Efficiently lazy global value mashup that hugs the market and calls it a strategy
Report created on Jul 22, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
SP SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
SPYY - IE00B44Z5B48 60.00% -
IS iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
IS3S - IE00BD45HH35 25.00% -
5M iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
5MVL - IE00BG0SKF03 15.00%
This portfolio is basically a global index with a value costume thrown on top. Sixty percent is straight “own the world,” then 40% piles into value-flavoured smart beta, split between developed and emerging. It looks fancy, but structurally it’s just three big ETFs doing almost exactly the same equity job with slightly different seasoning. It’s diversified enough to pass any compliance quiz, yet intellectually it’s kind of half-committed: either be the market, or be a bold factor nerd — this does neither wholeheartedly. The result is a portfolio that looks deliberate on paper, but could easily have been built by picking whatever sounded serious in a broker dropdown.
Growth
Historically, this thing has done the classic “pretty good but not brag-worthy” routine. A 13.81% CAGR turned €1,000 into €2,688 — hard to be upset with that. But the US market benchmark quietly walked ahead with 16.06%, while the global benchmark was basically neck-and-neck. So the value tilt didn’t exactly unlock hidden magic; it mostly just added complexity for slightly tweaked results. The max drawdown of -33.28% was textbook equity pain, no special protection. Past data is like old weather reports: useful context, but it doesn’t care what the backtest promised.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation is basically a thousand “what if” futures, and this portfolio’s outcomes say: welcome to normal equity risk. Median €1,000 becomes about €2,718 in 15 years, which is decent but absolutely not yacht money. The spread is wide: in ugly universes you end near €955, in the lucky ones you’re around €7,500. That’s the point of Monte Carlo — it reminds everyone that “expected return” is just the average of a lot of chaos. The projection screams one thing clearly: this is an all-equity ride, and volatility will decide how pleasant the journey feels.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class “diversification” here is a joke setup: 100% stocks, full stop. No bonds, no cash buffer, no alternatives, just pure equity beta with a side of value seasoning. For something tagged “balanced,” it’s balanced in the same way a pizza with three types of cheese is “varied cuisine.” Being all-equity is fine as long as no one pretends this is structurally cushioned in a crisis. When markets tank, this thing is going down with them, because everything in the portfolio signed up for the same rollercoaster. The only defensive tool here is time and the investor’s nerves.
Sectors
- Technology 35%
- Financials 16%
- Industrials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Health Care 7%
- Telecommunications 7%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Energy 4%
- Basic Materials 4%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
At sector level, this portfolio is loudly tech-heavy at 35%, despite the value branding. It’s like ordering the “healthy option” and still ending up with extra fries. Financials, industrials, and the rest fill out the cast, but tech is clearly the lead actor, with a nice supporting role from telecoms and consumer names. For something using value factor ETFs, the sector profile still screams “growth era baggage” — semis, platforms, big digital winners. This isn’t wrong, it’s just slightly ironic: under the hood, the portfolio still relies heavily on the very areas that drove the pre-value-comeback bull markets.
Regions
- North America 52%
- Europe Developed 15%
- Asia Developed 13%
- Japan 8%
- Asia Emerging 7%
- Latin America 2%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Australasia 1%
- Europe Emerging 1%
Geographically, this portfolio is doing the classic “mostly rich-world, heavily US-influenced” routine. North America at 52% dominates, with Europe and developed Asia sprinkled in to look worldly. Emerging regions get tossed a small bone: enough to claim global coverage, not enough to really matter when they move. The result is a portfolio that pretends to be geographically neutral but still largely lives and dies by developed market narratives. It’s not absurdly home-biased for a European setup, but it’s still comfortably aligned with the usual big, liquid, well-known markets instead of genuinely spreading geopolitical and economic risk.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 36%
- Mid-cap 16%
On size, this is a pure big-league fan club: 47% mega-cap, 36% large-cap, with mid-caps allowed to exist at 16% like an afterthought. Small caps don’t even get an invite to the party. So despite the factor tilt, it’s still very much a “buy the giants” structure — safe feeling, but a bit lazy. When the biggest companies zig, this portfolio zigs with them; there’s not much of that scrappy smaller-company chaos that sometimes boosts long-term returns (and definitely boosts volatility). The size profile says: “We like factors, but not enough to be uncomfortable or weird about it.”
True holdings
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 3.76%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
- iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 2.96%
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
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.73%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
-
AA Apple Inc. 2.50%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.54%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
-
00 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 1.46%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
-
00 SK Hynix Inc 1.36%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.36%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.19%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.00%
Part of fund(s):- SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
- Top 10 total 19.87%
The look-through holdings are basically a who’s who of global tech and semis: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, TSMC, Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix, Broadcom, plus Amazon and Alphabet for good measure. For a “value-tilted” setup, that’s a surprisingly growth-flavoured top table. The overlap across the ETFs means these names show up repeatedly, even if only a quarter of the portfolio is visible from top-10 data. So the hidden concentration is almost certainly stronger than shown. This isn’t diversification; it’s the same handful of mega narratives repackaged three slightly different ways and sold as a sophisticated allocation.
Risk contribution
-
SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
Weight: 60.00% 59.4% -
iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
Weight: 25.00% 25.1% -
iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
Weight: 15.00% 15.5%
Risk contribution is boringly proportional: 60% weight gives ~59% of the risk, 25% gives ~25%, 15% gives ~15%. Nothing is secretly blowing up the risk budget; everything is just marching in lockstep according to size. That’s almost too neat. It means there are no stealthy wildcards, but also no diversification hero doing extra stabilising work. Each ETF is just a slightly different flavour of the same global equity risk, so the contribution chart looks like a tidy pie chart instead of a crime scene. It’s unexciting, but it confirms what the structure already hinted: no hidden surprises, just beta.
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, this portfolio is annoyingly competent. The Sharpe ratio of 0.65 isn’t stellar, but the optimizer says the current mix sits pretty much on the frontier for its holdings — meaning, given these three ETFs, the risk/return profile is already basically efficient. The max-Sharpe and minimum-variance options barely budge return or risk. So, no, this isn’t some tragic case of terrible weights; it’s actually tuned decently. The roast here is more conceptual: a mathematically efficient portfolio that’s still philosophically bland, because efficiency doesn’t fix the fact that you’re just shuffling three highly similar equity baskets.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD 0.40%
- 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) 0.40%
Costs are in the “not horrible, not great” zone. A total TER of 0.40% for what is basically a slightly spiced global equity allocation is acceptable but not exactly a bargain hunt. You’re paying active-ish prices for what’s essentially a factor-flavoured index hug. It’s like buying store-brand cereal that’s only slightly cheaper than the premium label — fine, but you didn’t exactly hack the system. The good news is the fees aren’t sabotaging performance on their own; the bad news is that nothing here is so exotic that it clearly justifies the ongoing drag.
What next?
Create your own report?
Join our community!
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