Portugal Golden Visa Fund Simulator: Fees, Cash Flow and Exit Tests
MFG Consultants' Golden Visa Fund & Portfolio Simulator helps investors model anonymous portfolios using their own figures. Compare fee, return, cash-flow, tax and exit assumptions before discussing a real proposal. This guide explains what to record, which comparisons to run and how to check the arithmetic without confusing a modelled value with money available to withdraw.
Published 2 November 2026. This is a guide to assumption-led comparison, not a list of recommended funds or a forecast of returns.
What should you collect before using a fund simulator?
Create one input record for each proposed fund and share class. Keep the document name, version, page or clause and date beside each figure. Label a number as a contractual charge, a manager target, an observed result, your own assumption or an unresolved question. Do not replace a missing answer with zero.
Record the subscription amount, any additional cash paid at entry, the return definition, each fee and its calculation base, distribution assumptions, proposed holding period and contractual exit conditions. Separate a fund's net asset value from its distributions and final exit proceeds. Use anonymous labels in the modelling exercise; retain the actual names and documents in your private comparison file.
How do you make two proposals comparable?
Begin with the same capital, currency and observation period. Identify whether each return is gross or net, an annual growth assumption, a distribution yield or an internal rate of return. A target IRR should not be entered as a guaranteed annual cash payment. If a return already includes a charge, subtracting that charge again would understate the modelled outcome.
Keep an input ledger outside the model for any term the interface does not capture. Complex performance waterfalls, guarantees, share-class priorities and bespoke redemption conditions may need separate calculations. A simpler interface is useful for sensitivity analysis, but it cannot replace a fund's governing documents.
Manual check 1: how much can a fee assumption change the result?
This deliberately simplified calculation is independent of the simulator engine. It is a reproducible reference example, not a claim that the live tool implements this exact fee convention. Assume EUR 500,000 invested once, 6% gross growth every year for seven years, and an annual asset-based charge deducted after that year's growth. There are no entry or exit fees, other expenses, performance fees, interim distributions, tax or currency changes.
The formula is: final value = initial capital x [(1 + gross annual growth) x (1 - annual charge)] raised to the number of years.
With a 1.5% annual charge, the modelled net annual growth is 4.41% and the seven-year value is approximately EUR 676,339. With a 2.0% charge, the corresponding figures are 3.88% and EUR 652,670. The difference is approximately EUR 23,669, caused only by the different charge in this hypothetical example.
These are not expected fund outcomes. Actual fee bases, accrual dates and cash flows can change the calculation. A negative investment outcome remains possible. The SEC's investor-education bulletin explains the general compounding effect of costs and the importance of reading fee disclosures; it does not endorse MFG or any Portuguese fund.
Manual check 2: what changes when the same cash arrives later?
Assume a single EUR 500,000 outflow and a single EUR 600,000 receipt, with no other cash flows. Receiving EUR 600,000 after five years gives an annualised return of approximately 3.71%. Receiving the same amount after seven years reduces it to approximately 2.64%. In both cases the nominal gain is EUR 100,000; the time-adjusted result differs.
The formula is: annualised return = (final cash received / initial cash paid) raised to (1 / years), minus 1. If interim payments or additional contributions occur, this single-payment formula is not sufficient. Keep their actual dates and amounts for a cash-flow-based calculation.
Which downside cases should accompany the base case?
Test at least a delayed receipt, lower proceeds and a combined case. For example, EUR 400,000 returned against EUR 500,000 invested is a EUR 100,000 nominal capital loss before any separately paid expenses. It is an illustration, not a maximum-loss boundary. Ask what cash remains available outside the investment for family costs and other commitments if distributions are late.
Keep the changes identifiable: which number changed, why that assumption was chosen and which household decision it affects. An attractive result under several assumptions does not establish the probability of those outcomes. Do not use a model to turn an unsupported manager promise into a fact.
How does the simulator fit into MFG's advisory process?
The Profiler organises family and residence priorities; the Fund & Portfolio Simulator explores the financial assumptions; a documented review considers the actual funds, costs, risks and outstanding questions. These are different tasks. MFG's public report sample shows the evidence-register approach without publishing private client details or presenting modelled returns as realised performance.
MFG Consultants receives client fees and remuneration from fund managers. Its published disclosure explains the harmonised flat-fee approach with participating managers and its limitations. The simulator does not certify immigration eligibility, provide individual tax advice or select a suitable fund on its own. Portuguese legal eligibility and the investor's tax position require the appropriate professional assessments.
What should you bring to a fund-comparison meeting?
Bring the current fund documents, your input ledger, the assumptions that changed the result and the dates when your family might need the capital. A useful discussion identifies which figures are supported, which require clarification and whether the proposed commitment fits your circumstances. Request a written scope for the review rather than treating a simulation as a personal recommendation.
Comments