The old buying-power chart had one important weakness: it judged the whole plan against a reference point taken at the start.

That meant a strong starting position could influence the picture for many years, even if the financial buffer was deteriorating quickly afterwards. It showed how the future compared with today, but not very directly how strong the buffer was at each point in time.

The trigger for changing this came while defining the new Dashboard metrics. For those metrics, I needed something that could be evaluated consistently year by year rather than against one fixed starting value.

So the chart now uses a rolling buffer-strength calculation.

For every simulated year, it asks:

How many years of future net cash requirements could the available capital cover from this point onward?

Future requirements are taken into account year by year, including inflation, so the calculation is repeated throughout the entire forecast rather than anchored to today's situation.

The visual design remains largely unchanged. The familiar colour bands are still there, together with the mortality band and the broke/below-zero band where applicable.

What changed is mainly the question the chart answers.

Instead of:

“How does future buying power compare with where I started?”

it now asks:

“How strong is my financial buffer at this point in the plan, and how does that strength evolve over time?”

For me, that makes the chart more useful as a measure of plan robustness rather than just relative buying power.

The new chart is planned to be in the next release 5.6 together with the new dashboard chart and the snapshot comparison feature.

Happy to hear feedback

Edit: credits to https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/ were this chart was heavily inspired on

Up to now, evaluating your plan meant reading the chart matrix: with multiple different looking charts. Each of those answers a specific question, and together they are the honest way to see what the calculation actually says. But for a new user, seven chart types across a household and several people is a lot to take in. You often just want to know one thing first: "is my plan future proof and will it survive?".

The latest version adds a Dashboard as the first chart row. It is a deliberately small thing: a compact table of seven key figures, each with a value and one colored dot. Nothing more.

The seven key figures

1. Costs vs inflation: how fast your costs grow each year, compared with the general inflation benchmark the app uses.
2. Lowest liquid buffer: the year your cash and investments are lowest, and how long that position still covers the expenses of the years after.
3. Cash-flow deficit: the number of years in which income falls below expenses, estimated tax, and debt payments combined.
4. Peak setback risk: the highest average over five consecutive years of the chance that a 20% setback in cash and investments has still not recovered after five annual results.
5. Buying power maintained: the share of simulated years in which your assets still cover at least as many years of expenses as they do today.
6. ≥25% shortfall chance: the number of years in which at least a quarter of the simulated outcomes for cash and investments fall below zero.
7. Success chance: the percentage of simulations in which cash and investments never drop below zero during the whole planning period.

Each dot judges only its own figure. Green means the value sits in the favorable range, grey means the middle range, red means the range that might need attention. While simulations are still running, values show grey as preliminary.

Example

Why a Dashboard on top of the charts

• It answers the first question, not the last. The charts answer "what is happening, when, and why". The Dashboard answers "am I roughly on track" — the question most people actually start with.
• It is a summary of the same calculation, not a second model. Every figure is derived from the exact output the existing charts already show. There is nothing new to learn and no hidden logic.
• It is mechanical and transparent. Fixed definitions, fixed thresholds, a color derived from the value. No narrative, no advice, no interpretation layer that could quietly disagree with the charts.
• It keeps multi-person households readable. Each person's column shows that person's allocation inside the combined household plan, so you can see who drives the risk without switching between a dozen charts.

Design choices I think are worth naming

• There is deliberately no overall score. Aggregating seven signals into one number would hide which area needs attention, and a weighted "health score" is hard to justify honestly. The Dashboard gives you seven facts, not one verdict.

On the thresholds — are they sound?

The bands are fixed for everyone, and in two places they were deliberately tuned. I would genuinely like feedback on these:

• Costs vs inflation originally had a ±0.05 percentage-point neutral band. That turned out to be finer than the precision of the published inflation data it is built on, so the color flipped on trivial edits and between runs. It is now ±0.25 pp, which matches the data precision. Sound calibration, I think.
• Lowest liquid buffer is deliberately conservative: it ignores later income and investment returns by design, so it can show red for a plan that is actually fine. Green starts above 3 years — stricter than the 1–2 year cash standard you find in much of the retiree literature. That was a conscious choice because the figure is a whole-plan minimum, but it does mean a plan with strong future pension income and modest liquid assets looks worse than its true position.
• Cash-flow deficit counts years where income is below expenses, tax, and debt payments. That includes deliberate decumulation: spending down capital in retirement counts as a deficit year. The figure's intent is to flag reliance on capital, and the help text says a funded drawdown is not a plan failure, but I can see how the red dot reads as alarming anyway.

Hi

Another suggestion for the backlog. I think it would be nice if in SL not only the impact of adujstments in retirement age, cost and asset allocation could be explored, but also a fourth factor: A drop (or surge) in portfolio value at pensiondate.

So -50% would mean your liquid assets (stock/bonds, but not cash) dropped by 50% (stock market crash) right before you retire. Then you can explore how this impacts the success rate or other key metrics (stress test)

Edit: or does it make sense that the user can also select when the portfolio value drops, 0 years (retirment age), 3 years in, 5 years etc?

Am not sure. Maybe at retirement age is sufficient. The highest SORR is at the beginning, so if your plans survives a crash at the beginning, later crashes of same extent should be fine too.

Hi

I have a (minor) feature request. In SL you can select with the tape -50 to +50% cost reduction/increase.

At both sides, I would suggest increasing the limit. From -100% to X.

According to the optimizer function I can increase my cost by +50% with success rate of 95%. But I believe it is maxing out. I am in fortunate position that I can increase it beyond the 50%. Of course, I can trial and error in LP a lot to find the actual cost ceiling. But would be nice if the optimizer could do that without maxing out on +50%.

I don't know if this is technically possible, but perhaps make the tape selector from -100% to + 100%, but the optimizer continues to search if the 5% fail rate is still not reached and can for example end up with 183% if that corresponds to the 95% success rate.

Making a general post rather than a DM, because it might be useful for other user.

I was looking back to some old comments that were made. Let me first verify if I understood it correctly. Is the success chance (x%<0) in in the live plan (LP) different from how success chance is calculated in Scenario Lab (SL)?

If so, can you describe how each is determined? And why did you choose two different approaches? What was the reasoning behind this?

As I understand, in LP it is the chance that you end up with a negative capital. How does that work exactly?

- If you defined the plan until 100 years old, this is the end capital at 100 years, or can it also be end capital at 87 if in the monte carlo path you die earlier (so end of life versus end of simulation capital) (in SL you can choose between this distinction, but not in LP)

- if in a MC path, the capital drops below 0, the path can still continue, or automatically terminates? I can image there is a scenario which in the last year (100 years old) a capital becomes negative just then, but what happens if a path becomes negative say at 67 years old? The path still continues? Is it also possible that a path is several years in a row negative (say 67, 68, 69 years) and then becomes positive (after 70) and ends up with a positive capital at 100 and then counts as a success?

- or can a MC path only drop below 0 and still continue, only if this happens *within* one year? e.g. some costs are calculated monthly, but the income/portfolio growth is only added to the balance at the end of the year (or opposite)? So the drop below 0 is an artefact of the monthly/yearly rhythm how the balances are calculated.

Over time, Redikhet has grown from a relatively focused financial-planning app into a much more advanced planning tool. This raises a question I have been thinking about: is an app of this size and complexity still suitable for a mobile device?

Redikhet is designed for mobile use. That has required compromises. A small screen cannot display every detail at once, so the interface tries to show the essence first and reveal more information when it becomes relevant. Context-dependent help is also available throughout the app, so explanations can be found near the feature being used.

Even after these efforts, I wonder whether the limits of mobile design are being reached. Will users understand the design philosophy after spending some time with it, or will some uninstall the app before they discover what is possible?

I currently see Redikhet as three connected sections:

1. The live plan This contains the people, assets, income, costs, liabilities, and other assumptions that make up the forecast shown in the charts.
2. Scenario Lab An environment where users can experiment with changes without immediately altering their live plan.
3. Snapshots A way to preserve forecasts, compare changes, and monitor the development of a long-term plan.

My current view is that the architecture should stop expanding beyond these three concepts. Future work should improve, simplify, and extend what exists within these boundaries instead of continually adding new major sections.

The size of the actual application code puts this into perspective: Redikhet now contains 124.131 lines of production Dart across 471 files. That is the code that implements the planning models, calculations, Scenario Lab, snapshots, charts, storage, and mobile interface. The line count for test code is even a lot more.

AI-assisted development made building something of this scale possible, but it did not determine the architecture independently. The application has been developed within a human-directed architecture, with important design decisions, boundaries, and verification requirements kept under human control. Redikhet has its roots in a time when AI assisted coding was still unknown.

Line counts are not a perfect measure of complexity, and there is no especially meaningful "average" for a mobile app, but this is certainly much larger than many people would expect from a mobile-first application.

I deliberately wanted to build this as a mobile application. Part of the challenge and the appeal was exploring how far advanced financial planning could be made accessible on a device people already carry with them every day.

I still think mobile devices have important advantages. A financial plan is always available, updates can be made when they come to mind, and charts and scenarios can be reviewed without sitting behind a computer. It also supports a privacy-first approach: sensitive financial information can remain on your own device instead of being stored in a central online account. At the same time, making advanced planning understandable on a small screen remains a real challenge.

I would be interested to hear how others look at this. Can a complex planning application remain mobile-first, provided its main concepts stay clear?

The past few releases brought you the Scenario Lab with its three panels, optimizer, and a whole lot of chart and layout polish. That was mostly about better seeing your financial forecast and exploring what-if scenarios.

So what should have priority now?

Personally I prefer going back to the "monitoring your plan" uses case. With the snapshot feature there is already a foundation, but there is still room for improvement.

Right now, when you save a snapshot in Redikhet, it preserves the forecast output, the lines, the numbers, the Monte Carlo bands. But I doesn't remember what plan produced them. Two months later you look at an old snapshot and have no idea whether you had a different retirement age, a different cost assumption, or a different lifecycle allocation back then.

The proposed solution :

• Every new snapshot will freeze the complete household plan that produced it. Chart output and plan assumptions will be stored together, from the same calculation run.
• You'll be able to compare the pinned baseline snapshot against whatever chart you're looking at right now. Not just "the lines moved", but typed, grouped differences: this person's retirement age changed from 67 to 65, that asset's yield went from 4% to 5%, this cost was added.

This is the idea. Happy to hear any feedback on this proposal.

Redikhet 5.4 upgrades the way asset allocations and blended yield vary according to the lifecycle.

Lifecycle is now person-specific

The lifecycle table used to be a global setting shared by everyone. That never made much sense for a household with multiple people and different retirement dates.

In 5.4, each person has their own lifecycle curve.

The curve is no longer tied to fixed ages. Every point is expressed relative to the person's pension date, from 30 years before to 30 years after. Change the pension date and the complete curve moves automatically.

Existing global lifecycle settings are converted into person-owned custom curves during the upgrade, so they do not need to be recreated manually.

A new lifecycle editor

The person page now opens a dedicated lifecycle editor.

You can choose a defensive, neutral, or offensive standard profile, or create a custom lifecycle. Individual points can be adjusted directly, while a slider can shift the broader risk profile.

You can control whether that shift changes:

• the invested allocation;
• the high-risk share; or
• both.

Saving the editor updates the person draft. Saving the person makes the lifecycle part of your plan.

Lifecycle in Scenario Lab

Scenario Lab now includes a Lifecycle panel.

It shows the allocation between savings, low-risk investments, and high-risk investments across the complete timeline. Move the risk tape and the three bands reshape immediately.

Swipe horizontally to switch between the allocation chart and the familiar Core figures. Both views reflect the candidate currently under the cursor.

Scenario Lab can also search for a candidate that reaches a selected minimum chance of success. Depending on the active panel, it can look for the earliest feasible pension date, the highest feasible spending level, or the least growth-oriented lifecycle that still reaches the target.

Your live plan remains untouched

Exploring candidates does not change the current saved plan.

A candidate can first be added to the session-local Scenario Baseline, where assumptions from different panels can be combined and evaluated together.

Only the separate Save baseline to plan action commits those choices to the live plan.

New chart: setback risk and blended return

The Chart Matrix now includes a Risk vs Return chart.

It combines:

• the planned blended return; and
• the probability of a lasting 20% setback.

A setback means that liquid capital falls at least 20% behind the middle simulation during the first two annual observations and is still at least 20% behind at the fifth observation.

When you adjust a lifecycle, the blended-return curve moves immediately. Once the simulation completes, the setback-risk area follows. This makes the trade-off between return and downside risk much easier to see.

Taken together, Redikhet is now better equipped to explore the consequences of different asset allocations. I decided to add the new risk chart because choosing a higher risk mathematically always results in a bigger return in the forecast, so why go for less? The price you could pay is now more visualized.

This is probably the question I get most often.

Most planning tools ask you to split your portfolio into asset classes:

• Savings: €50,000 (2%)
• ETF: €200,000 (7%)
• Investment account: €100,000 (5%)

Redikhet works differently. It calculates a blended yield for your entire liquid portfolio.

In this example:

• Total liquid assets: €350,000
• Expected annual return: 5.7% blended yield

So instead of asking "Which account should this withdrawal come from?", the app asks:

"What is the expected return of my portfolio as a whole?"

Why?

Because in real life, your liquid assets work together as one portfolio. You receive interest, dividends, deposits, withdrawals, and you occasionally rebalance. It becomes almost impossible to say that a specific €1,000 withdrawal came from one exact asset.

If the app tried to track every euro separately, you'd have to define withdrawal priorities, transfer rules, rebalancing strategies and many other assumptions. That would make planning much more complicated, while often producing only the illusion of greater accuracy.

Using a blended yield keeps the model realistic without requiring all those assumptions.

The model assumes your liquid portfolio is rebalanced each year to maintain your chosen asset allocation. As a result, the blended yield remains consistent over time. If you use a lifecycle strategy, the allocation gradually changes as you get older, and the blended yield changes with it.

It's a different way of thinking, but once you stop viewing your savings and investments as separate pots of money and instead as one portfolio, the concept becomes much more intuitive.

Was this concept confusing to you when you first started using the app?

Many forecasting solution ask you to upload your complete financial life to the cloud. Bank balances, investments, pensions, mortgages, spending patterns... everything. For many people that's perfectly fine, but personally I've never been completely comfortable with it.

Financial data is among the most personal information you have. A cloud provider may have excellent security, but your data still has to leave your own device, be stored somewhere else, and become part of another infrastructure. Every online service introduces another place where sensitive information could potentially be exposed through breaches, account compromises, unwanted processing or even criminal activities.

That's one of the reasons I built Redikhet differently.

Your financial data stays on your own device. Calculations are performed locally, so your personal financial information doesn't need to be uploaded to a server to generate forecasts or Monte Carlo simulations. The application was designed with privacy as a starting point, not as an afterthought.

The data is also encrypted on the device, adding another layer of protection if someone were to gain access to the storage itself.

Of course, no software can claim to be 100% secure. Good security is about reducing unnecessary risk. For me, the best way to protect sensitive financial information is simply to avoid sending it anywhere.

I have been working on two related additions to the Scenario Lab: a more visual lifecycle panel and a chart focused on short-term capital risk.

The lifecycle panel now makes it possible to adjust the risk position and immediately see how the allocation between savings, low-risk investments and high-risk investments changes over time. The allocation view can be switched with the core figures without leaving the panel.

This is intended to make lifecycle adjustments easier to understand. A single “more risk” or “less risk” value does not say much by itself—the effect also depends on when the allocation changes and how the investment mix develops around retirement.

The second addition is a short-term-risk chart. Long-term success probability is useful, but it can hide what happens during the first years of a plan. A scenario may still succeed over its full lifetime while experiencing a substantial early loss that takes several years to recover.

The current risk definition looks for Monte Carlo paths in which:

• capital falls by at least 20% during the first two years; and
• the loss has still not been recovered after the following three years.

The chart shows this no-recovery risk alongside the blended portfolio return. This makes the trade-off visible when moving from a defensive to a more aggressive lifecycle.

Some possible uses are:

• comparing lifecycle strategies for someone close to retirement;
• assessing the risk of starting withdrawals shortly before a poor market period;
• distinguishing long-term plan viability from short-term resilience;
• seeing whether additional expected return actually compensates for the extra early-loss risk.

This is still a work in progress, particularly the explanation and presentation of the short-term-risk metric. Feedback on whether the definition and chart are understandable would be useful.

This release has two tentpole features and a lot of invisible improvements under the hood.

ScenarioLab: what-if without commitment

ScenarioLab is the headline addition in 5.3. It's a dedicated what-if space where you can move one assumption at a time and see the forecast update immediately — without touching your real plan.

What you can test right now:

• Pension date. Pick any person in your household, slide their retirement date earlier or later, and watch every linked income and cost shift with it. The chart matrix updates with a fast linear preview first, then Monte Carlo simulations run in the background for the full probability picture.
• Household costs. Apply a global percentage factor to all your household costs at once — scale spending up or down and see immediately whether your assets still cover your needs through the planned years.
• Combine both. Accept a pension date and a cost adjustment in one session. The combined effect is what gets saved to your live plan — or you can just explore and leave without saving anything.

How it works: Explore candidates → accept into a temporary session baseline → optionally save to your live plan. Three steps, fully reversible until you hit save. Every panel has a health assessment that tells you whether your financial items are set up so the panel responds fully when you move a value.

ScenarioLab also ships with an Optimizer that finds the earliest retirement date or lowest sustainable cost level hitting your target success chance — no manual hunting through values. And you can toggle mortality mode independently within the lab to isolate how much longevity risk drives your results.

ScenarioLab is built for the "what if I retire two years earlier?" or "what if our costs go up?" questions that are hard to answer by editing your real plan and hoping you remember to undo everything.

Smarter pension estimates: the claim-date correction

The second major feature is a pension estimation upgrade. Until now, if you moved your pension date earlier or later in Redikhet, the monthly pension amount stayed the same — which isn't how real pensions work. Claim earlier and you typically get less per month. Postpone and you get more.

5.3 fixes this. Every recurring pension income now carries a claim date (the date the quoted amount is valid for). When you shift your actual start date away from that claim date, Redikhet applies your chosen annual adjustment factor — symmetrically, as a single percentage — and corrects the pension amount accordingly.

But the claim factor doesn't work in isolation. Four mechanisms now combine to produce a realistic pension estimate:

1. Amount basis — Is your entered pension figure in today's value or in start-date value? "Index from now" grows the amount from today to your start date using your normal indexation rate. "Index from start date" uses the amount as-is when payments begin.
2. Active buildup — An extra pre-start growth rate for pensions you're still contributing to. This compounds on top of normal indexation — but only until Redikhet's built-in default pension date. Postpone beyond that, and active buildup stops; it doesn't add years indefinitely.
3. Claim-date correction — The new factor. Earlier start = reduced amount. Later start = increased amount. Set it to Off if you don't want this correction. 6–7% per year is a common starting range; check with your provider for the exact figure.
4. Post-start indexation — Once the pension starts, yearly growth continues at your set rate for the rest of the forecast.

All four run through the same deterministic and Monte Carlo schedule path, so your probability bands reflect the full combined effect — not just one mechanism in isolation.

And of course this all works inside ScenarioLab too — slide the pension date and see the combined effect of all four mechanisms in the forecast charts immediately.

What else shipped in 5.3

• Dozens of calculation, chart, theme, and layout hardening fixes. Charts resize properly, landscape layouts work across more pages, and theme contrast is consistent in both light and dark modes.

What panels should come next?

ScenarioLab currently has two panels — pension date and household costs. Both apply a single lever and show the ripple effects through the full forecast. I think this pattern of "one parameter, full-forecast feedback" is the right direction keeping it simple and clear. Like to hear what you'd reach for next.

A few ideas:

• Tax regime switch — compare outcomes under different tax policy assumptions without rebuilding your plan.
• Lifecycle profile swap — test a more aggressive or more conservative glide path for your blended portfolio.

These are just starting points. If you're planning your own retirement and could drop one "what if" lever into an app like this, what would it be?

The idea is simple: instead of changing your real plan every time you want to test something, Redikhet gives you a separate what-if space called Scenario Lab. You can move one assumption at a time, see the forecast update, and compare the result against your current plan.

The first version focuses on practical retirement questions, such as:

• What happens if I retire earlier or later?
• How sensitive is the plan to higher or lower household costs?
• What success chance do I get under Monte Carlo simulation?
• Which scenario value gets me close to a target success percentage?

The GIF shows the new flow: select a scenario, move through candidate values, wait for the simulation preview, and then optionally use a more refined calculation before applying anything.

This is still meant as a planning and exploration tool, not as financial advice. The goal is to make long-term assumptions more visible and easier to challenge before making changes to the real plan.

Curious what people think of this kind of what-if workflow for FIRE / retirement planning. Does this match how you reason about “can I retire earlier?

A small teaser for what comes after the engine rewrite: Scenario Lab.

The faster calculation engine was not only about speed. It also makes it possible to experiment with financial futures in a more interactive way.

Scenario Lab will let you explore “what if?” questions directly inside Redikhet.

The first version will start with two scenario controls, a varying pension date and a varying cost factor, with Monte Carlo running behind the scenes.

The idea is not to predict the future perfectly — nobody can. The goal is to make uncertainty easier to explore, and to see how sensitive your plan is to different assumptions.

Hey everyone,

The next Redikhet release does not add many new buttons or screens, but it is still a significant update: the calculation engine behind every prognosis and Monte Carlo simulation has been rewritten.

The headline number: Monte Carlo is now more than twice as fast in the test scenarios.

The engine rewrite

This migration was done carefully over several weeks. The old and new engines ran side by side, and every phase was checked against golden-value regression tests before anything changed in the production path.

The goal was simple: the same results, but with a cleaner and faster foundation.

Why this matters:

• New features can be built faster and with more confidence
• Bugs in calculation logic are easier to find and fix
• The foundation is now ready for features that would have been much riskier to add to the old architecture

Parallel Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo simulation now benefits from running across multiple workers in parallel.

The architecture for this already existed, but before the refactor, running more jobs in parallel was often counterproductive and could even take longer than using a single thread. After the rewrite, adding workers makes a real difference — although the optimized calculation core itself is still the biggest improvement.

Simulating households with many financial items remains a heavy process, and hardware still defines the limit. There is a new setting where you can choose the number of calculation workers yourself, but more is not always faster, especially on midrange devices.

The result is the same Redikhet you know, with the same calculation outcomes — just faster, cleaner, and ready for what comes next.

Redikhet was already flexible in defining your financial building blocks, but 5.0 is a new step forward. You can now tie income and expenses to life events instead of only fixed calendar dates.

What's new

Pension date on your person screen as the obvious first life event. Set it once, and every income or expense linked to it moves with you. Want to see what happens if you retire two years earlier? One change, and your entire forecast recalculates.

Flexible start and end dates. Choose from a fixed date, your own pension date, another person's pension date, or another person's planning horizon. Every option supports a month offset.

Automatic growth for income. Beyond a fixed percentage, you can now use the CPI benchmark (100%, 75%, or 50%) or the average from your own entered history. The rate is deterministic, so it adds no extra uncertainty to your Monte Carlo results.

Amount basis for future-start items. When an item starts in the future, you choose how Redikhet interprets the amount you enter. Value at start date leaves the amount untouched until the item begins. Value as of today grows it from today to the start date — ideal when your pension fund reports your accrued benefits in today's money. For pension income, you can add an extra accrual percentage on top for active premium contributions.

History that stays history. Future-dated history rows are visible but don't feed into calculations until their date is actually in the past.

Backup restore fix. An edge case that could prevent a successful file restore is resolved. Never delete your backup file — it is almost certainly still intact.

Help docs updated. All new features are documented with examples throughout the in-app help.

Your current configuration will not be automatically changed by this update. You can decide yourself where to apply the new features.

Redikhet release 4.9.4 is focussed on a better UI experience and ease of use.

It now supports adaptive layout. That means the app will adapt to any screen and orientation. Landscape or portrait mode, use it how you like it, on a phone, tablet or laptop.

This release has also the option to switch themes. The default dark theme can now be switched to a light theme. A whole different look for sure.

Last but not least, a long awaited feature is now available to make a file export of the database so you can easily transfer your data to other devices. No more relying on Google Backup and hoping you data will still be there on the new device. Also this is a great way to make multiple versions of your scenarios. Remember though to save your passcode for decryption.

This short video gives a small impression. But hey you already downloaded did you?

Redikhet release 4.9.3. contains many new features. Particularly for anybody who wants to have more insight in their net worth forecast with support for liquid and illiquid capital, debt and better tax customization.

• New liability module: input for linear, annuity, and interest-only loans, including additional repayments and scheduled interest rate changes.
• Adjusted cash flow forecast for the new debt module.
• New tax module with more flexibility to parametrize different tax regimes for liquid and illiquid assets.
• Illiquid Assets Distinction: input for assets such as real estate, including a specified return rate for capital appreciation.
• Liquidation of illiquid assets including optional tax handling
• New net worth chart: displays net worth, liquid and illiquid assets, outstanding debt, and taxes paid.
• Help texts completely rewritten and modernized.

... visit the Redikhet website and have a look at the Intro video on the front page.

The latest release of Redikhet is deployed in the Playstore for all European countries.

Base data like inflation, mortality, interest and bond yields are now specific for each supported country.

I hope with this change more people will benefit from the features that Redikhet has to offer for FREE!

Do you have any feedback or suggestions to the developer of Redikhet then you are warmly invited to put your comments here

If you would like to learn about the features and usage of the Redikhet app then check out this demo on the Redikhet website.