<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Killion Labs Blog</title>
    <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/</link>
    <description>Retirement and portfolio research from Killion Labs: safe withdrawal rates, sequence risk, Monte Carlo, fees, and strategy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 23:24:33 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>Vanguard dynamic spending vs the 4% rule: what the spending actually looks like</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/vanguard-dynamic-spending-vs-4-percent-rule/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/vanguard-dynamic-spending-vs-4-percent-rule/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Vanguard dynamic spending vs the 4% rule on 5,000 paired retirements: +$17,834 lifetime spending in the median world, -$198,351 in the worst tenth. Q1-Q4 run.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>retirement-withdrawals</category>
      <category>withdrawal-strategies</category>
      <category>flexible-spending</category>
      <category>backtesting</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Monte Carlo retirement planning: what 1,000 lifetimes show that one projection hides</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/monte-carlo-retirement-planning/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/monte-carlo-retirement-planning/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Monte Carlo retirement planning on one frozen retiree: real p50 $1.08M, p10 $0, p90 $5.69M at year 30, 10.4% ruin, versus a 7% deterministic path. 1,000 paths, seed 20260622.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>projections</category>
      <category>probability</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why 90% chance of success is the right goal and 100% is a trap</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/90-percent-success-not-100/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/90-percent-success-not-100/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>90% chance of success vs 100%: rigid 3.95% hits 90% on 1,000 paths. 2% still only 99.4%. 100% is not on the grid.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>probability</category>
      <category>retirement-withdrawals</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Probability of success vs projected balance</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/probability-of-success-vs-projected-balance/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/probability-of-success-vs-projected-balance/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Probability of success vs projected balance on 1,000 shared paths: 2% prints 99.4% and $1.89M median; 6% prints 63.0% and $308k.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>probability</category>
      <category>retirement-planning</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why the 4% rule is riskier at 40 than at 65</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/4-percent-rule-riskier-at-40-than-65/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/4-percent-rule-riskier-at-40-than-65/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>4% rule riskier at 40 than 65: rigid 4% success 78.7% over 50 years vs 93.5% over 25 years. 1,000 paths, seed 20260622.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>safe-withdrawal-rate</category>
      <category>4-percent-rule</category>
      <category>early-retirement</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The real math behind Coast FIRE</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/real-math-behind-coast-fire/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/real-math-behind-coast-fire/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Coast FIRE math: stop saving at 45 and 32.5% of 1,000 paths still hold $1.5M at 65, vs 56% if contributions continue. Seed 20260622.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>coast-fire</category>
      <category>fire</category>
      <category>savings-rate</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Lump sum vs dollar-cost averaging: which the math favors</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/lump-sum-vs-dollar-cost-averaging/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/lump-sum-vs-dollar-cost-averaging/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Lump sum vs DCA: lump wins 56.3% of 1,000 paths and 62.9% of 97 independent 12-month tape windows. Pre-tax, not advice.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>dca</category>
      <category>lump-sum</category>
      <category>investing-behavior</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why your portfolio's average return overstates what you'll get</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/average-return-overstates-compound/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/average-return-overstates-compound/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Average return overstates compound: 5.01% arithmetic vs 3.27% geometric on 1,000 no-spend lives. $4.33M vs $2.62M median.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>compounding</category>
      <category>returns</category>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Is 100% stocks brilliant or reckless? Quantified</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/100-percent-stocks-quantified/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/100-percent-stocks-quantified/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>100% stocks quantified: 83.6% success and $1.11M median vs 60/40 at 93.9% and $945k. Rigid 4%, 1,000 paths. Not a historical claim.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>asset-allocation</category>
      <category>stocks</category>
      <category>retirement-risk</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How Many Monte Carlo Simulations Are Enough?</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/how-many-monte-carlo-simulations-are-enough/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/how-many-monte-carlo-simulations-are-enough/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>For most retirement plans, 1,000 simulations is enough: an 85% success rate lands within about 2 points, 83% to 87%. At 100 paths it is ±7.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>retirement-planning</category>
      <category>probability</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What History Did to Every Leverage Multiple from 1.00× to 3.00×</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/long-term-stock-market-leverage/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/long-term-stock-market-leverage/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Long-term stock market leverage: 201 multiples from 1.00× to 3.00× on the 1928–2025 tape. Median, left tail and the long path peak at different L.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>leverage</category>
      <category>leveraged-etf</category>
      <category>backtesting</category>
      <category>drawdown</category>
      <category>crash-survival</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Safe Withdrawal Rates by Retirement Age: 30 to 50 Year Horizons</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/withdrawal-rates-by-retirement-age/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/withdrawal-rates-by-retirement-age/</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Safe withdrawal rates by retirement age: rigid 4% and Guyton-Klinger on 30- to 50-year horizons, 200 seeded paths, seed 20260814. CSV included.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>safe-withdrawal-rate</category>
      <category>4-percent-rule</category>
      <category>retirement-withdrawals</category>
      <category>guardrails</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Monte Carlo vs Historical Backtesting in Retirement Plans</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/monte-carlo-vs-historical-backtesting/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/monte-carlo-vs-historical-backtesting/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Monte Carlo vs historical backtesting: overlapping 40-year tapes are not a probability. Simulation is assumptive and reproducible. Use both.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>backtesting</category>
      <category>retirement-planning</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Does Monte Carlo Overstate Retirement Success?</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/does-monte-carlo-overstate-retirement-success/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/does-monte-carlo-overstate-retirement-success/</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Does Monte Carlo overstate retirement success? Independent draws miss clustered crashes. Ignoring fees and floors will print a kind number. What we do instead.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>retirement-planning</category>
      <category>probability</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Is the 4% Rule Still Safe? We Ran 5,000 Simulated Retirements</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/is-the-4-percent-rule-still-safe/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/is-the-4-percent-rule-still-safe/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Is the 4% rule still safe? Flexible 4% lasted in 100% of 5,000 simulations; rigid 4% failed 1.1%. Full safe withdrawal rate trade-off table.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>safe-withdrawal-rate</category>
      <category>4-percent-rule</category>
      <category>retirement-withdrawals</category>
      <category>guardrails</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What a 1% Investment Fee Really Costs Over 40 Years</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/what-a-1-percent-fee-costs-over-40-years/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/what-a-1-percent-fee-costs-over-40-years/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>What a 1% fee costs over 40 years: we simulated 5,000 lifetimes at 0%, 0.5%, and 1% expense-ratio drag. The dollar gap is larger than the percentage sounds.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>fee-drag</category>
      <category>expense-ratio</category>
      <category>investment-fees</category>
      <category>investing-costs</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sequence of Returns Risk: What If the Market Crashes the Year You Retire?</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/market-crash-year-you-retire/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/market-crash-year-you-retire/</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Sequence of returns risk explained: the same 40% crash dropped success from 86% to 71% at retirement age 65, but only to 81% at age 48. 5,000 simulations.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>sequence-of-returns-risk</category>
      <category>retirement-risk</category>
      <category>market-crash</category>
      <category>decumulation</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Which Investing Strategy Wins? Six Strategies Benchmarked on the Same Markets</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/which-investing-strategy-wins/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/which-investing-strategy-wins/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Which investing strategy wins? We benchmarked buy &amp; hold, rebalance, glide path, guardrails, optimizer, and panic selling across 5,000 identical market lifetimes.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>investing-strategy</category>
      <category>portfolio-benchmark</category>
      <category>guardrails</category>
      <category>rebalancing</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Monte Carlo Simulation in Personal Finance: Why Projections Fall Short</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/monte-carlo-simulation-personal-finance/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/monte-carlo-simulation-personal-finance/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Monte Carlo simulation in personal finance: a $4.3M projection landed at the 71st percentile; the median was $2.9M across 5,000 regime-aware lifetimes.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>monte-carlo</category>
      <category>financial-projections</category>
      <category>retirement-planning</category>
      <category>probability</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Timing the Market vs Staying Invested: 40 Years of S&amp;P 500 Evidence</title>
      <link>https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/staying-invested-vs-timing-the-market/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://killionlabs.com/updates/blog/staying-invested-vs-timing-the-market/</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Miss 10 best months: $744K becomes $264K on the same S&amp;P 500 path since 1985. Why staying invested beats timing the market.</description>
      <author>hello@killionlabs.com (Berkay Kolay)</author>
      <category>market-timing</category>
      <category>stay-invested</category>
      <category>behavior-gap</category>
      <category>s-and-p-500</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
