ClearGauge WEALTH

An example of independent judgement

ClearGauge Wealth Map™

See how a family’s resources fit together, what deserves attention and what a considered review would test.

See what the review includes

The fictional Smith family · 8 September 2026

Their next chapter.

Alex, 59 · Jamie, 57 — spouses
Sam, 26 — adult child and possible trust beneficiary

Their aimStop full-time work together in about three years, keep their home and understand how each resource could support them. Retirement affordability remains unassessed.

01 Investment overlap02 Cash access03 Business dependencyAssumed rand values · m = million

Life today

R600,000Current household cash
Alex’s account
R200,000
Jamie’s account
R400,000

Assumed accessible during life. Neither account name establishes access after a death.

02

Access matters as much as amount.

What could the surviving spouse and estate use, when, and for which needs? The marital property rules, account permissions and estate obligations are unconfirmed.

A reason to leave the reserve aloneR65,000/month × six months = R390,000. The R600,000 reserve exceeds this example’s chosen target. Access and commitments still need checking.

Retirement choices

R13.6mRetirement accounts, direct shares and funds

Retirement member accounts R8.8m

Alex · member
R5.6m
Jamie · member
R3.2m

Assumed defined-contribution account values. Fund options, access and tax need confirmation.

Alex · direct shares
R3.0mA R1.4m
B R1.0m
C R600,000Three fictional companies
Jamie · fund interests
R1.8mLocal: R720,000
USD fund: R1.08mUSD60,000 × illustrative R18/USD = R1.08m

Direct shares: 22.1% of this R13.6m pool. The strip shows their share of the stated value, not total issuer exposure.

01

Do the funds hold the same companies?

Fund overlap is unknown. A review would establish combined exposure and cash needs before considering whether a change is justified.

Home & private interests

The home they plan to keep

R5.4m

Alex and Jamie: 50% title each. Whole home counted once.

Less home loan− R1.2m

R4.2m equity; supports a home, not assumed spending cash.

03 Jamie’s business interest

R1.0m

25% of Smith Trading’s assumed R4.0m equity. Only Jamie’s interest is included; sale value and timing are untested.

The business also pays Jamie R30,000/month — one-third of current household take-home income.

A separate loan claim

Trust owesAlex
R800,000

Assumed face value; recoverability and repayment timing are untested. Alex is the creditor.

Monthly income · flows, not extra wealth

Alex’s employment
R60,000/month

Jamie’s work in Smith Trading 03
R30,000/month

R90,000/month take-home income
supports R65,000/month spending and commitments

Spending includes current loan repayments and existing advice costs. The difference is not a savings forecast.

R21.4mIncluded gross position−R1.2mHome loan=R20.2mNet household position

Before tax and sale costs. This is neither spendable cash nor a calculated deceased estate. Trust property, possible benefits, whole-company equity and life cover are not added to this total.

Brackets group balances; the income arrow connects sources to spending. The example date is not a professional valuation date. Only the labelled strip represents proportion. Currency does not establish a fund’s location, exposure or tax treatment. The home loan is counted once without inferring either spouse’s legal share of the debt.

Illustrative synthesis

The ClearGauge view.

The size of this household’s position does not settle how it could fund retirement or support a survivor. The useful next work is to establish access, trace investment overlap and understand the business’s dual role. Those findings would guide any recommendation; they do not yet justify selling investments, adding cover or restructuring the family’s affairs.

From the connection to the decision.

The numbered inputs in the map lead to these illustrative review questions.

01

Is the combined investment exposure appropriate?

Why investigateThe direct shares are a visible concentration within the stated pool; funds could add to it. Retaining the holdings may still be reasonable. The percentage alone is not a sell signal.

Evidence before a decisionUnderlying fund holdings, cost bases and future cash needs. Compare retaining holdings with alternatives, including tax, transaction costs and the consequences of realising assets.

02

What could Jamie and the estate access if Alex died first?

Why investigateThe current cash and nominated life benefit do not establish a survivor’s or estate’s available funds. There is no calculated cash gap here and no basis yet for proposing additional cover.

Evidence before a decisionMarital property rules, bank permissions, wills, policy and retirement-benefit terms, estate obligations and timing. Establish the position with the relevant institutions and legal or fiduciary specialists.

03

How resilient is the business dependency?

Why investigateThe same business supports part of Jamie’s capital and one-third of household income. A review should understand both before relying on a sale or proposing a change in ownership.

Evidence before a decisionShareholder terms, an independent valuation, buyer and timing constraints, and income resilience. Test options against the retirement aim; no combined-loss scenario has been modelled.

What could change the picture?

If work ended earlier, markets fell when money was needed, or either spouse died, which resources could meet the resulting needs, at what cost and on what timetable? These are unmodelled questions. Future spending, fund options and relevant tax assumptions must be established before assessing retirement affordability.

What may be left alone?

A genuine second opinion may conclude that no change is required.

Missing evidence is a reason to investigate, not proof that an arrangement is wrong.

A considered order for the next conversation.

  1. NowConfirm cash access, family documents and the resources needed by either spouse.
  2. NextTrace investment overlap and test the intended retirement against agreed assumptions.
  3. LaterExamine business options once valuation, rights and income dependencies are understood.
  4. Leave aloneNo reserve increase is proposed on the six-month comparison alone; confirm access and commitments.

The advice behind the map.

A considered process helps turn the picture into decisions.

  1. 1. Agree the scope.Confirm the questions, responsibilities, limits and fee before work begins.
  2. 2. Understand your circumstances.Bring your goals, family context and relevant financial information together.
  3. 3. Analyse the connections.Examine ownership, dependencies and gaps against what your wealth needs to do.
  4. 4. Explain recommendations and choices.Set out the reasoning, alternatives and trade-offs, including reasons to retain existing arrangements.
  5. 5. Implement, if agreed.Agree who will do what, when and with which specialists.
  6. 6. Review, if agreed.Set the scope and responsibilities for revisiting the position as circumstances change.

Implementation and ongoing review are agreed separately. A Financial Clarity Review does not oblige you to appoint ClearGauge for either.

Advice before action.

Understand the connections in your own financial life.

A Financial Clarity Review offers an independent written view within an agreed scope. It can be used while retaining your existing adviser.

This map is a summary illustration, not a complete financial plan or advice record. Tax, legal and accounting questions require the relevant specialist. The scope and fee of a real review are agreed before work begins.