Gold miners costume hiding an actually decent global portfolio underneath
Report created on Apr 23, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
0P HSBC FTSE All-World Index C Inc
0P00013P6J 45.89% -
AU L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
AUCO - IE00B3CNHG25 15.33% -
CY CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc
CYN - GB0000353929 10.36% -
HU HSBC FTSE 100 UCITS ETF
HUKX - IE00B42TW061 7.23% -
0P Artemis Income I Inc
0P0000KKC4 - GB00B2PLJJ36 7.23% -
CS iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
CSPX - IE00B5BMR087 5.54% -
BE Baring Emerging Europe Plc
BEMO - GB0032273343 3.13% -
IS iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS
IS3N - IE00BKM4GZ66 2.89% -
VA Vanguard FTSE Developed Asia Pacific ex Japan UCITS
VAPX - IE00B9F5YL18 1.20% -
VJ Vanguard FTSE Japan UCITS ETF USD Accumulation GBP
VJPB - IE00BFMXYX26 1.20%
This portfolio looks like a sensible global core that woke up and chose chaos with gold miners and niche resources. Nearly half is in a plain-vanilla all‑world fund, then a huge 15% slab in gold mining and another 10% in a punchy natural resources trust. The rest is a scatter of regional equity funds and a couple of old‑school income vehicles. Structurally, it’s “balanced” the way a pub meal is balanced: steak, chips, and then three espressos. The core holding is doing the boring heavy lifting while a few spicy satellites are here purely to make the ride more interesting than it needs to be.
Growth
Historically, this thing has absolutely flown: £1,000 turning into about £2,819 since 2019 is no joke. A 17.27% CAGR versus ~14% for the US market and ~12% for global equities is the kind of outperformance that makes people think they’re investment geniuses. Max drawdown at -30% was worse than both benchmarks, so the fall was nastier, but the rebound more than made up for it. Only 37 days created 90% of the returns, which means luck and timing were doing laps. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful context, but pretending this pace continues forever is pure fantasy.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection drags this portfolio back down to earth quite brutally. Simulations suggest that same £1,000 most likely crawls to around £2,147 over 15 years, which is a very different vibe from the backtest heroics. Annualized return across all runs is 5.62% — suddenly this looks more “moderately hopeful” than “rocket ship.” Monte Carlo is basically a thousand alternate timelines rolled with different market paths, not a crystal ball, and the range from £971 to £4,293 screams uncertainty. Translation: the historic sprint may have been boosted by a lucky period for riskier bets that the future doesn’t feel obliged to repeat.
Asset classes
- No data 53%
- Stocks 47%
On the asset class breakdown, over half the portfolio sits in the “no data” penalty box, which makes this look more mysterious than it really is. Of what’s visible, it’s 47% stocks and absolutely nothing else — no bonds, no cash buffer, no alternative ballast in the reported data. So in practice it behaves like a pretty full‑equity portfolio dressed up with a “balanced” label. That means when markets wobble, there’s nothing structurally here to soften the blow; it’s all riding the same broad risk train. This isn’t a crisis, but the “balanced” tag is definitely doing more PR than analytics here.
Sectors
- No data 53%
- Financials 17%
- Basic Materials 16%
- Technology 3%
- Industrials 2%
- Health Care 2%
- Consumer Staples 1%
- Consumer Discretionary 1%
- Energy 1%
- Telecommunications 1%
- Utilities 1%
Sector-wise, this is what happens when someone discovers gold miners and doesn’t quite know when to stop. Basic Materials at 16% is a serious tilt, and that’s before counting whatever sits in the opaque half of the portfolio. Financials at 17% give it a very “old-school equity income” flavour, while Technology limps in at 3% — basically a cameo appearance compared to modern global indexes. So the portfolio is loudly overexposed to stuff that digs and lends, and barely whispers exposure to the companies that actually run the world’s software and platforms. It’s not broken, just oddly nostalgic for an economy from about 1998.
Regions
- No data 53%
- Europe Developed 21%
- North America 17%
- Australasia 3%
- Africa/Middle East 2%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Japan 1%
- Asia Emerging 1%
Geographically, over 50% “no data” makes this look like a treasure map with half the countries blurred out, but the visible half still tells a story. Roughly 21% in Developed Europe and 17% in North America hints at a UK/Europe tilt layered on top of genuinely global funds. Then there are tiny slivers scattered across Australasia, Africa/Middle East, and bits of Asia, as if exposure outside Europe and the US was added with a teaspoon. It’s not “America or bust,” but it is leaning pretty hard into home‑ish territory, while the rest of the world is treated as optional seasoning rather than core cuisine.
Market capitalization
- No data 53%
- Micro-cap 13%
- Large-cap 12%
- Mega-cap 11%
- Mid-cap 9%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap exposure is where things get a bit scrappy. With 53% “no data,” the visible slice still shows a curious love affair with the fringes: 13% micro‑caps and a token 1% in small‑caps. Large and mega‑caps are only slightly ahead, at 12% and 11%, with 9% in mid‑caps. That’s a surprisingly punchy lean toward titchy companies that can move like meme stocks on bad news days. It’s almost like a barbell, but with the handle missing. The result is extra wobble from smaller names that don’t really show up in the marketing story of “global diversified core.”
True holdings
-
-
-
NE Newmont Goldcorp Corp 2.36%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
AE Agnico Eagle Mines Limited 1.96%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
HT Anglogold Ashanti 1.48%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
K Kinross Gold Corp 1.27%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
GF Gold Fields Ltd 1.05%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
NS Northern Star Resources Ltd 0.70%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
HA Harmony Gold Mining Co. Ltd. 0.67%
Part of fund(s):- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-
HS HSBC Holdings PLC 0.65%
Part of fund(s):- HSBC FTSE 100 UCITS ETF
- Top 10 total 23.62%
The look-through data is basically shouting: “You own a lot of gold miners, in case you hadn’t noticed.” Newmont, Agnico Eagle, Anglogold, Kinross, Gold Fields, Northern Star, Harmony — the top exposures outside your two stock picks read like a geologist’s fan club. And that’s only from ETF top‑10 positions; real overlap is probably worse. CQS Natural Resources and Baring Emerging Europe sit on top of this as chunky single positions, so hidden diversification this is not. Instead, it’s multiple routes to end up owning the same kind of cyclical, commodity‑sensitive stuff that tends to party and crash in equally dramatic fashion.
Risk contribution
-
HSBC FTSE All-World Index C Inc
Weight: 45.89% 37.4% -
L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
Weight: 15.33% 25.6% -
CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc
Weight: 10.36% 13.6% -
Artemis Income I Inc
Weight: 7.23% 6.1% -
HSBC FTSE 100 UCITS ETF
Weight: 7.23% 5.5% - Top 5 risk contribution 88.2%
Risk contribution lays out who’s really driving the drama, and it’s not subtle. The gold mining ETF at 15.33% weight contributes a hefty 25.60% of total risk, punching way above its station with a risk/weight of 1.67. CQS Natural Resources is also swinging harder than its 10.36% weight suggests. Meanwhile, the supposedly dominant 45.89% HSBC All‑World fund only accounts for 37.38% of risk, quietly doing its job while the gold miners backflip off the balcony. When the top three holdings generate 76.6% of total risk, the rest of the portfolio is basically background dancers in someone else’s metal concert.
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 chart, the current portfolio sitting 1.09 percentage points below the frontier is the definition of “trying hard but not getting full credit.” Sharpe ratio of 0.92 versus 1.25 for the optimal version basically says: with the same ingredients, the weights are slightly off. The max‑Sharpe portfolio dials risk up a bit and gets a big jump in expected return; the minimum variance mix dials risk down with only a modest performance sacrifice. The current setup is lingering in the “pretty good but slightly sloppy” zone – like cooking a decent meal but ignoring the recipe and over‑salting one side of the pan.
Dividends
- Vanguard FTSE Developed Asia Pacific ex Japan UCITS 2.40%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.03%
Dividends here are oddly underwhelming considering the income‑sounding pieces. The headline yield figure of 0.03% is microscopic, and the only explicit yield we see is 2.40% on one regional ETF. Given the income trust and dividend‑style vehicles in the mix, the lack of a chunky visible yield is almost comical. It’s like building a “cash flow” portfolio and then discovering the tap is mostly ornamental in the data. Dividend yield can be a nice way to get paid while waiting, but in this case the visible numbers suggest that most of the heavy lifting has been capital growth and factor luck, not a steady stream of cheques.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS 0.18%
- L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF 0.65%
- iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) 0.12%
- HSBC FTSE 100 UCITS ETF 0.07%
- Vanguard FTSE Developed Asia Pacific ex Japan UCITS 0.15%
- Vanguard FTSE Japan UCITS ETF USD Accumulation GBP 0.10%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.12%
Costs are one of the few areas where this portfolio accidentally looks disciplined. A total TER around 0.12% is very lean, especially for something with global coverage and some specialist ETFs thrown in. Some individual pieces are pricier — 0.65% on the gold miners, for example — but the overall blend stays cheap because the core trackers do the heavy lifting. It’s basically flying business class on an economy budget, fee-wise. The only mild roast here is that the expensive bits are exactly the wilder parts that add volatility, so the portfolio is paying up for drama instead of using those fee savings for something calmer.
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