A globally focused equity portfolio with strong growth tilt and very low all in costs
Report created on Aug 31, 2024Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
EU iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
EUNL - IE00B4L5Y983 50.00% -
XD db x-trackers MSCI World Index UCITS DR 1C
XDWD - IE00BJ0KDQ92 50.00%
This portfolio is extremely simple: two broad global equity ETFs at 50% each, both tracking almost the same index. That means you hold a pure stock portfolio with no bonds or cash buffer, and the two positions are highly overlapping rather than truly diversified. Structurally, this looks more like a single global equity holding split across two providers. That simplicity can be great for transparency and ease of management. However, it reduces flexibility for adjusting risk using different asset types. Consolidating into fewer overlapping building blocks and leaving room for stabilizing assets could make the overall mix better match a “balanced” risk label over time.
Growth
Historically, this setup has delivered a very strong compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 12.16%. CAGR is like your average yearly speed on a long road trip, smoothing out the bumps. A maximum drawdown of about -33.6% shows how far the portfolio fell from a peak in a bad period, which is significant but typical for global stocks. Only 36 days made up 90% of returns, which underlines how a few strong days drive long‑term results. Staying invested during those days is crucial. Still, past returns happened in a specific economic environment, so they are no guarantee the same growth and drawdown pattern will repeat.
Projection
The Monte Carlo analysis simulates 1,000 different future paths using historical return and volatility patterns to estimate possible outcomes. Think of it as rolling the dice many times on your future balance, based on how markets behaved before. The median outcome of roughly 380% and high percentile values show strong growth potential, and 993 of 1,000 simulations ended positive. An annualized simulated return of about 13% is encouraging but still only a model. Because it relies heavily on past data and assumes similar risk patterns, it cannot predict new crises, regime changes, or unusually long weak periods in markets.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All assets here are in one bucket: stocks. That creates a clear growth orientation but limits diversification across asset classes. Asset classes like bonds, cash, or alternatives often behave differently from stocks, helping to smooth the ride during market stress. A purely equity-based mix typically swings more than a balanced benchmark that blends growth and stabilizing components. The current 100% equity stance aligns well with a growth-focused mindset but not with a classic balanced allocation. Introducing a modest share of stabilizing assets or a defensive sleeve could bring the portfolio’s risk profile closer to what a “balanced” label usually implies.
Sectors
- Technology 28%
- Financials 16%
- Industrials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Health Care 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 3%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector exposure is nicely spread across major areas: technology leads at 28%, followed by financial services, industrials, consumer cyclicals, and healthcare. This pattern closely mirrors common global benchmarks, which is a solid sign of diversification. The tilt toward technology is normal in global indices today but means sensitivity to interest rates, innovation cycles, and regulatory shifts. When such sectors are out of favor, a tech-heavy allocation can see sharper drops. Still, having meaningful slices in healthcare, financials, and defensive sectors provides some balance. This sector mix generally supports long‑term growth while staying broadly aligned with how the global stock market is structured.
Regions
- North America 76%
- Europe Developed 16%
- Japan 5%
- Australasia 2%
- Asia Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio leans heavily on North America at 76%, with 16% in developed Europe and smaller allocations to Japan and Australasia. This pattern closely matches standard global equity benchmarks, so the regional split is well aligned with market capitalization weights. The strong North American tilt has helped historically, as that region has outperformed many others. However, it also concentrates economic and currency exposure. Underrepresentation of emerging regions may reduce diversification benefits from different growth drivers and policy cycles. Keeping the global market-weighted approach is perfectly reasonable, but periodically checking whether you want intentional tilts away from this default can be useful.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 35%
- Mid-cap 17%
By market capitalization, the portfolio is dominated by mega and large companies, with 47% in mega caps and 35% in big caps, plus 17% in mid caps and almost nothing in small caps. Large companies generally bring more stability, better liquidity, and lower bankruptcy risk compared with smaller firms, which is good for a core holding. On the other hand, limited small-cap exposure means missing some of the potential extra growth and diversification they can offer, albeit with higher volatility. This structure closely resembles global benchmarks and is a strong, mainstream core. Any future adjustments could consider whether to add a measured tilt to smaller companies or keep the current blue‑chip focus.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationdb x-trackers MSCI World Index UCITS DR 1CiShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
The two ETFs in this portfolio are highly correlated, meaning they move almost in lockstep because they track nearly the same global index. Correlation is a measure of how similarly two investments move; when it is very high, holding both does not bring much extra diversification. In stressful markets, correlated assets tend to fall together, so splitting money across nearly identical funds rarely reduces risk. Keeping things simple with fewer overlapping funds can improve clarity and make monitoring easier. Removing redundancy and then combining genuinely different building blocks is typically more effective for risk management than just increasing the count of similar holdings.
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.
From a risk–return perspective, this portfolio currently sits at a single point on the Efficient Frontier for global stocks. The Efficient Frontier is a curve showing the best possible trade-offs between risk and return for a set of assets. Because both holdings are almost identical, there is little room to move along that curve using only these two funds; shifting weights between them barely changes the profile. To explore better efficiency, the first step is simplifying redundant positions. The next step would be mixing in assets that behave differently, allowing you to keep similar expected returns while potentially smoothing volatility and deep drawdowns using only allocation changes.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR 0.20%
- db x-trackers MSCI World Index UCITS DR 1C 0.17%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.18%
Total ongoing costs are impressively low at around 0.18% per year, which is excellent by industry standards. This aligns closely with best practices for long-term investing, where every fraction of a percent saved in fees can significantly boost future wealth. Think of fees like friction on a bike chain: low friction lets more of the effort translate into speed. Low-cost, broad ETFs are often favored as a core because they don’t require managers to beat the market, just to track it efficiently. Over decades, the difference between 0.18% and higher-fee options can translate into many thousands of euros in extra portfolio value.
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