This table tests how the choice of alternative vehicle interacts with portfolio characteristics. The highlighted row matches your currently-selected portfolio preset; every other row shows what the answer would look like if the portfolio were different, with all other client inputs unchanged. Each column is re-optimised from scratch — no fixed withdrawal amount is imposed on it.

How to read your (highlighted) row, cell by cell:

Portfolio Profile — the named asset-mix preset the row represents (balanced, growth, equities, property, etc.). Your current selection is flagged with an asterisk and highlighted.

Gross, Income, Growth, Turnover — the four drivers that define the preset. Gross is total annual return before tax. Income (dividends, interest, rent) is taxed every year it accrues. Growth is capital appreciation, taxable only when turned over or sold. Turnover is the assumed share of the portfolio sold each year, which converts unrealised growth into realised gains. These four are inputs to every downstream calculation — you aren't meant to interpret them in isolation.

Realised % — the proportion of gross return that shows up as assessable earnings in Year 1 (income + capital gains x turnover x 2/3 CGT-discount adjustment, divided by gross return). This is the single most important sensitivity driver: it determines how much of your earnings feed the Division 296 assessable base each year. A high-income, high-turnover portfolio has a high realised %; a low-yield, buy-and-hold portfolio has a low realised % and carries a large unrealised CGT tail instead.

Individual, Company, Ins. Bond, Trust columns — these are the figures that answer your question. Each cell is that vehicle's terminal combined wealth advantage over the no-action baseline, measured in nominal dollars at the end of the projection horizon, evaluated at the optimal withdrawal amount for that vehicle individually. So in your highlighted row:

— The Individual figure is computed by running the optimiser for Individual only (funds withdrawn and held personally, taxed at marginal rates on income; under the 2026-27 Budget reform, from 1 July 2027 only the part of a capital gain that exceeds inflation is taxable, at the higher of your marginal rate or 30%), finding the withdrawal amount that maximises terminal combined wealth for that specific structure, and subtracting the baseline terminal wealth. It is Individual's ceiling for this portfolio.

— The Company figure is the same exercise through a private investment company: 30% corporate tax on income and on the full nominal realised gain (no CGT discount, unaffected by the 2026-27 reforms), franking credits accrue on the tax paid, and on final wind-up the net proceeds are distributed as a franked dividend with the franking credit offsetting the member's marginal tax. The company-specific optimal W is almost always different from the Individual or Bond optima because the tax incidence is front-loaded.

— The Ins. Bond figure is the same exercise through a tax-paid insurance bond: the life company pays 30% internal tax on income and full realised gains (life companies taxed as companies on investment-class business, no CGT discount). After the 10-year holding period, redemption is tax-free at NAV; within 10 years the surrender rule applies (a fraction of the gain is assessable to the investor at their marginal rate with a non-refundable 30% offset). Bond's optimal W is solved separately.

— The Trust figure is the same exercise through a discretionary trust acting as a conduit to the beneficiary at the Individual's marginal or fixed rate. From 1 July 2028 the trustee pays a 30% minimum tax on the trust's taxable income, with a non-refundable credit to non-corporate beneficiaries — so the effective floor on flowed income becomes the higher of your rate or 30%. Capital gains follow the same post-budget individual regime: from 1 July 2027 only the part of the gain that exceeds inflation is taxable, at the higher of your rate or 30%. Trust's optimal W is solved separately and is generally equal to or slightly worse than the Individual ceiling once trust admin overhead is taken into account.

Because each column is evaluated at its own optimal withdrawal amount, these are not head-to-head numbers at a common lever setting — they are three independent best-case figures. The gap between the winning column and the runner-up is the economic cost of picking the wrong vehicle even if you optimise the wrong vehicle's withdrawal amount. If Individual is $423k and Bond is $180k, it means you forgo $243k of terminal nominal wealth by going to Bond, and that's before considering that Bond's "best" W is also materially higher (larger lump sum off super) which has its own TSB and access-flexibility consequences.

Best Vehicle — which of the three vehicle columns is highest on that row. For the highlighted row this will normally match the headline calculated result at the top of the report.

Optimal W — the withdrawal amount that produced the Best Vehicle column's figure on that row. This is the single-vehicle optimum; the top-of-report calculated result can still differ if a mixed allocation scored materially higher than the best single vehicle.

Reconciling against the headline calculated result. The Key Findings panel and the Optimal Scenario chart further up report the winner of your highlighted row — same vehicle, same W, same dollar figure. If they disagree, the figures in this table are authoritative for the vehicle-and-W combination actually modelled; raise it as a bug.