Roast mode 🔥

Low effort global equity mashup pretending to be balanced while doing absolutely nothing else

Report created on Apr 4, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

Structurally this “portfolio” is two funds in a trench coat trying to pass as thoughtful asset allocation. Seventy percent in a total-world-style fund plus thirty percent in a world-ex-US fund is basically you buying the same global salad twice and calling it a tasting menu. There’s no bonds no cash no diversifiers — just 100% equities with a “balanced investor” label taped on for vibes. The good news: at least it’s simple and not a meme-stock zoo. The takeaway: this is a pure growth engine dressed up as moderate risk, so anyone expecting a smooth ride is going to be very confused in the next big drawdown.

Growth Info

Performance-wise the numbers look smug: ~10.6% CAGR versus ~9.6% for the US and ~10.4% for global over a short window. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is just “how fast it grew per year on average.” You also took a ~20% max drawdown, which isn’t outrageous for 100% stocks but will still ruin a few dinners. Be careful not to worship this backtest: 2 years of data is like judging someone’s life from their last weekend. The takeaway: returns are fine, risk is normal for full equities, and nothing here screams genius — just competent global beta with a mild lucky streak.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection basically says: most futures are okay-ish but some are ugly and a few are great. Monte Carlo just runs thousands of “what if” paths using past-like volatility and returns — it’s yesterday’s weather forecast applied to tomorrow’s market, so not gospel. Median outcome from €1,000 to ~€2,746 over 15 years is decent, but that p5 of ~€965 politely reminds you that 15 years doesn’t guarantee profit. The wide range (up to ~€7,362) shows how chaotic compounding can be. Takeaway: expect a bumpy but generally upward ride, while accepting that the downside tail is not just theoretical.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class “diversification” here is simply 100% stocks, zero of anything else. That’s like calling a diet “macro balanced” because you ate chicken three different ways. For a so-called balanced risk profile this is basically an equity-only rocket ship with no parachute: no bonds to buffer crashes, no cash to deploy in dips, nothing uncorrelated to soften the emotional damage. The upside is you’re not paying for pointless complexity; the downside is you’ve dialed volatility up and then labeled it “moderate.” Takeaway: this setup suits someone who can sit through ugly drawdowns without needing to sell to sleep — not someone who panics at -15%.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    20%
  • Financials
    19%
  • Industrials
    15%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    6%
  • Basic Materials
    5%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector mix is surprisingly adult for such a lazy structure: tech at 20% isn’t absurd, financials at 19% and industrials at 15% keep things from being a full-blown Silicon Valley personality cult. Still, the top holdings list reveals that your emotional risk is way more tech-heavy than the sector percentages suggest. It’s like saying your diet is balanced because vegetables exist somewhere under that mountain of fries. The broad spread means no single sector is obviously deranged, but when the market narrative revolves around big tech your portfolio will feel it. Takeaway: sector risk is okay on paper but psychologically tethered to tech headlines.

Regions Info

  • North America
    49%
  • Europe Developed
    27%
  • Japan
    10%
  • Asia Developed
    5%
  • Asia Emerging
    3%
  • Australasia
    3%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

Geographically this is actually one of the least ridiculous things about the portfolio. About half in North America, roughly a quarter in developed Europe, plus decent slices of Japan and other Asia — this is pretty close to how global markets are actually sized. So no “America or bust” or “home bias” drama here; just a standard market-cap world. The roast: it’s so textbook that it borders on unimaginative — you basically outsourced geopolitical thinking to an index committee. Takeaway: for global spread this is surprisingly sensible, which means future pain will be market-wide, not because you bet the farm on one country.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    48%
  • Large-cap
    34%
  • Mid-cap
    14%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

Market cap breakdown is peak index-core: about half in mega-caps, a third in large, token amounts in mid/small and a rounding error in micro. You’re basically saying, “I trust the giants; the little guys can have my pocket change.” That’s standard for market-cap weighting, but it does mean your fate is welded to huge companies staying huge. If small caps have a great decade, you’ll clap from the sidelines. Takeaway: this is stability over spice — fine if you want smoother-ish equity behavior, less fine if you were secretly hoping for under-the-radar rocket ships.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.74%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.49%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.75%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.27%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.19%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.03%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    0.95%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    0.91%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    0.90%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    0.73%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 13.97%

The look-through holdings scream “I outsourced my brain to market-cap indexes.” NVIDIA Apple Microsoft Amazon Alphabet — the usual tech megacap Avengers — quietly dominate your top exposures despite you technically owning “the whole world.” Hidden overlap is definitely there because both ETFs lean on the same giants, and we’re only seeing top-10 names. When the same companies appear in multiple wrappers, you’re more concentrated than your fund list suggests. Think of it as buying three different burgers and being surprised they all contain beef. Takeaway: you’re heavily tied to a handful of mega tech names whether that was deliberate or just passive autopilot.

Risk contribution Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 70.00%
    73.0%
  • Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C USD EUR
    Weight: 30.00%
    27.0%

Risk contribution is brutally straightforward: the 70% global IMI fund delivers 73% of the risk, the 30% ex-US fund does 27%. Risk contribution tells you which holdings actually drive your portfolio’s mood swings, not just who shows up on the holding list. In your case, the big fund is wearing the risk crown, but at least there’s no sneaky 5% position causing 25% of the drama. Still, both funds are highly correlated global equities, so splitting 70/30 is more cosmetic than structural. Takeaway: trimming risk would mean changing asset classes, not just nudging percentages between these two almost-twins.

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, you’re weirdly competent. The portfolio sits right on or near the frontier with a Sharpe ratio of 0.52 versus 0.8 for the “optimal” re-weighting using the same stuff. Sharpe is “return per unit of risk above cash” — how much you’re getting paid for the nausea. The model says you could squeeze a bit more return or slightly less risk with different weights, but you’re not wasting potential in some clownish way. Takeaway: for what you hold, the mix is surprisingly efficient. The real improvement lever isn’t tinkering inside equity-only land; it’s adding genuinely different assets if you ever want smoother behavior.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF 0.40%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.28%

Costs are… fine, with a side of “you could have done better with five minutes of research.” A 0.40% TER on the big SPDR fund drags the blended cost to ~0.28%. Not daylight robbery, but also not the rock-bottom pricing that exists in the same universe. Paying that much for plain-vanilla global equity exposure is like buying generic cereal at boutique prices. The faint praise: at least you didn’t stack multiple expensive active funds on top. Takeaway: costs won’t kill you here, but shaving them down over decades is basically free performance — no genius required, just choosing cheaper wrappers.

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