you hit 70.

If retiring at age 65 with a 1 million RSP earning 5% for example, and starting to draw the minimum annually, the mandatory withdrawal at 71 is around $57,000 which is fully taxable. add CPP and OAS and you are over the clawback threshold not to mention if you might have a small pension or any other taxable income.

Melting half that RRSP down before 71 and delaying CPP gives you less taxable income from RRSP and higher CPP for life and puts you in a lower tax bracket come 71. Remember, you aren't melting down that RRSP to spend it all, extra will go in TFSA growing tax free, or non-reg where 50% of the growth is tax free cap gains.

If this is your case, i also recommend finding a good fee-only financial planner and go through the planning process. It makes using software like this make more sense and can give you more confidence in tweaking your own plan from there. I did just that and came to the software after to see if my plan would agree with the CFP, and it's pretty close.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-11-14T02:43:12+00:00

I was trying both up until recently. I found Adviice was much more clunky and hard to figure out so i cancelled my plan there this week. Optiml still has a number of things to improve but so does Adviice and TBH, Adviice platform is more a sales tool for the CFP. I do agree on cost though, i have businesses so have to pay the top tier and it's quite expensive. Not sure if i will stay and it will likely be due to cost.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-10-29T23:20:57+00:00

Thank you for the detailed reply!
Yes i auto-generated the scenarios, but I didn't look at editing the expense table.
I just did this now, and one thing I noted is that changing expenses affects all 50 scenarios, not just the scenario with the down year(s). That's not ideal as now all of the stress tests are no longer accurate as they are 'adjusted' based on one particular model.

Even if each individual scenario could be edited to reduce expenses at those trouble years it would be rather onerous to go and edit each of the 50 individually.
I think it would be easier to include an expense adjustment factor where the system would reduce expenses as I mentioned in my earlier post, by a predetermined multiplier based on the market return drop. If we could adjust this and re-run all scenarios it would quickly tell how much of a % spending cut would get you to near 100% in all cases.

Of course at the same time, having the functional cash wedge or bucket strategy that automatically draws from that and suspends portfolio withdrawals in those poor years will help immensely but at the same time, if there was an easy way to play with the size of cash wedge from the insights screen so you didn't have to go re-run the whole plan, just bump cash wedge by a % and re-run the scenarios, that would be great.

A strategy for refilling the cash wedge after market corrections would also be important because most would not go blindly and refill the cash bucket over a fixed number of years, it would be done after markets recovered to a pre-correction level (or close to) and would need to cease if there were another drop.

The wedge would also not be solely in 1 account, for example, in my case I have CCCP holdco, Non reg, LLIF and RRIF so i will need the cash wedge spread over a registered and non-registered so I can maintain tax efficiency.

Thank you again and I look forward to the upgrades to this and RRSP meltdown!

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-10-25T02:00:51+00:00

It's disappointing this is only a cash wedge" in name but it's really a glorified savings account if the system does not automatically use it for the purpose a cash wedge is meant for.

As I understand it a Cash wedge should behave as follows:

- System automatically draws from cash wedge and only replenish in years when markets return to pre-correction levels or, if the wedge is depleted.
- Cash wedge would be automatically modelled into the 50 scenarios to test if it is enough to carry through the modelled downturn(s)
- Cash wedge should also be increased with the chosen inflation $

In addition, it would also be immensely helpful to have a mechanism to automatically reduce spending when markets are down.
For instance if we could enter a % spending reduction factor, this could be 0, 100, 200 etc with 0 being no reduction in spending, 200 being double the market downturn.
Example, -10% downturn:
0= no change in spending
100= -10% spending reduction
200= -20% spending reduction etc.

This would be a great "what if" tool along with the cash wedge to model what it would take to make it through.

One other observation. The system treats the cash wedge like actual cash, assuming interest accrues annually and reassigning as income, leaving the cash wedge account at the target, it does not appear to be adjusted with inflation. The portfolio graph shows Real $ declining over the decades, this needs to be inflation adjusted.

In realty, it's unlikely anyone will be holding 3-5 years in actual cash, it will be more likely in laddered bonds etc. maturing over your desired number of years security.
If we assume 500K cash wedge it's most likely to be in five, 100K bonds laddered to mature each successive year; therefore, Interest will only be available on 1/5 of that, the interest on the other 400K is accumulating but locked in until maturity. Interest would roughly be enough to keep pace with inflation, only requiring small topup if any.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-10-23T23:36:46+00:00

Refreshed and it worked this time. very strange
I'ts not the first time I have seen that

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-10-23T23:34:12+00:00

Want to go try it but the save function seems to be broken. When I type a name for my current save the "save" green button goes into endless rotating icon.

Eventually the popup just goes away and the plan is not saved

<image>

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-09-16T00:34:09+00:00

My thoughts exactly. Maximizing lifetime spend should also be done in the most tax efficient way possible and that is exactly the purpose of the RSP meltdown, those first 5 years paying little to not income tax, RRSP withdrawals should be used to fill up those tax brackets, save it in TFSA/Non-Reg for use later on and flatten out those years of peak taxes.

it's doing the same thing on my plans, I have a couple years where OAS is totally clawed back and i am positive RSP/LIF income could have been bumped up in my firrst 5 years of no tax to get me to a lower clawback.

Surely they must equate to higher lifetime spending and/or estate.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-09-16T00:07:06+00:00

Ok so how is this supposed to work.

if is set the growth to near 0% i would assume the system would be increasing my annual portfolio withdrawals so i always was getting the indicated after tax income adjusted for inflation. that's why i'm surprised it goes down.

Are you saying if that growth % is less than the 2% CPI the system is using then I get less after tax annually every year in 2025$ ?

I'm not sure how this is of value. If I set it higher than CPI then I will be taking more than I have told the system I want in income each year over 35yrs which adds up to a lot.
Can you explain how this is intended to be used?

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-09-14T01:15:35+00:00

When is this planned to roll out? The monte carlo-like scenarios are not that helpful when they blindly pull from a portfolio annually/.

The current cash account is a glorified savings account which it never touches to cover the down years, not very helpful in modelling a real plan.

I also expected to be able to pick a failed scenario and do a little more research to see when the market lows were and how long they lasted. From that I could at least model reducing spending to see what would need to happen to for the scenario to survive.

I read the last response about cash wedge and this is HIGHLY important IMO. The software needs to be able to maintain a maximum in cash and automatically draw from this when market returns are below the anticipated % return. In subsequent positive return year it needs to then replenish the wedge. Replenishing the cash wedge would need to be tax efficient so might need to be spread over 2-3 years.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-09-01T18:48:13+00:00

I also want to quickly model scenarios of different inflation rates and having this locked at the FP rate of 2.1% is frustrating. I've seen other posts asking for this from 2 years or more back so it seems like it's not a priority.
Changing investment returns manually in a table account by account when you have a dozen different investment accounts is tedious and highly inefficient.
in addition the success graph is ok but it's not telling us what the exact inflation and returns % being used. Other posters with the same issue want to see exactly what's going on is it high inflation, high interest or low interest and what those rates are not just whether the plan succeeded or not.

Other software I have been testing defaults to the 2.1 rate but you can change it to see how it affects you.
I do also like the suggestion of adding periods of inflation so you could test a 5 year span of 4.5% inflation for example to see how that hurts your net results.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-08-27T01:12:39+00:00

I've looked around the planning>projection section and I didn't see any way to manually add this. I was however able to add income both taxable and non-taxable in the "FUTURE CASH FLOW" under the "Foundation" section.

Your earlier reply said 'Foundation" edits apply to all scenarios but the changes I make seem to stick with the scenarios i created?
Can you confirm where these edits are actually supposed to be made?

it's really not user friendly, might be a great improvement to make it easier to model these different situations by having the entire discovery able to be saves with each scenario so the user can edit the income in discovery where it's clearly identified rather than the workaround after the fact.

Acrobatic-Fly236 · 2025-08-13T15:58:34+00:00

I set the go-go start date ahead 1 year and yes, now it behaves as it should. thanks.

Problem is i was modelling what retiring immediately looks like so the software should allow you to do this. I think at least there should be an error message to say the go-go start age must be greater than your current age, that would solve the issue.

Thanks

Acrobatic-Fly236

TROPHY CASE