World tour with training wheels and an accidental obsession with one random utility stock
Report created on Apr 28, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
5/5
Positions
-
VN Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
VNRA - IE00BK5BQW10 42.86% -
UI UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
UIQI - IE00B7WK2W23 28.57% -
XM Xtrackers MSCI Japan UCITS ETF 1C
XMJP - LU0274209740 14.29% -
XS Xtrackers Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF
XSX6 - LU0328475792 14.28%
This portfolio is a geography textbook sliced into four big ETFs: North America, Europe, Japan, and Asia ex‑Japan. It screams “I want the whole world” but in the laziest, most benchmark-hugging way possible. No single ETF looks crazy, but together they form a slightly overengineered global index clone with some odd tilts. It’s like rebuilding a world fund from scratch just to end up suspiciously close to the default setting. The structure is clean and simple, but not exactly inspired – almost no room for anything distinct, spicy, or contrarian. The result is a portfolio that’s globally respectable yet personality-free, like diversified wallpaper.
Growth
Historically, this thing turned €1,000 into €2,078, which is solid until the benchmarks walk in and embarrass it. The US market left it behind by almost 3% per year, and even the global index managed to edge ahead. CAGR – the “average speed of the journey” – is decent, but clearly stuck in the middle lane. The max drawdown near -30% during 2020 was painful but not unusual; everything crashed then. Overall, the portfolio behaved like a polite index fund that never quite kept up with the popular kids. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful context, but not a promise it’ll behave next time.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation throws this portfolio into 1,000 alternate futures and watches what happens. Median outcome: €1,000 turns into about €2,688 in 15 years, which sounds okay until you notice the chaos around it. The “likely” range spans from barely ahead of inflation to “nice surprise,” and the extreme outcomes go from basically flat to “that went unexpectedly well.” Simulations are basically financial fan fiction: plausible, but not guaranteed. Overall, this portfolio is projected to muddle along with an 8% annualized return across scenarios, meaning it’s neither a rocket ship nor a disaster machine – just a statistically average overachiever.
Asset classes
- Stocks 86%
- No data 14%
On asset classes, this is 86% stocks and 14% “no data,” which is the analytics equivalent of shrugging and looking away. The visible part is a pure equity engine with no ballast from bonds, cash, or anything remotely calming. For something labeled “balanced,” this is more like “equities with commitment issues about the last 14%.” Asset class diversification is the boring part that keeps a portfolio from acting like a rollercoaster; here, the safety net is at best fuzzy and at worst nonexistent. It’s basically an equity portfolio in a balanced costume, hoping nobody looks too closely at the label.
Sectors
- Technology 27%
- Financials 14%
- Industrials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Telecommunications 8%
- Health Care 6%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, there’s a clear tech crush at 27%, with financials second and everything else sprinkled on like decorative toppings. It’s not pure tech addiction, but the portfolio definitely checks the “please let growth keep working” box. The smaller slices in utilities, real estate, and staples mean there isn’t much defensive backbone if markets suddenly remember gravity. Compared to broad global indexes, the tilt isn’t absurd, just unapologetically pro-growth and pro-cyclical. When the party’s on, this mix fits right in. When things break, it’s more likely to be the one holding the hangover than handing out water.
Regions
- North America 43%
- Asia Developed 15%
- Japan 14%
- Asia Emerging 13%
Geographically, this thing is a world map with some very loud favorites: 43% North America and then a tour of Asia and Japan, with Europe quietly represented via that STOXX 600 ETF. The North America slice is standard, but the Asia and Japan exposure is dialed up beyond what many global indexes carry. It’s like someone really wanted to prove they know there’s life outside the US, then overcorrected. The result is “global,” but with extra sensitivity to what happens in Asian markets and currencies. Not America‑only delusion, but definitely a bit “world, but make it interestingly unbalanced.”
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 29%
- Mid-cap 9%
Market cap exposure is aggressively mainstream: 47% mega‑cap, 29% large‑cap, and a token 9% mid‑cap. This is the corporate equivalent of only hanging out with blue-chip celebrities and a couple of mid-tier influencers. There’s zero appetite here for smaller companies that might be more volatile but offer a different risk/return flavor. In factor terms, it leans heavily into “big and established,” which usually means predictable but index-like behaviour. It won’t blow up due to some tiny speculative name going rogue, but it also won’t benefit much when smaller, more agile companies have their moment. Very safe, very generic.
True holdings
-
ED EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A. 27.51%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
-
AA Apple Inc 4.59%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.69%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.97%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
-
TT TotalEnergies SE 2.94%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
- Xtrackers Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.38%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.14%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
-
SA Sanofi SA 1.11%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
-
OR Orange S.A. 1.08%
Part of fund(s):- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.04%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
- Top 10 total 49.45%
The look‑through holdings are where things get weird. EDP randomly dominates at 27.51% of covered exposure, which is hilarious given it’s not even obvious from the ETF list. That’s hidden concentration: one stock quietly hogging the stage via index construction. Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Amazon, Alphabet, and Broadcom show up like the usual global megacap fan club, but none of them individually dominate. The real story is that a supposedly diversified setup has a single utility-esque name towering over everything in the partial data. And remember, coverage is only ~50%, so the overlap picture is incomplete – the true concentration might be even messier.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation
Weight: 42.86% 44.8% -
UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR
Weight: 28.57% 30.6% -
Xtrackers Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF
Weight: 14.28% 13.6% -
Xtrackers MSCI Japan UCITS ETF 1C
Weight: 14.29% 11.0%
Risk contribution reveals who’s really shaking the bag, and surprise: the North America ETF is doing the heavy lifting, with 42.86% weight but 44.8% of the risk. Asia ex‑Japan chips in another 30.56% of risk, so those two alone are calling three‑quarters of the emotional shots. Japan is relatively chill, contributing less risk than its weight, like the quiet kid in class who never causes trouble. When the top three holdings drive almost 89% of total risk, the rest of the portfolio is basically decorative. Weight doesn’t equal influence here; the big regional bets are clearly running the show.
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 efficient frontier chart, this portfolio actually behaves itself: it sits on or very near the frontier, meaning for its given ingredients, the weighting isn’t dumb. The Sharpe ratio of 0.53 isn’t heroic, but at least it’s not wasting risk completely. The optimal portfolio, using the same holdings, squeezes out a higher Sharpe and return at slightly higher risk, while the minimum variance version lowers risk with a better Sharpe than current. The message: the mix is efficient enough not to mock its intelligence, but the math says the same ingredients could be arranged more cleverly.
Ongoing product costs
- UBS (Irl) Fund Solutions plc - MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc EUR 0.23%
- Vanguard FTSE North America UCITS ETF USD Accuimulation 0.08%
- Xtrackers MSCI Japan UCITS ETF 1C 0.12%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.12%
Costs are almost suspiciously low, with a blended TER around 0.12%. That’s “you actually checked the fee column” territory. The Vanguard North America piece is especially cheap, dragging the average down like a frugal overachiever. Paying this level of fees for broad, vanilla exposure is about as sensible as it gets – same market rollercoaster, but you’re not tipping the operator extra every lap. Of course, low cost doesn’t fix hidden concentration or geographic quirks, but at least the portfolio isn’t lighting money on fire via expenses. If something underperforms here, it won’t be because of the fee drag.
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