Roast mode 🔥

Confident value nerd energy with a secret crush on the biggest growth stocks in the world

Report created on Apr 23, 2026

Risk profile

  • Secure
    Speculative

The risk profile, derived from past market volatility, reflects the level of risk the portfolio is exposed to. This assessment helps align your investments with your financial goals and comfort with market fluctuations.

Diversification profile

  • Focused
    Diversified

The diversification assessment evaluates the spread of investments across asset classes, regions, and sectors. This ensures a balanced mix, reducing risk and maximizing returns by not concentrating in any single area.

Positions

This portfolio looks like someone tried to build a thoughtful value strategy and then panic-bought two giant “own-everything” funds on top. Half the money is basically a global-market-plus-US-clone sandwich, and the other half is carved into three overlapping value-factor slices. It’s diversified in the sense that everything is an equity ETF, but structurally it’s kind of a blur: core beta plus factor sauce, with no clear spine. The result is more “ETF sampler platter” than deliberate architecture. It works, but if this were a house, the foundations, walls, and roof all came from different blueprints that never quite got coordinated.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing has been on a heater: €1,000 turning into €1,685 in under three years, with a 23.54% CAGR is basically “everything went right” territory. Beating both US and global markets by around 4% per year is great, but let’s not pretend this is normal or permanent. CAGR is just the smoothed average speed over a very short and very favorable road trip. The -20.2% max drawdown shows it still punches like an equity portfolio when markets sulk. Only 24 days creating 90% of returns screams “fragile outperformance” — miss a handful of good days or a factor wobble and the victory lap looks a lot less epic.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection is the cold shower after the performance party. Simulations say €1,000 most likely crawls to around €2,733 over 15 years, which is solid but nowhere near the rocket ship the backtest implies. Monte Carlo is basically a thousand alternate timelines rolled from the same dice: sometimes markets behave, sometimes they don’t. The €952–€7,421 range shows how wild it can get — from “you barely beat cash” to “you crushed it.” The 7.94% annualized across all simulations is the grown-up version of the story: good, not mythical. Past data is yesterday’s weather; helpful, but the forecast can still be way off.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class breakdown is hilariously simple: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. This is the financial equivalent of ordering “meat” and skipping vegetables, sides, and drinks. For something labeled “balanced,” it’s really just balanced between US and non-US equities, not between growth engines and stabilizers. When everything is equity, everything is invited to the same crash. There’s no buffer, no shock absorber, just a slightly more thoughtful version of “all in on stocks.” It’s coherent in a one-dimensional way, but anyone expecting multi-asset nuance is going to be disappointed — this is a mono-asset conviction play wearing a polite label.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    28%
  • Financials
    16%
  • Industrials
    10%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    8%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    5%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, this portfolio says it likes value but acts like a tech fan who won’t admit it. Technology is the biggest slice at 28%, comfortably ahead of anything else, with financials a distant second. So the factor branding leans “disciplined value,” but the actual look-through says “please let the chip makers and platform giants keep winning.” It’s not outrageously lopsided, but the tilt is clear: if high-multiple tech and big digital platforms ever take a proper break, this portfolio is getting dragged into that sulk. The value funds help diversify, but the sector mix still dances to the growth-stock drumbeat.

Regions Info

  • North America
    55%
  • Europe Developed
    22%
  • Asia Developed
    9%
  • Asia Emerging
    6%
  • Japan
    4%
  • Latin America
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Europe Emerging
    1%

Geographically, it’s “America first, but we’ve at least heard of the rest of the world.” With 55% in North America, then 22% Europe developed and a decent scatter across Asia and emerging regions, it’s basically a polished version of the global market cap map. This isn’t a crime, just unoriginal. The “value” push isn’t showing up as a bold regional stance; it’s more of a seasoning sprinkled on top of a very standard US-heavy base. On the upside, this avoids the classic “home bias gone wild” problem for a European investor. On the downside, it’s still heavily chained to US market moods.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    45%
  • Large-cap
    39%
  • Mid-cap
    15%

Market cap exposure is very mainstream: 45% mega-cap, 39% large-cap, 15% mid-cap, and basically no appetite for the small-cap chaos zone. That means the supposed “value tilt” is largely happening inside the big leagues, not out hunting unloved small bargains. So despite the factor labels, the portfolio still worships at the altar of the giants. When mega-caps lead, this looks smart; when they lag, everything suddenly feels more ordinary. It’s less a brave contrarian stance and more a slightly tweaked version of the same market-cap-weighted story the standard indexes already tell, just with a fancier factor accent.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    3.24%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.34%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    2.00%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.75%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.45%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.25%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.19%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.08%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    0.91%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 18.89%

The look-through holdings are the punchline: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, TSMC, Amazon, Alphabet (twice), Broadcom, Meta, Tesla — this is the “value” portfolio that secretly mainlines the Magnificent Whatever-Number-We’re-At-Now. Overlap is guaranteed, but the top-10 coverage is only 28.8%, so the true duplication is definitely worse under the hood. You’re essentially paying multiple funds to redistribute you back into the same global mega-cap royalty set. It’s not catastrophic — these are strong businesses — but it does mean a lot of the diversification is cosmetic. Different ETF wrappers, same handful of megastars doing the heavy lifting.

Risk contribution Info

  • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    Weight: 30.00%
    31.7%
  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 30.00%
    30.6%
  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
    Weight: 15.00%
    15.8%
  • iShares MSCI Europe Value Factor UCITS
    Weight: 15.00%
    12.5%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    Weight: 10.00%
    9.4%

Risk contribution is refreshingly boring and mildly inefficient. The top three positions — S&P 500, ACWI, and EM Value — make up 75% of the weight and about 78% of the total risk, so nothing is secretly detonating the portfolio from the shadows. The S&P 500 slice contributes slightly more risk than its weight, the ACWI fund is about proportional, and the two smaller value funds actually under-contribute. That means the supposedly “smart” diversifiers are doing less drama than the plain old market beta. No single ETF is wildly out of control, but the core funds clearly run the emotional rollercoaster.

Redundant positions Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    High correlation

Correlation-wise, the S&P 500 ETF and the ACWI ETF move “almost identically,” which is analyst-speak for “you basically doubled down on the same thing with extra paperwork.” When two holdings are highly correlated, they don’t diversifiy each other; they just hold hands when they fall. You’re burning mental and fee complexity to own what is effectively one big global-plus-US blob split across two wrappers. It’s not harmful in the performance sense — clearly it’s been fine — but it’s peak redundancy in the design sense. Different tickers, same ride, like buying two seats on the same rollercoaster.

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 is sitting below its own efficient frontier by 3.37 percentage points at the current risk level. Translation: using the same ingredients in different proportions, the math says you could have had more return for this level of volatility. The Sharpe ratio of 1.38 looks good until you see the max-Sharpe version at 1.89 and the min-variance version at 1.67. The efficient frontier is basically the “don’t waste your risk” curve; right now, this portfolio is wasting some. It’s like driving a sports car permanently stuck in Eco mode — functional, but objectively leaving performance on the table.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD 0.40%
  • iShares MSCI Europe Value Factor UCITS 0.25%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR 0.30%
  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF 0.45%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.26%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio doesn’t embarrass itself. A blended TER around 0.26% is perfectly reasonable for a bunch of factor and global funds — not rock-bottom, but nowhere near “why are you like this?” territory. The ACWI slice at 0.45% is the priciest offender, especially given it overlaps so heavily with the cheaper S&P 500 core. So yes, fees are under control, but there’s still some mild “paying twice for the same exposure” going on. Overall though, cost drag isn’t the villain here; the structure and duplication are doing more damage to elegance than the pricing.

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