Higher input raises the modeled result
More years give recurring fee drag longer to compound.
Compare a no-fee portfolio with an after-fee portfolio and see how a small recurring percentage drag can grow into a large long-term wealth gap.
The modeled gap created by the recurring fee drag and the compounding growth that money no longer earns.
A 1.00% annual fee drag leaves this scenario with about $116,157 less after 30 years.
Controlled, deterministic sensitivity around your current inputs reveals which assumptions move the ending-wealth gap most.
Higher input raises the modeled result
More years give recurring fee drag longer to compound.
Higher input raises the modeled result
Return affects both paths and changes how much foregone growth compounds.
Higher input raises the modeled result
The fee reduces the modeled annual return before compounding.
Higher input raises the modeled result
Recurring contributions increase the balance exposed to the fee drag.
Higher input raises the modeled result
More starting capital is exposed for the full horizon.
High modeled impact means an input changes this output substantially around the current scenario. Rankings compare controlled 10% input changes; they do not measure risk, probability, personal importance, controllability, suitability, advice, or forecasts.
The difference in ending wealth is not simply the fee percentage multiplied by your contributions. Each modeled fee drag also leaves less money invested to earn future returns. Over a long horizon, that lost compounding can become a large part of the gap.
Implication: compare fees in both percentage terms and long-term dollar terms. A higher-fee investment may still be worthwhile in some situations, but the added value needs to overcome its higher cost.
gross annual return − annual fee(1 + annual return)1/12 − 1prior balance × (1 + monthly rate) + monthly contribution(no-fee ending value − after-fee ending value) ÷ no-fee ending value × 100Monthly contributions are added at the end of each month. The same contribution schedule is used in both scenarios.
The result illustrates how assumptions compound. It is not investment advice and does not predict a portfolio’s future value.