# Patent

## Title
Financial evaluation process

## Abstract

Quantitatively improving a financial evaluation is disclosed. A plurality of factor scores based on a plurality of factors is determined. A total score is calculated based on the plurality of factor scores. A plurality of actions is identified that will influence at least a portion of the plurality of factor scores. The actions are ranked based on their total impact on the plurality of factor scores. A most important action of the plurality of actions to improve the total score is determined.

## Background
CROSS-REFERENCE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/470,251 entitled WEALTH MEASUREMENT PROCESS filed Mar. 31, 2011 which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
It is difficult for an individual to accurately assess his or her financial stability, position and health. Not only is it difficult for an individual to determine the complex set of factors that goes into assessing an individual's finances, it is even more difficult to determine how to assess each factor and combine each factor to determine an overall assessment. Even if an individual was able to assess one's financial health, the individual faces the challenge of determining how to improve and/or maintain one's financial health. Traditionally financial planners and advisors have fulfilled these needs. However, not all individuals have the time or resources to access a financial planner. Additionally, there does not exist a single authoritative standard on the methods financial planners use to assess a client's finances, and the client is unable to determine whether a reliable method is being used to assess the client. Therefore, there exists a need for a better way to assess the financial stability, position and health of an individual.



BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the following detailed description and the accompanying drawings.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system for determining a financial evaluation score.
FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a financial evaluation score.
FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a factor score.
FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a factor score.
FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a financial evaluation score.
FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining the most important action(s) that will impact a financial evaluation score.



DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’ refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions.
A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention is provided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate the principles of the invention. The invention is described in connection with such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to any embodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims and the invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications and equivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. These details are provided for the purpose of example and the invention may be practiced according to the claims without some or all of these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the invention has not been described in detail so that the invention is not unnecessarily obscured.
A financial evaluation process is disclosed. In some embodiments, a financial evaluation score is determined based on a plurality of factor scores. A factor score is determined for one or more factors, such as factors in financial goal setting, a financial evaluation, investments, liabilities, protection planning, retirement planning, liquidity/cash flow, estate planning, tax, and financial ratios, among others. For example, an individual answers questions and/or provides financial information regarding a plurality of factors and the responses/information provided by the individual are used to generate a financial evaluation score.
Using the financial evaluation score, individuals may be able to reliably assess the financial “health” of the individual. For example, the relative value of the financial evaluation score will help an individual answer questions such as: “Am I on track to meet my financial goals (retirement, income, etc.)?”; “How secure is my financial future?”; “Am I doing the right things financially?”; and “What is my progress towards establishing a financial plan?”
In some embodiments, the financial evaluation score is based on the individual goals. For example, the financial evaluation score is correlated with how close the individual is to achieving the individual's identified financial goal(s). For example, a high financial evaluation score is associated with an individual that is close to achieving the individual's financial goal(s) and future financial security, whereas a low financial evaluation score is associated with an individual that is not very close to achieving the individual's financial goals and future financial security. In some embodiments, the score is comparable against other individuals with similar goal(s), demographics, and/or financial position to determine the financial “progress” of the individual as compared to other similar individuals. In some embodiments, the financial evaluation score includes components that at least in part measure the subject's progress towards establishing a financial plan. In some embodiments, the financial evaluation score at least in part measures the knowledge and/or received education of a subject with respect to information and/or considerations associated with financial planning.
In some embodiments, a user is able to improve and/or maintain the user's financial “health” by identifying ways to improve and/or maintain the user's financial evaluation score. For example, by analyzing potential changes to the financial evaluation score, a user is able to assess the impact of financial actions/inactions on the ability of the individual to achieve the user's financial goal(s). In some embodiments, a plurality of actions that will influence the financial evaluation score is determined and ranked based on their total impact on the financial evaluation score. For example, actions (e.g., increase liquidity, purchase insurance, investment decisions, etc.) to improve an individual's financial evaluation score are suggested to a user. The actions are provided to the user in an order based on the potential impact of the action on the individual's financial evaluation score. In another example, a user may specify a desired financial action/result (e.g., purchase a new car) and its impact on the user's financial evaluation score is provided to the user along with alternative actions (e.g., no action, buy used car, lease car, etc.) and their impact on the user's financial evaluation score are provided. In some embodiments, the action option(s) to be considered for a user and/or the action(s) recommended to the user are determined based in part on information provided by a user in order to determine the user's financial evaluation score. For example, a subset of a list of possible actions is determined to be possibly applicable to the user based on the user provided information, and each action of the subset is analyzed to determine its impact on the user's financial evaluation score.
In some embodiments, a list of recommended investment options are provided to a user based at least in part on the user's financial evaluation score and/or information provided by the user. For example, at least a portion of the investment options available on the user's retirement account are ordered by its potential impact on the user's financial evaluation score. Using this potential impact and a provided risk profile of the user, one or more of the investment options are recommended to the user.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system for determining a financial evaluation score. Server 102 is connected to client 106 via network 104. In some embodiments, client 106 accesses data and/or services provided by server 102 and provides information to server 102 via network 104. For example a user utilizes client 106 to access an internet website at least in part provided by server 102. The internet website enables the user to provide information required to determine a financial evaluation score for the user. The website may also provide to client 106 tools, referrals and information for a user of client 106 to improve and/or maintain the financial evaluation score. Any number of servers and clients may be connected to network 104. Client 106 may access a plurality of servers connected to network 104 to provide and/or obtain information related to a financial evaluation score. Any number of clients may access one or more servers, such as server 102, via network 104, to determine and/or interact with a financial evaluation score. In various embodiments, server 102 is connected to a storage, such as a database, that stores information associated with financial record(s) (e.g., user provided information, financial evaluation score(s), educational information, actions to improve a financial evaluation score, financial metrics, etc.) of one or more users. In some embodiments, server 102 obtains information about a user from another server connected to network 104 to determine a financial score. For example, server 102 accesses a bank server to automatically obtain financial information associated with a user. In some embodiments, client 106 is associated with a financial advisor, and the financial advisor provides financial information associated with an individual client of the financial advisor to server 102 via client 106. Network 104 may include one or more of the following: a direct or indirect physical communication connection, mobile communication network, Internet, intranet, Local Area Network, Wide Area Network, Storage Area Network, and any other forms of connecting two or more systems or storage devices together.
FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a financial evaluation score. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 2 is at least in part performed by server 102 of FIG. 1. At 204, factor scores are determined based on factors. In some embodiments, factor scores are determined for each component of information about a subject used to determine a financial evaluation score. In some embodiments, determining the factor scores at 204 includes determining a score for each set of information used to evaluate a financial position of an individual. For example, a score is determined for each and/or group of questions, answers, financial information, financial metric, and/or financial ratio received or determined for the subject to be scored. In some embodiments, a factor score is determined at least in part by adding a plurality of sub scores. In some embodiments, a factor score is determined at least in part by scaling an intermediate score by a discounting/weighing factor value. In some embodiments, a factor score is a negative value (e.g., a factor score based on expense to income ratio). In some embodiments, a factor score indicates knowledge and/or consideration of information and/or strategy associated with a factor. For example, a user's financial evaluation score can be improved by learning about financial planning factors.
At 206, a total score is determined based on the factor scores determined at 204. In some embodiments, determining the total score includes adding, averaging, scaling, multiplying, dividing, discounting, subtracting, weighing, and/or otherwise statistically processing at least a portion of the factor scores to determine the total score. For example, the total score is a sum of all of the factor scores. In various embodiments, the total score determined in 206 is the financial evaluation score discussed throughout the specification and/or can be used as a metric of a financial planning of an individual.
In some embodiments, the factor score and/or the total score is decayed (e.g., reduced by a predetermined value or percentage after each predetermined time period) based on a time value (e.g., a factor score is reduced over time). For example, although a subject may obtain the maximum factor score for a factor associated with having knowledge of the subject's current credit score, this factor score will be reduced by a predetermined value every 3 months. Thus in order to maintain the maximum factor score for this factor, the subject needs to revisit the subject's credit history/score every 3 months. In some embodiments, a factor score associated with whether a subject has knowledge on a particular topic is decayed based on a time since knowledge was acquired to signify that the knowledge must be refreshed periodically.
At 208, an impact of an action on the total score is determined. In some embodiments, determining the impact at 208 includes determining a new total score due to an action or considered action of a subject. For example, a difference in the total score of a subject if the subject obtains a recommend life insurance is determined at 208 and provided to a user. In some embodiments, the action of 208 is determined from a set of possible actions that an individual could perform to possibly improve and/or maintain the subject's total score. For example, for each action in a group of possible actions to improve the subject's total score, the score impact of the action on the total score is determined. In some embodiments, the action is associated with a desired action indicated by an individual. For example, an individual desires to purchase a home and the impact of purchasing the home on the individual's total score is determined at 208. In some embodiments, the action of 208 is an action that is an alternative action (e.g., purchase a house of less value, rent instead of purchasing a home, etc.) to a desired action of an individual scored at 206 in order to provide possible alternative actions that may be more beneficial to a financial position of the individual.
FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a factor score. In some embodiments, at least a portion of the process of FIG. 3 is included in 204 of FIG. 2. For example, at least a portion of the process of FIG. 3 is used to determine one or more factor scores for the associated factor(s) in 204 of FIG. 2. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 3 is at least in part performed by server 102 of FIG. 1. At 302, a response to a provided factor question is received. In some embodiments, the factor question includes a request for information of a subject desiring to obtain a financial evaluation score. For example, an individual selects a response on a website for a provided question regarding whether the individual has established a retirement savings account.
At 304, information, tool(s), guidance and/or referral(s), if applicable, are provided based on the response and the response is updated, if appropriate. In some embodiments, the information, tool(s), guidance and/or referral(s) are provided to a subject being scored if the response received at 302 indicates an opportunity for the individual to improve the individual's factor score and/or total score of FIG. 2 using the information/tool/guidance/referral. In one example, if the response indicates that the individual has not sufficiently defined a financial goal, a guidance on considerations that go into establishing a goal is provided to enable the individual to establish a financial goal. In another example, if the response indicates that an individual is not aware of financial information of the individual, a referral to a source where the information can be obtained (e.g., website link) or a person/service who can help obtain the information is provided to assist the individual in obtaining the information. In another example, if the response indicates that the individual is not aware of financial options that are available to the individual (e.g., investment strategies, types of available insurance), educational materials (e.g., reading material, video, and audio) are provided to educate the individual. In another example, if the response indicates that the individual cannot figure out a desired retirement age, a tool is provided to help the individual calculate the optimal retirement age.
At 306, a factor score is computed based on the response. In some embodiments, computing the factor score includes using a predetermined score value associated with the response. In some embodiments, computing the factor score includes using a value associated with the response in a formula to determine the factor score. At 308, the factor score is adjusted and/or scaled, if applicable. In some embodiments, the factor score is scaled using a scaling multiplier (e.g., a discount/weighing factor value) determined based on financial information and/or financial actions of the subject being scored. For example an intermediate score based on whether a subject has knowledge of a particular topic is discounted by a value associated with a financial status and/or action of the subject to signify that certain points for knowledge should only be credited if associated actions/values can be demonstrated. In some embodiments, the factor score in 308 is one of a plurality of factor scores adjusted using an adjustment value. For example, the factor score is added to one or more other factor scores to determine a group score before adjusting the group score using an adjustment value.
FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a factor score. In some embodiments, at least a portion of the process of FIG. 4 is included in 204 of FIG. 2. For example, at least a portion of the process of FIG. 4 is used to determine one or more factor scores for the associated factor(s) in 204 of FIG. 2. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 4 is at least in part performed by server 102 of FIG. 1. At 402, information associated with a goal is received. In some embodiments, receiving the information associated with a goal includes receiving numerical value(s) associated with a financial goal, financial(s), and a desired time to achieve the goal. At 404, a simulation is performed using the received information. For example, a Monte Carlo simulation is performed at 404. In some embodiments, the simulation simulates future likelihood that the financial goal(s) will be met in a desired time frame. At 406, a percentage of times the simulation result achieved an indicated goal in a specified portion of the simulations is determined from the simulation. For example, the maximum percentage of times the financial goal(s) of a subject was met in 80% of the simulations is determined. At 408, a factor score based on the determined percentage is determined. For example, the factor score in 408 is determined at least in part by multiplying an associated maximum factor score by the determined percentage.
FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining a financial evaluation score. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 5 is included in 206 of FIG. 2. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 5 is at least in part performed by server 102 of FIG. 1. At 502, a category score for a group of factors associated with the group is determined. For example, factor scores of group of factors are added together to determine the category score. Examples of categories includes goal setting factors, investments factors, debt optimization factors, protection planning factors, retirement factors, cash flow factors, estate planning factors, and tax factors. Detailed examples of factors included in these groups are provided later in the specification. At 504, the group score is adjusted, if applicable. In some embodiments, group score is adjusted using an adjustment value (e.g., a weighing multiplier, value to be subtracted, etc.) determined based on financial information of the subject to be scored. At 506, one or more category scores are summed together along with any number of other factor scores, if applicable, to determine a total score. In some embodiments, the total score is the total score of FIG. 2.
FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating an embodiment of a process for determining the most important action(s) that will impact a financial evaluation score. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 5 is included in 208 of FIG. 2. In some embodiments, 208 of FIG. 2 is included in 604 of FIG. 6. In some embodiments, the process of FIG. 6 is at least in part performed by server 102 of FIG. 1. At 602, actions that will influence the factor scores are identified. In some embodiments, factor scores are factor scores discussed along with FIG. 2. In some embodiments, identifying the actions includes identifying actions based on information provided by a subject. For example, information provided by a subject in order to determine a financial evaluation score is used to determine a set of actions that is more likely than other actions to improve the subject's financial evaluation score if implemented. In some embodiments, identifying the actions in 602 includes analyzing a group of potential actions to determine one or more of those potential actions that can improve the individual's financial evaluation score. In some embodiments, the actions of 602 are associated with a desired financial action/transaction indicated by the individual. At 604, the identified actions are ranked based on their total impact on the factor scores. For example, for each action, one or more factor scores that will be affected by achieving the action are identified and the value of the impact on those factor scores for the single action are added together to determine the total impact of the action. The actions are then ordered in an order associated with their total impact.
At 606, the most important action to impact the total score is determined. In some embodiments, determining the most important action includes determining an action that will have the largest potential to improve an individual's financial evaluation total score. In some embodiments, determining the most important action includes determining an action that will have the largest potential to improve an individual's financial evaluation total score, taking into account the associated difficulty of achieving the action. For example, the actions are sorted into groups of difficulty levels of achieving the action and the actions within each group are ranked according to their impact on the financial evaluation score.
In various embodiments, the most important action and/or the ranking of the actions are indicated to a user. For example, a user is provided a list of at least a portion of the identified actions of 602 ordered in the rank determined in 604. The most important action determined at 606 may be indicated to the user as the suggested next action item to accomplish. In some embodiments, for at least a portion of the actions indicated to the user, one or more assistance/tools/information/referrals useful in performing the action are provided along with the indicated actions.
Although scores associated with individuals have been discussed above, the processes and systems discussed in the specification can be used to determine a financial evaluation score for a couple, a family, or any group of individuals. For example, a score can be determined for each individual in the group and combined (e.g., averaged, scaled and added) and/or information associated with a plurality of individuals can be used in determining the sub score components.
An example of how to determine a financial evaluation score (i.e., total score) and its components (e.g., factor scores) is described below, along with a detailed example of how a financial evaluation score was determined for a hypothetical individual. These examples are merely illustrative. Any number of different score values, factors, factor scores, information and grouping may be used. In this example, the financial evaluation score includes two main groupings of factors, “Building the Nest” factors (financial planning and fundamental components, comprising 500 of the 1000 total points of the financial evaluation score) and the “Funding the Nest” factors (measurements of readiness of assets to achieve financial goal(s), comprising the rest of the 500 points).
The “Building the Nest” factors (500 points total) are grouped into the following categories of components: “Goal Setting” (50 points maximum), “Investments” (70 points maximum), “Debt Optimization” (50 points maximum), “Protection Planning” (70 points maximum), “Retirement Planning” (70 points maximum), “Cash Flow” (80 points maximum), “Estate Planning” (70 points maximum) and “Tax” (40 points maximum).
The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Goal Setting” category are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined







Identify financial goals (e.g.,
 5*
Full score for identifying desired financial


college, retirement, second home,

goal(s), zero score otherwise


wedding, purchase car, etc.)




List of Assets and Liabilities
10*
Full score for identifying current assets and




liabilities, zero score otherwise


Cost of goal(s)
 5*
Full score for identifying cost(s) associated




with desired financial goal(s), zero score




otherwise


Time period to achieve goal(s)
 5*
Full score for identifying desired time




period to achieve desired financial goal(s),




zero score otherwise


Complete risk tolerance survey
15*
Full score for completing the survey, zero


(e.g., risk tolerance survey similar

score otherwise


to ones offered by FinaMetrica Pty




Limited to identify desired risk




tolerance and investment




tolerance)




Appropriate investment/saving
 5*
Full score for having considered


vehicles considered and

appropriate investment/savings vehicles,


established? (e.g., checking

zero score otherwise


account, money market account,




certificates of deposit, mutual




funds, savings account, stocks,




bonds, annuities, IRA, 401(k) or




other retirement plan, etc.)




Identification of sources for
 5*
Full score for researching and considering


funding (e.g., cash, retirement,

all indicated sources for funding financial


savings, inheritance, etc.) financial

goal(s), zero score otherwise


goal(s).





*subject to scaling multiplier






All of the factor scores in the category above are scaled by a liquidity scaling multiplier. If the total monthly expenses of at least three months can be covered with liquid assets (e.g., assets that can be converted to cash with little or no penalties within a few days), then the factor scores of the “Goal Setting” category above remain the same (i.e., multiplier of 1). However, if the total monthly expenses of only two months can be covered with liquid assets, then the factor scores of the “Goal Setting” category are reduced by 25% (i.e., multiplier of 0.75). If the total monthly expenses of only one month or less can be covered with liquid assets, then the factor scores of the “Goal Setting” category are reduced by 50%. For example, the factor scores above for the “Goal Setting” category are determined for a subject and these factor scores are added together to determine a group score. The group is reduced by 50% (i.e., multiplied by 0.5) if the individual's liquid assets can only cover one month of expenses.
The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Investments” category are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined







Making current contributions, net
10*
Full score for contributing to a financial


of withdrawals in the last 90 days,

vehicle in order to achieve financial


to meet financial goal(s)

goal(s), zero score otherwise


Diversification of strategy
10*
Full score if diversification of investment




styles and types have been considered, zero




score otherwise


Own non-correlated/alternatives as 
10*
Full score if at least two held investments


a portion of overall portfolio

do not have correlated returns, zero score




otherwise


Auto-balance
 5*
Full score if held investments are re-




balanced periodically to desired risk




profile, zero score otherwise


Auto save
 5*
Full score if an automatic investment plan




has been established, zero score otherwise


Liquidity needs consideration 
 5*
Full score if liquidity needs have been




considered with respect to investment




strategies, zero score otherwise


Time horizon consideration
 5*
Full score if time horizons have been




considered with respect to investment




strategies, zero score otherwise


Types of investments (e.g.,
 5*
Full score if different types of available


income, growth, real estate)

investments have been considered with


consideration

respect to investment strategies, zero score




otherwise


Diversification of investment
 5*
Full score if diversification of assets has


vehicles

been accomplished (e.g., through the use of




one or more vehicles such as mutual funds,




exchange traded funds, or separately




managed accounts), zero score otherwise


Tax consequences consideration
 5*
Full score if tax effects have been




considered with respect to investment




strategies, zero score otherwise


Dollar cost averaging
 5*
Full score if dollar cost averaging


consideration

investment strategy has been considered




with respect to investment strategies, zero




score otherwise.





*subject to scaling multiplier






All of the factors scores for the “Investment” category above are scaled by a risk allocation scaling multiplier. The factor scores in this category are reduced if current investments are more or less risky than a recommended risk investment profile. Specifically, the scores are multiplied by the scaling multiplier=1−((difference between the recommended risk allocation and the current risk allocation)/(recommended risk allocation)). For example, if an individual has a recommended risk allocation of 50% and currently 55% of the investments are at risk, a factor score in this category is multiplied by the risk allocation scaling multiplier, which equals 90%=1−((55%-50%)/50%).
The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Debt Optimization” category are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined

















Knowledge and identification of
5
Full score for knowledge of different types


mortgage structure/mortgage

of mortgages and the ability to identify the


accelerated payoff options

type of mortgage held, zero score otherwise


Knowledge of credit card usage
5
Full score for knowledge of credit card


optimization

mechanics and the ability to identify the




details of currently held credit card, zero




score otherwise


Knowledge of debt cost reduction 
10
Full score for knowledge of different types


strategies (e.g., strategies to lower

of debt cost reduction strategies, zero score


interest rates, etc.)

otherwise


Review of credit score
7
Full score for knowledge of credit score,




the reasons for the current score and how to




improve the credit score, zero score




otherwise.


Knowledge of lines of credit
5
Full score for knowledge of different types




of lines of credit and identification of any




lines of credit obtained, zero score




otherwise


Knowledge of total liabilities
8
Full score for knowledge of the total value




of current liabilities, zero score otherwise


Knowledge of options to improve
10
Full score for knowledge of options to


other types of debt (e.g., auto

improve other types of debt, zero score


loans, student loans and other

otherwise


secured and unsecured loans and




lines of credit)









The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Protection Planning” category are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined

















Life insurance needs met?
15
Factor Score = ((amount of current life




insurance coverage)/(coverage needed to




meet financial goal(s)) * maximum




possible score


Disability insurance needs met?
15
Factor Score = ((amount of current




disability insurance coverage)/(coverage




needed to meet financial goal(s)) *




maximum possible score


Long term care insurance needs 
8
Factor Score = ((amount of current long


met?

term care insurance coverage)/(coverage




needed to meet financial goal(s)) *




maximum possible score


Knowledge and optimization of
8
Full score for sufficient knowledge and


homeowners/renters insurance

optimization of current homeowners/




renters insurance plan, zero score otherwise


Knowledge and optimization of
8
Full score for sufficient knowledge and


auto/boat/rv etc. insurance

optimization of current vehicle insurance




plan, zero score otherwise


Knowledge and optimization of
10
Full score for sufficient knowledge and


health insurance

optimization of current health insurance




plan, zero score otherwise


Knowledge and optimization of
6
Full score for sufficient knowledge and


umbrella/excess coverage policy

optimization of current umbrella/excess




coverage policy, zero score otherwise









For the “Retirement Planning” category, two alternative sets of factors exist. One set of factors is for those who are not yet retired and another set of factors is for those that are currently retired. The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) for the “Retirement Planning” category for those who are not yet retired are summarized below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined

















Contributing the recommend
40
Factor score = ((percent of income being


percentage of income to

contributed to retirement account)/


retirement?

(recommend percentage of income to be




contributed to retirement account)) *




maximum possible score for this factor


Contributing to all possible types
10
Full score if contributing to all available


of retirement accounts?

types of retirement accounts, zero score




otherwise


Employer match maximization
8
Full score if taking advantage of maximum




retirement account contribution matching




offered by employer, zero score otherwise


Pension availability and elections 
7
Full score if sufficient knowledge about




any pension available through employer




and associated elections, zero score




otherwise


Social security
5
Full score if sufficient knowledge about




social security eligibility and associated




benefits, zero score otherwise









The other set of factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) for the “Retirement Planning” category for those who are currently retired are summarized below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined







Living within 
20
Full score if expenses are equal to or less


retirement 

than the amount being withdrawn from


income means

retirement accounts, zero score otherwise


Withdrawing 
20
Full score if the rate of amount being


sustainable 

withdrawn from retirement accounts will


amount

last the projected retirement period, zero


from retirement 

score otherwise


savings




Total return vs. 
10
Full score if the two different retirement


straight income

investment strategies were considered, zero




score otherwise


Inflation 
10
Full score if inflation was considered in


considerations

retirement planning, zero score otherwise


Life expectancy 
10
Full score if increased life expectancy was


considerations

considered in retirement planning, zero




score otherwise









The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Cash Flow” group are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined







Monthly income 
40
Full score if monthly income is equal to or


enough to live

exceeds current expenses, zero score


current life style

otherwise


Debt pay off plan
20
Full score if no debt or a plan to pay off




debt is in place, zero score otherwise


Auto payment
10
Full score if automatic payment plan of




expenses has been considered, zero score




otherwise


Systematic saving
10
Full score if a systematic saving plan has




been established, zero score otherwise









The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Estate Planning” group are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined

















When was the last 
5
Full score for knowledge of last time 


time the estate

when the estate plan was reviewed, zero 


plan was 

score otherwise


reviewed?




Estate plan 
30
Full score for having appropriate estate


documents in 

planning documents in place, zero score


place (e.g., 

otherwise


will/trust,




guardianship,




executors/trustees, 




durables power




of attorney, 




healthcare 




directive, etc.)




Beneficiary 
12
Full score for having considered


designation 

beneficiary designation outside of estate


outside of

planning documents, zero score 


estate planning 

otherwise


documents




Special needs
3
Full score for having considered special




needs in estate planning, zero score




otherwise


Forms of property 
3
Full score for having considered forms 


ownership as

of ownership as estate planning, zero 


will substitute

score otherwise


Charitable gifting
3
Full score for having considered 




charitable gifts in estate planning, zero 




score otherwise


Planning for 
3
Full score for having considered liquidity


liquidity

in estate planning, zero score otherwise


Planning for 
3
Full score for having considered 


incapacity

incapacity in estate planning, zero score 




otherwise


Funeral 
2
Full score for having funeral arrangement


arrangement 

contracts in place, zero score otherwise


contracts




Final 
2
Full score for having final instructions in


instructions

place, zero score otherwise


Informational 
2
Full score for having informational sheet 


sheet (e.g.,

in place, zero score otherwise


document with 




professional




emergency 




contacts, 




doctors, bank




information, 




location &




combinations 




for safe, etc.)




Location of 
2
Full score for documenting locations of


hidden assets

hidden assets, zero score otherwise


documented?









The factors and associated maximum factor scores (including how the factor score is determined for each of the factors) of the “Tax” category are summarized in the chart below.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined

















Tax refund 
2
Full score if can identify whether taxes


status

were owed or refunded last tax year, zero




score otherwise


W-4 
2
Full score reviewing tax withholding to


withholding

determine if appropriate amount of taxes is


review

being withheld from income, zero score




otherwise


Retirement 
5
Full score reviewing tax status of


contributions -

retirement contributions, zero score


deductible or 

otherwise


non-deductible




Maximized all 
5
Full score for attempting to maximize tax


tax shelters?

shelters, zero score otherwise


Tax loss 
2
Full score for analyzing tax loss harvesting,


harvesting

zero score otherwise


Deductions, 
15
Full score for reviewing possible


credits, and 

deductions, credits and other tax reduction


extra

opportunities, zero score otherwise


Accelerating 
2
Full score for considering acceleration


deductions/

strategies with respect to


postponing 

deductions/income for tax purposes, zero


income vs.

score otherwise


accelerating 




income/




postponing




deductions




Gifting for 
2
Full score for considering tax


estate 

considerations of gifting for estate planning


planning 

purposes, zero score otherwise


reasons




Tax efficiency 
3
Full score for considering tax


of debt &

considerations of debt and investment


investment 

holdings, zero score otherwise


holdings




Alternative 
2
Full score for considering alternative


Minimum Tax

minimum tax, zero score otherwise









Additionally, factors for the “Funding the Nest” factor group include the following factors in the following chart. The following chart also shows the corresponding maximum factor score and how the factor score is determined for the factor. If the formula shown in “How Factor Score is Determined” results in a score larger than the associated maximum factor score, the factor score of the associated factor is capped at the maximum factor score.













Maximum




Factor



Factor
Score
How Factor Score is Determined

















Flexibility/
50
Factor score = (maximum score for this


Liquidity 

factor) * (percentage of assets that are


of assets

liquid and that will be used to fund monthly


being used 

income need in future)


to fund 




monthly




income need




Asset 
100
Factor score = (maximum score for this


diversification 

factor) * (percentage of assets that are not


(e.g., no more

concentrated in one or more assets that


than 10% in 

represent more than 10% of total amount


any single 

saved for financial goal(s))


asset used




to fund 




financial 




goal(s))




Amount 
100
Factor score = (maximum score for this


accumulated 

factor) * (percentage of assets necessary to


to fund

achieve stated financial goal(s), currently


monthly 

(if retired) or going forward (if not yet


income need

retired))


Monthly 
50
Factor score = (maximum score for this


housing cost 

factor) * (1 − ((monthly housing costs/


ratio (i.e.,

monthly gross income)/28%))


staying 




within 28% 




recommended




limit spent on 




housing costs 




vs. income) 




(e.g., can be 




negative value)




Consumer debt 
50
Factor score = (maximum score for this


ratio (i.e., 

factor) * (1 − ((monthly debt costs/


staying

monthly gross income)/28%))


within 20% 




recommended 




limit spent on 




debt costs vs. 




income) (e.g., 




can be negative 




value)




Trajectory of 
150
Factor score = (maximum score for this


assets, given 

factor) * (a percentage of time a simulation


current

result achieved the financial goal(s) in an


contribution 

indicated portion of the simulations) [e.g,


rate

see process of FIG. 4]









Below is an example calculation of a financial evaluation score for a hypothetical individual, Fred, using the examples of factors discussed above.
Fred is 44 years old and divorced with 2 children. His hopes to retire at age 60 with a net monthly income of $9,000 and wants to leave his two children at least $500,000 each. His finances are summarized in the chart below.











Item
Amount







Gross monthly income
 $15,000


Monthly housing cost
 $4,850


Monthly consumer debt cost
 $3,200


Monthly savings
   $500


401(k) account value
$125,000


Roth IRA value
 $2,000


Brokerage account value
 $5,000


Home value
$750,000


Mortgage balance
$850,000


Life Insurance need/current coverage
$1.7 million/currently no policy


Disability insurance need/coverage
$8,000 per month/currently no 



policy









Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Goal Setting” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor
Reason for 


Factor
Score
the Factor Score







Identify financial goals (e.g.,
 5 out of
Identified desired financial 


college, retirement, second home,
 5*
goals


wedding, purchase car, etc.)




List of Assets and Liabilities
10 out of
Identified current assets 



10*
and liabilities


Cost of goal(s)
 0 out of
Not able to identify costs 



 5*
associated with desired 




financial goals


Time period to achieve goal(s)
 5 out of
Identified desired time 



 5*
period to achieve desired 




financial goals


Complete risk tolerance survey
15 out of
Completed the risk 


(e.g., risk tolerance survey similar
15*
tolerance survey


to ones offered by FinaMetrica Pty




Limited to identify desired risk




tolerance and investment




tolerance)




Appropriate investment/saving
 0 out of
Has not considered 


vehicles considered and
 5*
appropriate investment/


established? (e.g., checking

savings vehicles


account, money market account,




certificates of deposit, mutual




funds, savings account, stocks,




bonds, annuities, IRA, 401(k) or




other retirement plan, etc.)




Identification of sources for
 0 out of
Did not research and 


funding (e.g., cash, retirement,
 5*
consider all indicated 


savings, inheritance, etc.) financial

sources for funding 


goal(s).

financial goals





*subject to scaling multiplier






The total of the “Goal Setting” factors above before scaling is 35. However, Fred cannot cover his total monthly expenses with liquid assets and consequently his liquidity scaling multiplier is 50%. Thus his score for the “Goal Setting” category is (0.5)(35)=17.5 out of 50. However, for the above factors that Fred has received zero, Fred would be provided with an opportunity to increase his factor score using provided information/tools/guidance/referrals (e.g., see the process of FIG. 3).

Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Investments” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor
Reason for 


Factor
Score
the Factor Score







Making current contributions, net
10 out of
Contributed to a financial 


of withdrawals in the last 90 days,
10*
vehicle in order to achieve 


to meet financial goal(s)

financial goals


Diversification of strategy
 0 out of
Diversification of 



10*
investment styles and




types have not been 




considered


Own non-correlated/alternatives 
 0 out of
Investment held in single 


as a portion of overall portfolio
10*
stock


Auto-balance
 0 out of 
Investments are not 



 5*
re-balanced periodically 




to desired risk profile


Auto save
 0 out of 
No automatic investment 



 5*
plan


Liquidity needs consideration
 5 out of 
Liquidity needs have been 



 5*
considered with respect to 




investment strategies


Time horizon consideration
 5 out of 
Time horizons have been 



 5* 
considered with respect to 




investment strategies


Types of investments (e.g.,
 0 out of 
Different types of available 


income, growth, real estate)
 5*
investments have not been 


consideration

considered with respect to




investment strategies


Diversification of investment
 0 out of 
Diversification of assets 


vehicles
 5*
has not been accomplished


Tax consequences consideration
 0 out of 
Tax effects have not been 



 5*
considered with respect to 




investment strategies


Dollar cost averaging
 5 out of 
Dollar cost averaging 


consideration
 5*
investment strategy has 




been considered with 




respect to investment 




strategies





*subject to scaling multiplier






The total of the “Investment” factors above before scaling is 25. Although Fred has a recommended risk allocation of 70%, Fred has a current risk allocation of 100% because all of his investments are in a single risky stock. His risk allocation scaling multiplier is thus=1−((difference between the recommended risk allocation and the current risk allocation)/(recommended risk allocation))=1−((100%-70%)/70%)=1−43%=57%. Thus his score for the “Investment” category is (0.57)(25)=14.25 out of 70.

Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Debt Optimization” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor
Reason for 


Factor
Score
the Factor Score







Knowledge and identification of
 0 out of 
Incomplete knowledge of 


mortgage structure/ mortgage
 5
different types of 


accelerated payoff options

mortgages and inability 




to identify the type of 




mortgage held


Knowledge of credit card usage
 5 out of 
Knowledge of credit card 


optimization
 5
mechanics and the ability 




to identify the details of




currently held credit card


Knowledge of debt cost reduction
10 out of
Knowledge of different 


strategies (e.g., strategies to lower
10
types of debt cost 


interest rates, etc.)

reduction strategies


Review of credit score
 0 out of 
Does not know credit 



 7
score


Knowledge of lines of credit
 5 out of 
Knowledge of different 



 5
types of lines of credit and 




no lines of credit obtained


Knowledge of total liabilities
 8 out of 
Knowledge of the total 



 8
value of current liabilities


Knowledge of options to improve
 0 out of
Incomplete knowledge 


other types of debt (e.g., auto
10
of options to improve 


loans, student loans and other

other types of debt


secured and unsecured loans and




lines of credit)









The total of the “Debt Optimization” factor scores is 28 out of 50.

Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Protection Planning” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor
Reason for 


Factor
Score
the Factor Score







Life insurance needs met?
 0 out of
No life insurance but 



15
need exists


Disability insurance needs met?
 0 out of
No disability insurance 



15
but need exists


Long term care insurance needs
 0 out of
No long term insurance 


met?
 8
but need exists


Knowledge and optimization of
 8 out of
Sufficient knowledge and 


homeowners/renters insurance
 8
optimization of current 




homeowners/renters 




insurance plan


Knowledge and optimization of
 8 out of
Sufficient knowledge and 


auto/boat/rv etc. insurance
 8
optimization of current 




vehicle insurance plan


Knowledge and optimization of
10 out of
Sufficient knowledge and 


health insurance
10
optimization of current 




health insurance plan


Knowledge and optimization of 
 0 out of
Insufficient knowledge 


umbrella/excess coverage policy
 6
and optimization of current 




umbrella/excess coverage 




policy









The total of the “Protection Planning” factor scores is 26 out of 70.

For the “Retirement Planning” category, because Fred has not retired yet, the set of factors for those that are not currently retired is used. Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Retirement Planning” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor



Factor
Score
Reason for the Factor Score







Contributing the 
12 out of
Factor score = (3%/10%) * 40


recommend




percentage of income 
40



to retirement?




Contributing to all 
 0 out of
Not contributing to all available 


possible types
10
types of retirement accounts


of retirement accounts?




Employer match 
 0 out of 
Not taking advantage of maximum


maximization
 8
retirement account contribution 




matching offered by employer


Pension availability 
 7 out of 
Sufficient knowledge about any 


and elections
 7
pension available through employer 




and associated elections


Social security
 5 out of
Sufficient knowledge about social 



 5
security eligibility and associated 




benefits









The total of the “Retirement Planning” factor scores is 24 out of 70.

Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Cash Flow” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor



Factor
Score
Reason for the Factor Score







Monthly income 
 0 out of
Monthly income less than current monthly


enough to live
40
expenses


current life style




Debt pay off plan
20 out of
Debt payment plan in place



20



Auto payment
10 out of
Automatic payment plan of expenses has



10
been considered


Systematic saving
10 out of 
Systematic saving plan has been



10
established









The total of the “Cash Flow” factor scores is 40 out of 80.

Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Estate Planning” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor
Reason for 


Factor
Score
the Factor Score







When was the last time the estate
 0 out of 
No knowledge of last 


plan was reviewed?
 5
time when the estate




plan was reviewed


Estate plan documents in place
30 out of
Appropriate estate 


(e.g., will/trust, guardianship,
30
planning documents 


executors/trustees, durables power

in place


of attorney, healthcare directive,




etc.)




Beneficiary designation outside of
12 out of
Considered beneficiary 


estate planning documents
12
designation outside




of estate planning 




documents


Special needs
 3 out of 
Considered special needs 



 3
in estate planning


Forms of property ownership as
 3 out of 
Considered forms of 


will substitute
 3
ownership as estate




planning


Charitable gifting
 3 out of 
Considered charitable 



 3
gifts in estate planning


Planning for liquidity
 3 out of 
Considered liquidity in 



 3
estate planning


Planning for incapacity
 0 out of 
Did not consider 



 3
incapacity




in estate planning


Funeral arrangement contracts
 0 out of 
Funeral arrangement 



 2
contracts not in place


Final instructions
 0 out of 
Final instructions not 



 2
in place


Informational sheet (e.g.,
 0 out of 
Informational sheet not 


document with professional
 2
in place


emergency contacts, doctors, bank




information, location &




combinations for safe, etc.)




Location of hidden assets
 2 out of 
Locations of hidden 


documented?
 2
assets documented









The total of the “Estate Planning” factor scores is 56 out of 70.

Below is a chart summarizing Fred's factor scores for the “Tax” category in the “Building the Nest” grouping.













Factor



Factor
Score
Reason for the Factor Score







Tax refund status
 2 out of 
Could identify whether taxes were owed 



 2
or refunded last tax year


W-4 withholding 
 2 out of 
Reviewed tax withholding to determine 


review
 2
if appropriate amount of taxes is being




withheld from income


Retirement 
 5 out of 
Reviewed tax status of retirement


contributions -
 5
contributions


deductible or 




non-deductible




Maximized all tax 
 5 out of 
Attempted to maximize tax shelters


shelters?
 5



Tax loss 
 2 out of
Analyzing tax loss harvesting


harvesting
 2



Deductions, 
15 out of 
Reviewing possible deductions, credits 


credits, and extra
15
and other tax reduction opportunities


Accelerating 
 2 out of 
Considered acceleration strategies with


deductions/
 2
respect to deductions/income for tax


postponing 

purposes


income vs.




accelerating 




income/postponing




deductions




Gifting for estate 
 2 out of 
Considered tax considerations of gifting 


planning reasons
 2
for estate planning purposes


Tax efficiency of 
 0 out of 
Did not consider tax considerations of 


debt &
 3
debt and investment holdings


investment 




holdings




Alternative 
 0 out of 
Did not consider alternative minimum 


Minimum Tax
 2
tax strategies









The total of the “Tax” factor scores is 35 out of 40.

Thus the combined scores for the “Building the Nest” factors is 240.75
Additionally, factors for the “Funding the Nest” factor group include the following factors.













Factor
Reason for 


Factor
Score
the Factor Score







Flexibility/Liquidity of 
    50 out of
Factor score = (maximum 


assets being used to fund 
 50
score for this factor) * 


monthly income need

(percentage of assets that 




are liquid and that will be 




used to fund monthly




income need in future) = 




50 * 100%


Asset diversification (e.g., 
    50 out of
Factor score = (maximum 


no more than 10% in any 
100
score for this factor) * 


single asset used to fund 

(percentage of assets that 


financial goal(s))

are not concentrated in one 




or more assets that 




represent more than 10% 




of total amount saved for 




financial goal(s)) = 




100 * 50%


Amount accumulated to 
    5 out of
Factor score = (maximum 


fund monthly income 
100
score for this factor) * 


need

(percentage of assets 




necessary to achieve stated 




financial goal(s), currently




(if retired) or going 




forward (if not yet 




retired)) = 100 * 5%


Monthly housing cost 
−4.52 out of 
Factor score = (maximum 


ratio (i.e., staying within 
 50
score for this factor) * (1 − 


28% recommended

((monthly housing 


limit spent on housing

costs/monthly gross 




income)/28%)) = 50 * (1 −


costs vs. income) (e.g., 

(($4,580/$15,000)/28%))


can be negative value)




Consumer debt ratio 
−3.33 out of 
Factor score = (maximum 


(i.e., staying within 20% 
 50
score for this factor) * (1 − 


recommended limit spent 

((monthly debt 


on debt costs vs. income) 

costs/monthly gross 


(e.g., can be negative 

income)/20%)) = 50 * 


value)

(1−(($3,200/$15,000)/20%))


Trajectory of assets, 
  34.5 out of
Factor score = (maximum 


given current 
150
score for this factor) * (a 


contribution rate

percentage of time a 




simulation result achieved 




the financial goal(s) in 80%




of the simulations) = 




150 * 23%









Thus the combined scores for the “Funding the Nest” factors is 131.65 and the combined total financial evaluation score is 372.4 or rounded to 372.

After receiving the financial evaluation score of 372, Fred is presented with opportunities to improve his score. For example, using the process of FIG. 6, Fred is presented with a list of recommendations. The most important action to improve his score has been identified as increasing his annual savings by at least $18,000, which would improve his financial evaluation score by 58 points. Other actions presented to Fred include (in order of priority), adjusting his retirement time horizon (32 point increase in score), beginning a debt reduction plan (25 point increase in score), obtaining sufficient life insurance (12 point increase in score), among other suggested actions.
Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detail for purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limited to the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementing the invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and not restrictive.

## Claims

1. A method of quantitatively improving a financial evaluation, comprising:
determining a plurality of factor scores based on a plurality of factors;
using a processor to calculate a total score based on the plurality of factor scores;
identifying a plurality of actions that will influence at least a portion of the plurality of factor scores;
ranking the actions based on their total impact on the plurality of factor scores; and
determining a most important action of the plurality of actions to improve the total score;
wherein at least one of the factor scores is determined by assigning a maximum score value to the at least one factor score if a subject of the total score has provided a requested information used to determine another factor score.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the total score is correlated with a progress of achieving an identified financial goal of the subject.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions are actions that when executed can potentially affect the total score.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions is associated with a desired financial action of the subject evaluated using the total score.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of factor scores includes analyzing information provided via the Internet.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the factor scores identifies whether the subject of the total score has sufficient knowledge related to a factor included in the plurality of factors.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein at least one of the actions is associated with providing education associated with the factor included in the plurality of factors.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the factor scores is decayed based on a length of time since a time associated with the at least one factor score.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the factor scores is determined at least in part by performing a simulation to determine a likelihood that a financial goal will be met within a specified time frame.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the most important action is an action included in the plurality of actions that will improve the total score the most as compared to other actions in the plurality of actions.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein the total score is associated with a financial position of a plurality of individuals.

12. A system for quantitatively improving a financial evaluation, comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine a plurality of factor scores based on a plurality of factors;
calculate a total score based on the plurality of factor scores;
identify a plurality of actions that will influence at least a portion of the plurality of factor scores;
rank the actions based on their total impact on the plurality of factor scores; and
determine a most important action of the plurality of actions to improve the total score; and

a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions;
wherein at least one of the factor scores is determined by assigning a maximum score value to the at least one factor score if a subject of the total score has provided a requested information used to determine another factor score.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein the total score is correlated with a progress of achieving an identified financial goal of the subject.

14. The system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the factor scores identifies whether the subject of the total score has sufficient knowledge related to a factor included in the plurality of factors.

15. The system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the factor scores is decayed based on a length of time since a time associated with the at least one factor score.

16. The system of claim 12, wherein at least one of the factor scores is determined at least in part by performing a simulation to determine a likelihood that a financial goal will be met within a specified time frame.

17. A computer program product for quantitatively improving a financial evaluation, the computer program product being embodied in a tangible computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions for:
determining a plurality of factor scores based on a plurality of factors;
calculating a total score based on the plurality of factor scores;
identifying a plurality of actions that will influence at least a portion of the plurality of factor scores;
ranking the actions based on their total impact on the plurality of factor scores; and
determining a most important action of the plurality of actions to improve the total score;
wherein at least one of the factor scores is determined by assigning a maximum score value to the at least one factor score if a subject of the total score has provided a requested information used to determine another factor score.

18. The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the total score is correlated with a progress of achieving an identified financial goal of the subject.

19. The computer program product of claim 17, wherein at least one of the factor scores identifies whether the subject of the total score has sufficient knowledge related to a factor included in the plurality of factors.

20. The computer program product of claim 17, wherein at least one of the factor scores is determined at least in part by performing a simulation to determine a likelihood that a financial goal will be met within a specified time frame.