Roast mode 🔥

Efficient looking world portfolio that still manages to trip over its own global exposure

Report created on Apr 4, 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

Structurally this thing is three ETFs in a trench coat pretending to be sophisticated. Sixty‑five percent is in one “own-the-whole-world” fund, then you bolt on 25% Europe and 10% World ex‑USA like a nervous decorator who keeps adding the same color paint. You’ve basically got global equity… plus extra global equity… plus a side order of global equity, all with heavy overlap. It’s not disastrous, just redundant. Composition‑wise this is more “ETF matryoshka doll” than carefully sculpted mix. The main takeaway: you could likely get almost the same exposure with fewer moving parts and a simpler story without changing the risk profile much.

Growth Info

Performance-wise, you accidentally did something right. A 10.42% CAGR over the period, turning €1,000 into €1,226, is slightly beating both the US market and the global market. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is the “average speed” of your money over the trip. Max drawdown of -19.46% is less ugly than the benchmarks too, so you didn’t get paid with extra pain. Just remember: this track record covers basically one weird market cycle, not some timeless truth. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful, but it won’t stop tomorrow’s storm. Takeaway: solid result, but don’t build a personality around it.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation basically rolled the dice 1,000 times on 15-year futures for this portfolio. Median outcome of €2,712 from €1,000 sounds nice, but the “possible range” from €908 to €7,130 politely screams: “Anything could happen.” That’s the point — simulations aren’t predictions, they’re stress tests with delusions of grandeur. About 74% of scenarios end positive, which suits a balanced risk score vibe. But notice how the downside is “barely above break-even after 15 years,” while the upside is “lottery ticket with a job.” Takeaway: good odds, but still equity risk — not a magic compounding machine.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, nothing else. For a “balanced” label, this is basically an equity maximalist in a sensible jacket. No bonds, no diversifiers, just one giant bet that global companies will keep marching up and to the right. That’s fine if the time horizon is long and nerves are solid, but calling this “balanced” is generous; it’s more like “equity-only but not totally reckless.” In practical terms, any serious crash hits the whole thing at once. Takeaway: if someone wants smoother ride, this setup is about as subtle as an all‑espresso diet.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    19%
  • Financials
    19%
  • Industrials
    15%
  • Health Care
    10%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    6%
  • Consumer Staples
    6%
  • Basic Materials
    5%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector split actually looks… suspiciously reasonable. Tech and financials tied at 19%, then industrials, health care, and the usual suspects in roughly index-like proportions. No glaring sector addiction, no bizarre 40% bet on one theme. The quiet problem: you’re basically hugging a broad global index, which means you inherit whatever the market’s latest fashion is. When tech leads, you look smart; when it blows up, you “believe in diversification” again. Takeaway: sector exposure isn’t the villain here — it’s just telling you that this portfolio lives and dies with whatever the global equity market is obsessed with.

Regions Info

  • North America
    43%
  • Europe Developed
    40%
  • Japan
    6%
  • Asia Developed
    4%
  • Asia Emerging
    3%
  • Australasia
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

Geographically, this is “World, but make it Western.” Around 43% North America and 40% developed Europe means you’re heavily parked in rich, established markets with a token sprinkling of everything else. Japan, Asia, Latin America, Africa are basically background characters. It’s not crazy — the global market itself is skewed this way — but it does mean you’re betting heavily on the existing economic order staying in charge. If the next few decades belong more to today’s smaller regions, you’ll only catch the trailer, not the full movie. Takeaway: geographically safe, but not exactly forward-looking.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    47%
  • Large-cap
    33%
  • Mid-cap
    15%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

Market cap tilt screams “index hugger with a tiny adventurous streak.” Almost half in mega‑caps and another third in large‑caps means the giants rule your fate. Mid‑caps get a polite invite, while small and micro‑caps are the crumbs under the table. This is comforting, because big companies are usually more stable, but it also means you miss a lot of the wild upside (and chaos) from smaller names. You’re basically choosing the corporate blue-bloods over scrappy upstarts. Takeaway: if you want real small-cap spice, this isn’t it; it’s more blue-chip comfort food.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.55%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.63%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.18%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • ASML Holding N.V.
    1.13%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Amundi Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF C
    • Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C USD EUR
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.10%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    0.96%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    0.89%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    0.84%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    0.84%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 13.42%

The look-through is basically a greatest-hits tech compilation: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, TSMC, Broadcom. You don’t hold individual stocks, but thanks to the ETFs you’re quietly worshipping at the altar of the same mega-cap gods as everyone else. And because coverage only uses ETF top‑10s, the real overlap is almost certainly worse than it looks. When the same giants appear in multiple funds, you’re not diversified, you’re just paying several wrappers to deliver the same playlist. Takeaway: you’ve outsourced stock picking, but not concentration risk — big tech still drives the bus.

Risk contribution Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 65.00%
    68.3%
  • Amundi Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF C
    Weight: 25.00%
    22.5%
  • Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C USD EUR
    Weight: 10.00%
    9.2%

Risk contribution is where the illusion of variety dies. That 65% SPDR ACWI IMI position is doing over 68% of total risk heavy lifting. The other two ETFs are glorified side characters, sharing the remaining third between them. Risk contribution shows which holdings actually move the portfolio, not just how big they look on paper. Here, one fund is the main plot; the others are B‑roll footage. That’s not inherently bad, but it makes the whole “three-ETF” structure look a bit theatrical. Takeaway: if one holding drives two‑thirds of your risk, you’d better really like what’s inside it.

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 section is the plot twist: despite the redundancy and overlap, the portfolio sits basically on the frontier. Sharpe of 0.52 versus 0.8 for the optimal version sounds bad, but remember that’s using the same ingredients with slightly different seasoning. The current mix delivers 10.91% expected return for 13.34% risk — very close to what’s theoretically best with these three ETFs. Translation: for all the clunky design, it’s surprisingly efficient at turning risk into return. Takeaway: structurally messy, but mathematically not stupid. Don’t let that justify complacency, though; efficient doesn’t mean bulletproof.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF 0.40%
  • Amundi Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF C 0.07%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.28%

Costs are… not tragic but not exactly bargain-bin either. A total TER of 0.28% is acceptable, but that 0.40% on the SPDR global fund is the diva in the fee lineup. Given how vanilla the exposure is, you’re paying a slight premium for something many cheaper funds could mimic. TER (ongoing fee) is basically the annual cover charge for being allowed into the fund. Takeaway: you’ve avoided fee disaster, but you’re definitely not operating at maximum tightwad efficiency — there’s mild leak rather than full drain.

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