Roast mode 🔥

Half cautious half gambler portfolio trying to be boring and exciting at the same time

Report created on May 1, 2026

Risk profile Info

3/7
Cautious
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

5/5
Highly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio looks like it was built by a committee that never actually met. One side wanted a sleepy euro government bond ladder and inflation-linked safety blanket, the other side snuck in crypto, gold, a Slovenia small market ETF, a tech fund, and a single stock bet on Novo Nordisk. Calling it “Cautious Investors” with a 3/7 risk score while parking 7% in Bitcoin and Ethereum is… optimistic. The structure is a mashup of broad market, niche regional bet, single-stock conviction, plus shiny objects. It’s diversified on paper, but the overall vibe is less “coherent strategy” and more “everything I’ve ever liked in one basket.”

Growth Info

Historically, this thing has done well, but not “justify the weirdness” well. Turning €1,000 into €1,510 is a 19.5% CAGR, which is strong, yet both the US market and global market did better over the same period with higher returns and only slightly nastier drawdowns. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is just your average speed on a bumpy road, and here the car kept up but never led the race. The max drawdown of about -13% is actually tame compared with the benchmarks, but that makes the underperformance sting more: the portfolio didn’t crash hard, but it also didn’t fully cash in on the upside.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection basically says, “This portfolio might work out fine, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo just means the computer throws thousands of random futures at the current mix to see what happens — like stress-testing a Jenga tower in a wind tunnel. Median outcome of €2,325 from €1,000 over 15 years is decent, and a 71.8% chance of ending positive isn’t terrible. But the spread — from around €1,242 to €4,547 — shows how much guesswork the market still imposes. Past data and simulations are yesterday’s weather: useful, but not a prophecy, especially when crypto and single-stock risk are in the mix.

Asset classes Info

  • Bonds
    37%
  • Stocks
    32%
  • No data
    22%
  • Crypto
    7%
  • Other
    3%

On the surface, the asset class split looks “responsible”: 37% bonds, 32% stocks, 7% crypto, 3% “other,” and a chunky 22% “no data” black box. The bonds pull the portfolio toward the cautious label, while the crypto pulls it in the opposite direction like a toddler yanking the steering wheel. With more than a third in bonds, this isn’t a thrill ride, but dropping crypto and concentrated equity risk onto that base is like adding a couple of shots of tequila to chamomile tea. The mysterious “no data” chunk just adds another layer of “hope nothing weird is hiding there.”

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    13%
  • No data
    7%
  • Crypto
    7%
  • Financials
    3%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    2%
  • Industrials
    2%
  • Telecommunications
    2%
  • Health Care
    1%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector-wise, this is a stealth tech-tilt portfolio pretending to be diversified. Technology at 13% is the loudest voice, followed by tiny slices of financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, telecoms, health care, staples, energy, and materials — all too small individually to really matter much. Throw in 7% crypto and you’ve basically got “tech + casino tokens + assorted sprinkles.” For something classed as cautious, leaning this visibly on tech sentiment and digital assets is a bit of a personality mismatch. The non-tech sectors are more like background extras than meaningful drivers of how this portfolio actually behaves day to day.

Regions Info

  • North America
    16%
  • Europe Developed
    7%
  • Asia Developed
    4%
  • Asia Emerging
    3%
  • Japan
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geography here screams “accidentally global.” North America at 16% does most of the heavy lifting, with only modest tilts to developed Europe, developed Asia, Japan, and a small slice of emerging Asia. Meanwhile, there’s a 13.33% bet on Slovenia via a local ETF that doesn’t even show up cleanly in the regional breakdown, quietly hijacking the narrative. The overall mix looks somewhat global, but the country-level risk is sneakier than the regional numbers suggest. Instead of a broad, balanced world footprint, it’s more like “world-ish” with a random spotlight on a tiny market that can swing harder than the labels imply.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    14%
  • Mega-cap
    14%
  • No data
    3%
  • Mid-cap
    3%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Market cap exposure is heavily tilted to the giants: 14% large cap and 14% mega cap, with only 3% in mid caps and 3% “no data.” That means most of the equity story is tied to mega machines that dominate global indexes. On one hand, that’s boring and relatively stable — big companies don’t usually vanish overnight. On the other, it’s basically outsourcing creativity to whatever dominates standard indices and then sprinkling some crypto and Slovenia on top for edge. The mid-cap presence is too small to give meaningful differentiation, so the portfolio ends up riding with the big herd anyway.

True holdings Info

  • Novo Nordisk A/S Class B
    6.67%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • Apple Inc
    1.88%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.34%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.11%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    0.72%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • ASML Holding N.V.
    0.46%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
    • Xtrackers Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
    0.42%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    0.36%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
  • iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
    0.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 15.42%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

The look-through data is only 19.8% of the portfolio, but it still reveals the usual suspects. Novo Nordisk is a straight 6.67% single-stock bet, no ETF padding. Then come the tech mascots: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, TSMC, Broadcom, ASML, Samsung, Amazon — all showing up via funds. Overlap is clearly there, but likely understated since only ETF top 10s are counted. So while the portfolio looks diversified by funds, a chunk of it boils down to the same global mega-tech cluster plus one big pharma-ish darling. It’s less a broad orchestra and more a band with way too many lead guitarists.

Risk contribution Info

  • Novo Nordisk A/S Class B
    Weight: 6.67%
    17.7%
  • Expat Slovenia SBI Top UCITS ETF
    Weight: 13.33%
    14.5%
  • Ethereum
    Weight: 3.33%
    14.2%
  • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    Weight: 10.00%
    11.4%
  • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
    Weight: 6.67%
    10.9%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 68.7%

Risk contribution lays out who’s actually shaking the portfolio, and it’s not subtle. Novo Nordisk at 6.67% weight contributing 17.65% of total risk is doing main-character work. Ethereum at just 3.33% weight contributing 14.21% of risk is pure chaos in a small package. The Slovenia ETF, at 13.33% weight and 14.51% risk, is also pulling more than its share. Top three positions add up to 46.37% of total risk, meaning almost half the volatility comes from a few names while the bond chunk quietly does nothing dramatic. The cautious label doesn’t really survive this breakdown with a straight face.

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.

The efficient frontier chart roasts this portfolio more brutally than I ever could. The current Sharpe ratio of 1.35 isn’t terrible, but the optimal mix of the same holdings has a Sharpe of 2.95 — more than double the risk-adjusted return using the exact same ingredients. Being 12.61 percentage points below the frontier at the current risk level basically says, “Nice collection, terrible proportions.” Efficient frontier is just the best possible risk/return combos from what you already own; this portfolio sits noticeably below that curve. Translation: the ingredients are fine, but the recipe is wasting a lot of potential.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF 0.20%
  • Invesco Euro Government Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF 0.10%
  • iShares Inflation Linked Government Bond UCITS 0.09%
  • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C 0.25%
  • iShares Physical Gold ETC 0.25%
  • Xtrackers MSCI Japan UCITS ETF 1C 0.12%
  • Amundi Euro Government Bond 3-5Y UCITS ETF Acc EUR 0.16%
  • Multi Units Luxembourg - Lyxor EuroMTS 5-7Y Investment Grade (DR) UCITS ETF 0.16%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.09%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio looks almost suspiciously sensible. A total TER around 0.09% is genuinely low — you basically tripped and fell into cheap ETFs. The underlying funds sit in the 0.09–0.25% range, which is not bargain-basement for every holding but very reasonable overall. Cost-wise, this is not where the problem is; the chaos comes from what’s held, not what it costs. Still, it’s mildly hilarious to see such efficient fees on a portfolio that’s otherwise a mood board of conflicting ideas. You’re at least not overpaying for the confusion.

What next?

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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