B

IRP Portfolio Rebalancing Simulator

2.75

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Digital financial product comparison and switch cost visualization
→
Step 2 Financial product switching cost visualization
→
Step 3 Tax and return impact simulation for IRP investment product changes

Problem

IRP (Individual Retirement Pension) holders want to adjust the balance between principal-guaranteed products (deposits) and performance-based products (funds/ETFs), but there is no tool that holistically shows sell/buy timing, tax deferral effects, and fee differences when changing investment products. Brokerage apps only display individual fund returns without offering portfolio-level rebalancing simulations. As a result, many holders leave their accounts parked in principal-guaranteed products for years, failing to even keep up with inflation.

Solution

Users input their IRP holdings and balances, and the tool auto-generates rebalancing scenarios aligned to target asset allocations (conservative/balanced/growth). It displays capital gains tax deferral effects, projected returns of new products, and total fee comparisons on a single screen. A 10-year 'hold current vs. switch' simulation shows the concrete dollar difference.

Target: Ages 45–58, IRP balance of $22,500+ (~30M KRW), with 70%+ allocated to principal-guaranteed products — salaried workers
Revenue Model: Free basic simulation. Custom asset allocation recommendations + quarterly rebalancing alerts subscription at $2.15/month (~2,900 KRW).
Ecosystem Role: Supplier
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
3.0/5
U Urgency
2.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
3.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (67%)

Tech Complexity
24.0/40
Data Availability
23.1/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (52/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
9.0/15
Pick-Axe Fit
7.5/15
Solo Buildability
7.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Frontend [medium] Backend [medium]
Dashboard