Balanced global equity mix with strong Canada tilt and efficient risk adjusted profile
Report created on Jul 17, 2024Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
UI UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
UIM9 - LU0446734872 50.00% -
VW Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
VWCE - IE00BK5BQT80 50.00%
The structure is very straightforward: two broad equity ETFs at 50% each, one focused on Canada and one on the global stock market. This creates a 100% stock portfolio with a clear, rules-based setup and no small satellite positions. Simple lineups like this are easy to monitor and rebalance, and they avoid the clutter that can creep into more complicated portfolios. The notable aspect here is the intentional tilt toward one country on top of a diversified global core. The key question for an investor is whether this home-country-style tilt is deliberate and aligned with long-term goals, because it meaningfully shapes both risk and return behaviour over time.
Growth
From mid-2019 to early 2026, €1,000 grew to about €2,013, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.95%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year over the full period. This slightly beat the global market’s 10.57% but lagged the US market at 12.79%. The worst peak-to-trough fall, or max drawdown, was -37.21%, a bit deeper than both benchmarks. That’s a fairly punchy equity ride, but normal for a 100% stock portfolio. The main takeaway is that returns have been solid and roughly in line with global markets, with a bit more downside pressure, likely linked to the added Canada exposure.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All assets sit in the stock bucket, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. That’s very much an equity-focused approach, which maximizes long-term growth potential but accepts bigger swings in account value along the way. In many blended benchmarks for “balanced” investors, bonds or other defensive assets would typically play a stabilization role, smoothing returns when markets fall. Here, diversification happens within equities rather than across asset classes. The implication is that this setup can work well for someone with a long horizon and strong stomach for volatility, but it relies on behavioural discipline to avoid panic selling during sharp downturns, since there’s no built‑in ballast.
Sectors
- Financials 27%
- Technology 18%
- Energy 12%
- Industrials 10%
- Basic Materials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Health Care 4%
- Utilities 3%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is led by financials at 27%, then technology at 18%, with meaningful allocations to energy, industrials, and basic materials. This mix feels more cyclically tilted than a typical global benchmark, which often has a heavier tech and health-care presence and somewhat smaller weights in financials and resources. Portfolios with larger financial and resource stakes can be more sensitive to interest rates, credit conditions, and commodity cycles. That can mean stronger performance when these areas are in favour, but softer results during banking stress or commodity downturns. The encouraging point is that every major sector is represented, which supports diversification, though the financials overweight is clearly a key driver.
Regions
- North America 81%
- Europe Developed 8%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Asia Emerging 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, roughly 81% is in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, Asia, and smaller allocations to emerging regions. This is more North America-heavy than typical global indices, reflecting the combination of a Canada ETF and a world ETF. Such a tilt often tracks US and Canadian economic cycles quite closely, which can be helpful if those markets keep leading, but it does mean less exposure to faster-growing or differently timed economies elsewhere. For many investors, this is still a solid foundation, but it’s useful to be aware that results will lean heavily on North American corporate and currency fortunes rather than being evenly global.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 53%
- Large-cap 33%
- Mid-cap 14%
Market-cap exposure is dominated by mega-caps at 53% and large-caps at 33%, with 14% in mid-caps and effectively no small-cap weight. This lines up closely with how broad global indices look, so there’s strong alignment with mainstream practice here. Large and mega companies often bring more stability, liquidity, and better information flow, while mid and small segments can offer higher growth but more volatility. The current profile suggests a focus on established global leaders with a modest growth kicker from mids. For an investor wanting smoother behaviour and fewer sharp idiosyncratic shocks, this capitalization mix is a plus and supports the balanced risk classification.
True holdings
-
RY Royal Bank of Canada 3.87%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
TD Toronto Dominion Bank 2.73%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
SH Shopify Inc 2.43%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.11%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
-
AE Agnico Eagle Mines Limited 2.08%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 1.96%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
-
EN Enbridge Inc 1.91%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
BM Bank of Montreal 1.70%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
BN Bank of Nova Scotia 1.55%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
-
CM Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce 1.55%
Part of fund(s):- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
- Top 10 total 21.88%
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, there’s noticeable clustering in large Canadian financials and a few global tech names. Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion, and several other Canadian banks stand out, plus global giants like NVIDIA and Apple. These appear through the funds rather than as direct single-stock picks, which keeps single-company risk indirectly controlled. However, repeated exposure to the same banks and big names does create hidden concentration, even though overlap is likely understated because only top-10 positions are visible. The practical takeaway: performance will be quite sensitive to Canadian financials and major global tech leaders, which can be positive or negative depending on how those groups perform.
Factors
Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.
Factor exposure shows a very high tilt to value at 85%, plus high tilts to low volatility (75%), size (74%), and yield (66%), with momentum and quality roughly neutral. Factors are like underlying “traits” of stocks that research links to long-term return and risk differences. A strong value tilt means favouring cheaper companies relative to fundamentals; high yield adds income potential; low volatility and size suggest an emphasis on steadier, somewhat smaller names versus the mega growth leaders. This combination can behave differently from a pure growth or market portfolio, often lagging in speculative growth booms but holding up better in choppier or mean-reverting markets. It’s a very deliberate, factor-aware footprint.
Risk contribution
-
UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF
Weight: 50.00% 54.0% -
Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
Weight: 50.00% 46.0%
Risk contribution, which measures how much each holding adds to overall ups and downs, is slightly skewed toward the Canada ETF. Even though both funds are 50% by weight, the Canada ETF contributes about 54% of the volatility, while the global ETF contributes 46%. This tells us the home-country tilt is not only a return driver but also the slightly larger risk engine. The relationship is not extreme, but it’s meaningful. If an investor ever wanted to tune risk without changing products, nudging the weights a bit more toward the global ETF would gradually reduce that country-specific volatility while still keeping the simple two‑fund structure.
Risk vs. return
This chart shows the Efficient Frontier, calculated using your current assets with different allocation combinations. It highlights the best balance between risk and return based on historical data. "Efficient" portfolios maximize returns for a given risk or minimize risk for a given return. Portfolios below the curve are less efficient. This is informational and not a recommendation to buy or sell any assets.
Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.
On the risk–return chart, the current mix is on or very close to the efficient frontier, which is the curve showing the best expected return for each risk level with the existing holdings. Its Sharpe ratio of 0.59, a measure of return per unit of risk, is slightly below the maximum Sharpe of 0.65 and the minimum-variance Sharpe of 0.64, but the differences are small. This suggests the weights are already highly efficient, and there’s no obvious need for big adjustments. If desired, only modest reweighting between the two ETFs could move closer to the theoretical “optimal,” but the existing allocation is already doing a very solid job.
Ongoing product costs
- UBS ETF SICAV - MSCI Canada UCITS ETF 0.33%
- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation 0.19%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.26%
The total ongoing cost, at a 0.26% TER, is impressively low for a two‑ETF equity portfolio. TER is like a small yearly service fee baked into the fund price; over long periods, keeping this number down can meaningfully boost net returns. Both chosen funds sit in the competitive, low-cost range for their categories, and this aligns very well with best practices in evidence-based investing. Low fees are one of the few factors an investor can control directly. The main takeaway is that cost drag here is minimal, leaving more of the market’s return in the investor’s pocket year after year.
What next?
Create your own report?
Join our community!
The information provided on this platform is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or investment advice. Insightfolio does not provide investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guidance regarding the purchase, holding, or sale of financial assets. The tools and content are intended for educational purposes only and are not tailored to individual circumstances, financial needs, or objectives.
Insightfolio assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Users are solely responsible for verifying the information and making independent decisions based on their own research and careful consideration. Use of the platform should not replace consultation with qualified financial professionals.
Investments involve risks. Users should be aware that the value of investments may fluctuate and that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Investment decisions should be based on personal financial goals, risk tolerance, and independent evaluation of relevant information.
Insightfolio does not endorse or guarantee the suitability of any particular financial product, security, or strategy. Any projections, forecasts, or hypothetical scenarios presented on the platform are for illustrative purposes only and are not guarantees of future outcomes.
By accessing the services, information, or content offered by Insightfolio, users acknowledge and agree to these terms of the disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our platform.
Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey