Roast mode 🔥

A supposedly balanced setup that is actually an all equity rollercoaster in a cheap Vanguard hoodie

Report created on Dec 16, 2025

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This “portfolio” is basically two flavors of the same ice cream: 80% global stocks and 20% US stocks that are already inside that global fund. That’s not diversification, that’s déjà vu with extra admin. For something labeled “Balanced,” having 100% stocks is like calling a sports car “family friendly” because it has Bluetooth. A truly balanced setup usually mixes in bonds or other stabilisers, so the ride doesn’t feel like a theme park. Cleaning this up into one core global holding or a clearer split by role (growth vs safety) would make it simpler, more intentional, and less of a copy‑paste job.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing has been on a heater: a 13.69% CAGR is serious growth. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is just “average yearly speed” over the whole trip, potholes included. But that nice headline hides a chunky max drawdown of about -34%, which is the “oh no” moment when your £100 becomes £66 on paper. Against common global stock benchmarks, that mix looks broadly in line: great when markets boom, brutal when they don’t. Past data is like last year’s weather: interesting, not psychic. Anyone running this needs to be mentally and financially ready to see big temporary drops without panicking.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation here is basically a thousand alternate-universe futures where markets wiggle around based on past patterns. Median outcome turning £100 into around £552 looks like a fairy tale, and even the gloomy 5th percentile barely loses real ground. But simulations are drama queens: they’re built on historical returns and volatility, assuming the future politely behaves. It won’t. Think of it as a weather forecast generated by “what if the last 30 years just remix themselves?” Useful, not gospel. Treat this as “directionally optimistic” rather than guaranteed, and sanity‑check if you could still sleep at the lower‑end scenarios.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. That’s not “balanced,” that’s “I only eat protein.” No bonds, no cash buffer, no alternatives—just pure equity exposure. That’s fine for a long‑term, high‑risk profile, but the label “Balanced” here is doing some heavy PR work. Most balanced portfolios use bonds as shock absorbers, so when stocks throw a tantrum, something else keeps the portfolio from face‑planting. With this setup, when stocks fall, everything falls because everything is stocks. If stability, shorter‑term goals, or lower stress matter, sneaking in some lower‑volatility assets would turn this from an all‑or‑nothing bet into an actual plan.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    30%
  • Financials
    16%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    11%
  • Industrials
    10%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Energy
    3%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, this is straight-up “index junkie” with a tech crush: 30% in technology, chunky exposure to financials, cyclicals, and comms. It’s basically a love letter to modern capitalism’s mood swings. That sector mix is roughly what you’d find in global and US large-cap benchmarks, so nothing uniquely wild—but don’t pretend it’s neutral. When tech and growthy names sneeze, this portfolio catches the flu. If someone wants a smoother ride, they’d need to dial back reliance on a few high‑growth sectors and make sure more boring, defensive areas play a bigger role instead of just being background extras at 2–5%.

Regions Info

  • North America
    72%
  • Europe Developed
    11%
  • Asia Emerging
    5%
  • Japan
    5%
  • Asia Developed
    4%
  • Australasia
    1%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

Geographically, this is “America or bust”: 72% North America, then a sprinkle of Europe, Japan, and emerging markets like seasoning. This looks very similar to a standard global cap‑weighted index, which is sensible… and also extremely tied to US fortunes. If the US keeps dominating, great, you ride the wave. If not, you’ve basically built a portfolio that assumes American exceptionalism forever. Adding more deliberate non‑US exposure or using a structure that slightly leans away from the US could reduce “one country to rule them all” risk. As it stands, global on paper, very US‑centric in reality.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    47%
  • Large-cap
    34%
  • Mid-cap
    17%
  • Small-cap
    1%

Market cap tilt: mega and big caps dominate (47% and 34%), with mid caps as side characters and small caps basically cameoing at 1%. This is classic index behavior: overweight the giants, underweight the scrappy underdogs. It’s stable-ish but also means you’re chained to the fate of global mega‑brands. When they wobble, everything shakes. There’s nothing especially clever here; it’s just “own the world, but mostly the biggest logos.” For someone wanting extra growth or diversification, a more intentional role for mids and smalls could add spice—right now, they’re too tiny to matter when things actually move.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    High correlation

Correlation-wise, the two holdings might as well be twins. Both are global/US large-cap equity ETFs, highly correlated, and move together like they’re copying each other’s homework. Correlation just means how similar two things move: 1.0 is “identical drama,” -1.0 is “perfect opposites.” Your pair is firmly in the “identical drama” camp. That 20% S&P 500 on top of an all-world fund is basically paying for extra USA that you already own. Trimming overlapping funds and focusing on fewer, clearer building blocks would simplify rebalancing and make each position actually do something unique instead of being a slightly louder echo.

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.

In risk-return terms, this portfolio is a blunt instrument: high risk, high return, almost zero nuance. Efficient Frontier (the nerdy term) is just the curve showing the best possible return for a given level of risk. You’re sitting on the aggressive part of that curve but calling it “Balanced,” which is hilarious. For someone with decades ahead and iron nerves, this might be fine. For anyone else, it’s more “hold on and pray” than “carefully tuned machine.” Swapping some equity risk for steadier assets could move it closer to an actually efficient mix rather than just maxing the volatility slider and hoping history repeats.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Accumulation 0.07%
  • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation 0.19%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.17%

Costs are the one part of this portfolio that looks like an adult was in the room. A total TER around 0.17% is nicely cheap—index-level cheap. You’ve basically avoided the “pay 1% to be mediocre” trap, so credit where it’s due. But you’re also paying two managers to mostly give you the same underlying exposure. It’s like buying two Netflix subscriptions for the same household. Simplifying to fewer overlapping funds could shave off mental clutter, even if the fee impact is small. Still, compared to the average fee circus out there, this is refreshingly sober and quietly efficient.

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