Roast mode 🔥

Comfortably average target date zombie portfolio politely declines to try beating literally anything

Report created on Apr 6, 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 76% “one big target-date to rule them all” and then a bunch of tiny side quests that mostly duplicate what’s already inside. It’s like buying a full meal combo, then ordering extra fries and a second drink just to feel involved. The core 2050 fund is doing basically all the work, while the extra ETFs and index funds add complexity without meaningfully changing behavior. When one holding drives three-quarters of the portfolio, you don’t really have a collection of ideas, you have one idea with some garnish. If that’s intentional, fine. If not, it’s closet indexing with commitment issues.

Growth Info

Over almost eight years, $1,000 turning into $2,070 is… fine. A 9.99% CAGR (compound annual growth rate, a “what was my average speed?” number) is solid in isolation, until the US market shows up with 13.34% and makes this look like it jogged the marathon. You lagged global stocks too, just less embarrassingly. Max drawdown around -32% was slightly gentler than the benchmarks, so you basically paid with performance for a small dose of comfort on the way down. Past data is like old weather reports: useful for patterns, terrible for predictions. But the pattern here is clear — safety-ish tilt, speed limit engaged.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection — think “1,000 alternate timelines for your money” — says $1,000 most likely lands around $2,761 in 15 years, with a big-but-not insane spread from roughly $1,000 to $7,000 in the more extreme paths. Annualized, 7.81% across simulations is decent, especially against a cash world stuck at much lower long-run real returns. But those ranges are wide; simulations are nerdy guesses based on historic risk and return, not a crystal ball. They assume markets keep vaguely behaving like the past, which is… optimistic. Translation: outcome probably positive, but the path could feel like a slow hike or a roller coaster depending on luck and timing.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    90%
  • Bonds
    10%

Asset mix is 90% stocks and 10% bonds, which is a bit spicier than “balanced” usually sounds. Balanced in marketing, growthy in reality. That’s basically saying, “Yeah, I’d like long-term growth, but please toss in one training wheel so I can tell myself it’s safer.” The 2050 fund is doing the glide-path thing for you, but right now the risk dial is clearly closer to “growth investor who still pretends to be responsible” than textbook middle-of-the-road. Big takeaway: this setup expects decades, not years. If someone needs the money soon and chooses 90/10, that’s less a strategy and more a dare.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    24%
  • Financials
    15%
  • Industrials
    12%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Real Estate
    6%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    4%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector spread is surprisingly sane for something so autopilot. Tech at 24% is a clear addiction, but it’s not totally out of control compared to broad markets. Financials, industrials, healthcare all show up in reasonable doses, and even the boring stuff like utilities and staples get a small seat at the table. The only real weirdness is the double-listed consumer discretionary entry, which just screams “data export had a moment,” not an actual allocation crime. Overall, it’s a classic diversified salad: tech-heavy but not deranged, nothing obviously over-the-top. If this blows up, it won’t be because you bet the farm on a single shiny theme.

Regions Info

  • North America
    67%
  • Europe Developed
    13%
  • Japan
    6%
  • Asia Developed
    5%
  • Asia Emerging
    4%
  • No data
    2%
  • Australasia
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, this is “America first, others if there’s room in the car.” Around 67% sits in North America, with Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world picking up leftover scraps. That’s very typical for a US-based portfolio, but let’s not pretend it’s worldly. Most of your future is tied to the fate of one economic region, even though a hefty chunk of global opportunity lives elsewhere. The upside: you benefit if the US keeps being the main character. Downside: if leadership rotates, your portfolio is still sitting in the same homeroom seat. This isn’t disaster-level home bias, but it’s definitely patriotic.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    38%
  • Large-cap
    28%
  • Mid-cap
    16%
  • Small-cap
    5%
  • Micro-cap
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Market-cap mix leans heavily toward the grown-ups: 38% mega-cap, 28% large-cap, then a steady taper down to a tiny 2% in micro-caps. Basically: “I like growth, but I don’t like chaos.” You’re getting most of your ride from huge, widely-covered companies that move like cruise ships, not jet skis. The small and mid-caps are just there so you can tell yourself you own “the whole market.” In a roaring small-cap cycle, this setup will lag the wild stuff, but it should avoid the full circus during crashes. It’s a very index-fund personality — broad, boring, and quietly effective, assuming you’re not expecting lottery-ticket vibes.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    0.79%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Apple Inc
    0.69%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    0.51%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    0.38%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    0.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    0.27%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    0.25%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    0.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    0.19%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Berkshire Hathaway Inc
    0.16%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
  • Top 10 total 3.78%

The look-through is thin (only ~4% of ETF holdings visible), but even in that tiny keyhole you can already see the usual celebrity lineup: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla. You’ve basically bought the stock market’s A-list via broad funds, which is fine, but let’s not pretend this is some edgy contrarian setup. Overlap isn’t a bug here, it’s the whole design: own the market and accept that the same megacaps will show up everywhere. The risk isn’t hidden-concentration disaster; it’s that you think you’re being clever with “different” funds that are, under the hood, 90% the same party.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 98%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Neutral
Data availability: 98%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 98%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 98%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
High
Data availability: 98%

Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.

Factor profile is almost aggressively neutral: value, size, momentum, quality all hovering around the middle like a kid who refuses to pick a side. The only real tilt is toward low volatility at 70%, which means the ingredients lean slightly more “steady Eddie” than “YOLO rocket ship.” Yield is mildly low, so this is not a “live off the dividends” fantasy. Think of factors as the personality traits behind your returns; here, the personality is moderate, slightly safety-conscious, and not trying to be clever. The upside is resilience when markets get chaotic. The downside: don’t expect to suddenly and mysteriously crush the market without making intentional tilts.

Risk contribution Info

  • SCHWAB TARGET 2050 INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL SHARES
    Weight: 76.10%
    77.2%
  • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
    Weight: 11.70%
    13.2%
  • FIDELITY ZERO INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND
    Weight: 8.10%
    7.6%
  • FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND
    Weight: 1.50%
    1.7%
  • iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
    Weight: 0.30%
    0.3%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 100.0%

Risk contribution confirms what the weights already screamed: the Schwab 2050 fund is the sun, and everything else just orbits. At 76% weight and 77% of total risk, it’s perfectly matched — no hidden landmines, just one big driver. The US total market ETF adds another 13% risk from 12% weight, so it’s a very loud second violin. Top three positions give you nearly 98% of total risk, which means the remaining positions are basically emotional support holdings. If something goes wrong here, it’s going wrong in that core 2050 allocation, not in the little side funds. Trimming or reshaping risk means rethinking that main anchor, not the rounding errors.

Redundant positions Info

  • iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
    FIDELITY ZERO INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND
    High correlation
  • FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND
    iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
    High correlation

The correlation section is basically the “yes, of course” report. Your US total market funds are highly correlated with each other, and your international funds are also highly correlated with each other. Shocking twist: funds that track almost the same thing tend to move… almost the same way. High correlation is a problem when you think you’re diversified but actually just own multiple flavors of the same idea. Here, it mostly just confirms redundancy: extra tickers that don’t really change how the portfolio behaves in a crash. If everything is going to sink together anyway, at least consider whether you need this many almost-clones.

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.

Risk vs. return chart time: your current portfolio sits 1.22 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its risk level, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.41. Translation: you’re taking a decent amount of risk and not getting the best bang for each unit of pain. The optimal mix of the *same* ingredients could push you to a Sharpe of 0.65 and higher expected return — same grocery bag, better recipe. Being below the frontier is like driving a car that can go faster and smoother, but choosing to sit in the middle lane with the hazards blinking. Nothing is broken, but some reweighting could make this a lot less mediocre.

Dividends Info

  • FIDELITY U.S. BOND INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 3.10%
  • FIDELITY ZERO INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND 2.60%
  • FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND 1.10%
  • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF 1.10%
  • iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF 3.10%
  • SCHWAB TARGET 2050 INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL SHARES 2.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.96%

A total yield just under 2% is “fine, but don’t quit your day job” territory. The bond fund and international ETF bring some grown-up yield energy at around 3%, while the broad US equity stuff sits in the 1% range like it forgot dividends were a thing. If someone expects this portfolio to fund living expenses purely from yield, that’s wishful thinking, not planning. This setup is clearly return-focused first, income second. Nothing wrong with that, but it means withdrawals need to come from selling shares, not just clipping coupons. Anyone allergic to touching principal would find this structure mildly annoying.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • FIDELITY U.S. BOND INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.02%
  • iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF 0.03%
  • iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF 0.07%
  • SCHWAB TARGET 2050 INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL SHARES 0.08%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.07%

On costs, this portfolio is almost suspiciously reasonable. A total TER around 0.07% is “did you accidentally do something smart?” territory. You’ve basically chosen the dollar-menu of investing: plain, cheap, and hard to screw up. Even the target-date fund is coming in at 0.08%, which is laughably low compared to a lot of “we promise we’re special” funds charging 10x more for the same indexing behavior. Fees won’t be what sinks this ship; if returns disappoint, you can’t blame the expense ratios. The roast here is mostly: you nailed costs, but then spent the savings on being mildly under-optimized elsewhere.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

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