Index junk drawer with accidental brilliance hiding under layers of duplicate US exposure
Report created on Sep 11, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
FP FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
FPADX - US3161463316 28.12% -
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 26.88% -
FN FIDELITY NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX FUND
FNCMX - US3159127097 16.87% -
FS Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
FSKAX - US3159116934 15.63% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 9.38% -
FI Fidelity Small Cap Value Index Fund
FISVX - US31635T7735 3.12%
This portfolio looks diversified at first glance, but underneath it’s basically three flavors of the same US stock salad plus a big emerging-markets side dish. The 500 Index, Total Market, and Nasdaq funds overlap heavily, so the lineup is more “copy‑paste” than carefully curated. Then almost a third is hurled into emerging markets like a dramatic plot twist. Structurally, this is less a thoughtfully built portfolio and more a pile of index products that all sort of point at the same place. The end result: the illusion of complexity without much extra substance, and one big bet on emerging markets doing their thing.
Growth
Performance-wise, this thing did fine but clearly not “I nailed it” fine. A 14.03% CAGR since 2019 turned $1,000 into $2,553, which looks great until the US market strolls in at 15.78% and quietly outshines it. You basically held a US-heavy portfolio and still lagged the plain US benchmark, mainly thanks to that heavyweight emerging-markets anchor. Max drawdown was -32.77%, so the pain was just as real as the benchmarks, only with slightly less payoff. And 90% of returns coming from just 23 days is a reminder that missing a few wild days would have turned “solid results” into “why did I bother.” Past data helps, but it’s still yesterday’s weather.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection is like running this portfolio through a financial hurricane simulator 1,000 times. Median outcome after 15 years is $2,817 from $1,000, which is decent but not exactly “retire on a yacht” level. The likely range of $1,860–$4,278 says the future is somewhere between “nice” and “okay, that worked,” while the $993 lower extreme is basically “15 years for nothing.” That 8.29% average annual return across simulations is a step down from historical glory, which is the model’s way of saying “don’t expect the last few years on repeat.” Projections are useful, but they’re still glorified guesswork dressed up with statistics.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class breakdown is brutally simple: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. This is not a portfolio that believes in brakes, airbags, or anything remotely resembling a cushion. No bonds, no cash buffer, no diversifiers — just full-send into equity volatility. That’s fine if turbulence is the plan, but it does mean the ride is entirely at the mercy of stock markets with nothing to smooth the edges. In a calm market, this looks bold; in a crash, it looks like a bad idea in hindsight. The structure screams “growth at all costs,” and costs here are measured in how much drawdown one stomach can handle.
Sectors
- Technology 38%
- Financials 14%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Health Care 7%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 1%
Sector-wise, this portfolio is a tech-fueled rocket with 38% in technology and then everyone else fighting over the crumbs. Financials, telecom, and consumer discretionary show up, but they’re clearly supporting characters. When nearly four out of every ten dollars march in step with tech fortunes, sector diversification becomes more marketing slogan than reality. Yes, tech has been the hero for years, but heroes also trip. The rest of the sectors are present just enough to look respectable, not enough to matter if tech hits a wall. It’s a “hope the future looks suspiciously like the last decade” kind of bet.
Regions
- North America 63%
- Asia Developed 15%
- Asia Emerging 11%
- Europe Developed 4%
- Africa/Middle East 2%
- Latin America 2%
- Japan 1%
- Europe Emerging 1%
Geographically, this is a US-centric worldview with just enough international flavor to look worldly on paper. About 63% sits in North America, then a big 26%‑ish emerging markets chunk sneaks in through the dedicated EM fund and international ETF. The mix skips right past boring balance and jumps from “home bias” to “let’s gamble on less stable markets” pretty quickly. Developed Europe and Japan barely register, like they were invited to the party out of politeness. The result is a barbell between comfortable US dominance and volatile emerging exposure, with the middle of the global market mostly ignored.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 50%
- Large-cap 29%
- Mid-cap 14%
- Small-cap 4%
- Micro-cap 3%
Market cap allocation is firmly in “index autopilot” mode: 50% mega-cap, 29% large-cap, then a modest tail of mid, small, and micro caps. That 4% small-cap and 3% micro-cap exposure is just enough to add some extra wobble without giving them meaningful influence. It’s like sprinkling hot sauce with an eye-dropper and then acting surprised when you still can’t taste it. Anyone hoping this mix gives a serious small-cap edge is kidding themselves; this is big-company land with a few tiny passengers hanging on for dear life. The mega-caps are clearly running the show, and everyone else is background noise.
True holdings
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 0.40%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
SS Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.21%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
00 SK Hynix Inc 0.20%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AS ASML Holding N.V. 0.16%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
07 Tencent Holdings Ltd 0.07%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
HS HSBC Holdings PLC 0.07%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
RY Royal Bank of Canada 0.06%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
RO Roche Holding AG 0.06%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
NO Novartis AG 0.06%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AZ AstraZeneca PLC 0.06%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 1.34%
The look-through data barely scratches 1.3% of the portfolio, but it still manages to show the usual suspects: chip giants, global banks, and big pharma names that pop up in every broad index. Even with minimal visibility, there’s already overlap showing up between funds, which means hidden concentration is almost guaranteed once you go beyond the top-10 snapshots. In other words, the portfolio holds a bunch of different wrappers that repeatedly buy the same global giants. Different tickers, same underlying cast. The lack of deeper look-through isn’t some mystery flaw; it just means the “diversification” is probably even more redundant than it looks.
Factors
Factor-wise, this portfolio is aggressively average — almost suspiciously so. Value, size, momentum, quality, and low volatility all hover around “neutral,” which basically means it behaves like a generic market stew with no distinctive seasoning. The only hint of personality is low yield at 33%, so it’s clearly not trying to win any dividend trophies. Factor exposure is like the ingredient list telling you what really drives returns; here, it reads “whatever the market does, we’ll copy.” On the upside, there are no glaring factor contradictions. On the downside, there’s nothing intentional or interesting either — just pure beta in different outfits.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 26.88% 26.8% -
FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
Weight: 28.12% 25.2% -
FIDELITY NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX FUND
Weight: 16.87% 20.1% -
Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
Weight: 15.63% 16.0% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 9.38% 8.4% - Top 5 risk contribution 96.6%
Risk contribution shows who’s actually shaking the portfolio, and surprise: it’s the big three US-heavy funds and that EM block. The top three holdings drive over 72% of total risk, which means the rest are basically passengers along for the ride. The Nasdaq fund is doing extra drama per dollar, with a risk/weight of 1.19, acting like the loud friend at the party who talks over everyone else. The EM fund, oddly, contributes slightly less risk than its weight suggests, but it still pulls a quarter of total volatility. On paper this looks diversified; in reality, a handful of funds control how your portfolio’s mood swings.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationFIDELITY NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX FUNDFidelity 500 Index FundFidelity Total Market Index Fund
The correlation picture is basically three funds moving in lockstep and pretending they’re different. The Nasdaq Composite, Total Market, and 500 Index are tightly synced, which is what you’d expect when they’re all fishing in the same US pond, just with slightly different nets. In a downturn, these won’t politely disagree — they’ll dive together. Correlation is just a fancy way of saying “do these things panic at the same time?” and here the answer is yes, loudly. Holding multiple near-clones doesn’t make crashes softer; it just adds more line items to watch bleed in unison.
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, this portfolio actually lands right on the efficient frontier, which is annoyingly competent. The Sharpe ratio of 0.57 isn’t as good as the optimized portfolio’s 0.8 or even the minimum variance option’s 0.65, but given the constraint of current holdings, the weights are pulling their weight. Efficient frontier just means “best return for each level of risk using what you already own,” and this setup is basically doing that. So yes, there’s some inefficiency compared to what’s mathematically possible, but not much. For a collection of overlapping index funds, it’s surprisingly well-tuned, even if the ingredients are repetitive.
Dividends
- Fidelity Small Cap Value Index Fund 11.00%
- FIDELITY NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX FUND 0.50%
- FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 1.90%
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.90%
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.00%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.50%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.61%
The overall yield of 1.61% is classic “growth index” territory: the portfolio is here to appreciate, not to shower anyone with cash. The real weirdo is that 11% yield on the small-cap value fund, which sticks out like a typo or a special situation wrapped in an index label. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq fund spits out a token 0.5%, which is exactly what you’d expect from a tech-heavy, reinvest-everything setup. Yield isn’t the main story here; it’s more of an accidental side effect. Anyone relying on this lineup for meaningful income is basically trying to live off spare change.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity Small Cap Value Index Fund 0.05%
- FIDELITY NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX FUND 0.29%
- FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.08%
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.02%
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.09%
Costs are where this portfolio quietly flexes. A total TER of 0.09% is impressively low — almost suspiciously so, like you actually read the factsheets before buying. The 0.29% Nasdaq fund is the priciest passenger, but even that is hardly offensive in the grand scheme. Fees here are more “annoying background buzz” than “silent wealth siphon.” You’re basically flying economy and somehow getting near-business-class fee treatment. Given how much redundancy there is between holdings, it’s almost funny that the cost structure is the part that looks the most intentionally well-designed.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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