Thanks for the clarification — that explained a lot.

I ran both scenarios. The optimizer leads by about 4% of net worth through the gap years, but the manual meltdown catches up by year 15 as lower RRIF minimums reduce later taxes. Long-term difference is under 0.5% either way. Based on my growth rate assumptions the optimizer wins, so I'm comfortable letting it run — good to have the validation.

On the growth rate point: my withdrawn funds route to TFSA first, so compounding stays sheltered. The real cost is tax on early withdrawals, which the numbers confirm is the dominant factor at my assumed rates.

I've put quite a few hours into this tool and will be renewing my license. Looking forward to comparing the output against my CFP's Snap Projections plan.

Thanks for the detailed response. I followed your suggestions and have some follow-up findings.

I added both a bracket top-up entry and a $40,000/yr fixed withdrawal on the RRSP for the gap years, with TFSA first in my deposit priorities. However, when I compare projections with and without the forced draw, the RRSP balances are virtually identical — the difference is under $100/yr. The Withdrawal Optimizer appears to be offsetting the manual forced withdrawal by reducing draws elsewhere rather than stacking on top of them.

Is this expected behaviour? And if so, is there a way to set a minimum withdrawal floor on a specific account that the optimizer must respect?

On the growth point: I take your point about losing tax-sheltered compounding by withdrawing early. However, in my situation the withdrawn funds route directly to TFSA (TFSA is first in my deposit priorities and I have contribution room). The growth continues sheltered — just in a different account. So the net tax-sheltered compounding should be roughly equivalent, while the meltdown reduces future forced RRIF minimums that would otherwise be taxed at higher rates once CPP/OAS arrive. I'd expect the optimizer to recognize this equivalence and draw more aggressively, but it doesn't appear to be doing so.

I have a gap between retirement and CPP/OAS where I want to deliberately draw down RRSPs beyond spending needs to optimize lifetime tax — melting as much as possible at a lower bracket before government benefits fill it. Proceeds should route to TFSA and non-registered, not spending.

Two questions:

1. Does the bracket top-up entry actually force withdrawals when there's no spending deficit, or does it only fire when cash is needed?
2. If I want to control meltdown pace more aggressively than bracket top-up allows — e.g. target a specific annual withdrawal amount regardless of spending — what's the recommended way to set that up while routing surplus to savings vehicles rather than the spending bucket?

What I've tried so far:

• Bracket top-up entry on the RRSP — unclear whether it's actually firing in gap years where spending is already covered by minimums
• Forced spending buckets paired with matching automatic savings entries into TFSA — this moved money but routed it through spending rather than cleanly repositioning it, which distorts the plan's accuracy
• Fixed dollar withdrawal entries — workable but requires manually estimating the right amount rather than letting MR optimize dynamically

Hi — I’m trying to confirm whether MoneyReady handles the Ontario DCPP/LIF 50% unlocking process at retirement.

Specifically, can MoneyReady model:

• transferring a DCPP into a Schedule 1.1 LIF,

• unlocking up to 50% within the 60-day window,

• and transferring the unlocked portion into a RRIF?

Thanks!