Focused growth portfolio combining broad global exposure with concentrated high quality compounders
Report created on May 6, 2024Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VW Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
VWCE - IE00BK5BQT80 50.00% -
3V Visa Inc
3V64 - US92826C8394 10.00% -
LL Eli Lilly and Company
LLY - US5324571083 10.00% -
M4 Mastercard Inc
M4I - US57636Q1040 10.00% -
NO Novo Nordisk A/S
NOV - DK0062498333 10.00% -
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVD - US67066G1040 10.00%
The portfolio is split between one broad global ETF at 50% and five individual stocks at 10% each. This means half of the money rides on global market returns, while the other half is placed in a tight group of large, well-known growth names. Structurally, this is a barbell: a diversified core plus a high-conviction satellite. That setup matters because overall risk and return are heavily driven by those five stocks, not just the ETF. For someone using this type of mix, it’s useful to think in two buckets: “core market wealth builder” and “focused growth engine,” and to decide whether a 50/50 split reflects the risk they truly want over the long run.
Growth
Over the last few years, €1,000 grew to about €5,281, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly 29.7%. CAGR is like average speed on a long road trip: it smooths the ups and downs into one yearly growth number. That’s far ahead of both the US and global market references, which sat in the low double digits. The worst drop from a prior peak was around -31%, actually a bit milder than the benchmarks’ drawdowns. While this track record is impressive and shows how powerful strong winners can be, it’s still based on a very favorable period for these names, and the same pattern can’t be assumed going forward.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Everything here is in equities, with 100% allocated to stocks and no ballast from bonds or cash-like instruments. That all‑equity stance fits a growth profile: historically, stocks offer higher long‑term returns but also sharper short‑term swings. Missing other asset classes means the portfolio relies only on stock markets to smooth volatility; there’s no built-in stabilizer if markets fall sharply. This is not inherently a problem, especially for a long horizon, but it does mean drawdowns can be deep and emotionally challenging. Anyone using a pure equity mix should make sure their emergency cash and non‑investment savings are handled separately so they’re not forced to sell during downturns.
Sectors
- Financials 28%
- Health Care 24%
- Technology 23%
- Industrials 6%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Telecommunications 4%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Energy 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio leans clearly into financials, health care, and technology, which together dominate the overall exposure. That creates a classic growth-and-quality flavor, with less emphasis on defensive or commodity-type areas. Compared with broad global benchmarks, this is more concentrated in these three engines of long-term earnings growth. The upside is strong participation when innovation, digital payments, and medical breakthroughs are rewarded by markets. The trade‑off is vulnerability if regulation, interest‑rate changes, or sector-specific setbacks hit any of these areas. For someone comfortable with that pattern, it’s a focused way to seek long‑term growth while still holding a wide range of secondary sectors through the ETF.
Regions
- North America 71%
- Europe Developed 18%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Asia Emerging 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, around 71% sits in North America, with most of the rest in developed Europe and smaller slices across Japan, developed Asia, and emerging regions. That North America tilt is stronger than a typical global market index, which is already heavily US‑weighted. It has paid off in recent years, as US equities have outperformed most other markets. The downside is extra dependence on the economic and policy environment in a single region. The allocation is still reasonably global and not extreme, but anyone who wants returns less tied to North American outcomes could think about lifting exposure to other developed and emerging markets over time.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 64%
- Large-cap 27%
- Mid-cap 8%
Most of the exposure is in mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, with a small slice in mid‑caps and effectively none in small‑caps. Mega‑caps are the giants of the market, often with global brands, diverse revenue streams, and more stable finances. That structure typically reduces company‑specific blow‑up risk compared with smaller firms, but it may also limit exposure to the very highest‑growth smaller businesses. The benefit is that many of these big names have strong balance sheets and durable competitive advantages, which can help in tough economic periods. This large‑cap bias is very much in line with common global indices and supports a solid, blue‑chip growth profile.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.11%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
-
AA Apple Inc 1.96%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.48%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.02%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 0.92%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
- Top 10 total 57.50%
Looking through the ETF, overlap with the single stocks is surprisingly limited in the top holdings: only NVIDIA appears both directly and via the ETF, and the ETF exposure adds just about 2.1% on top of the 10% direct stake. That’s helpful, because hidden duplicates can quietly increase concentration without you noticing. The top ETF positions add mega-cap names like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet, which diversify the single-stock set. Keep in mind this overlap analysis only uses the ETF’s top-10, so deeper layers aren’t visible here. Still, the main hidden concentration flag is really NVIDIA, whose true economic weight is higher than the 10% headline suggests.
Factors
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-wise, the portfolio shows mild tilts toward size, quality, and especially low volatility, while value, momentum, and yield sit around neutral. Factor exposure is like seeing which “traits” your holdings share, such as cheapness (value) or financial strength (quality). The high quality score suggests companies with strong profitability and balance sheets, which can help during downturns. The high low‑volatility exposure indicates a tilt toward stocks that have historically moved less than the market, partly counterbalancing the concentrated growth names. These tilts are positive from a risk‑management angle and align well with an investor who wants growth but also appreciates resilience rather than chasing the most speculative opportunities.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
Weight: 50.00% 41.0% -
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 10.00% 18.7% -
Mastercard Inc
Weight: 10.00% 11.1% -
Visa Inc
Weight: 10.00% 10.3% -
Novo Nordisk A/S
Weight: 10.00% 9.6% - Top 5 risk contribution 90.8%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to overall portfolio ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the global ETF is 50% of assets but about 41% of risk, so it’s actually a bit stabilizing. NVIDIA is only 10% by weight but contributes nearly 19% of risk, reflecting its higher volatility. Mastercard and Visa also punch above their weights, while Novo Nordisk is closer to proportional. With the top three risk contributors driving over 70% of total risk, the real behavior of the portfolio is heavily tied to a few names. Adjusting those single‑stock weights would materially change how wild or smooth the portfolio feels.
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 risk–return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier, meaning that with the same underlying holdings but different weights, the risk/return trade‑off could be better. The Sharpe ratio of about 0.94 trails the maximum‑Sharpe mix (around 1.6), which significantly boosts expected return for higher risk. Even compared with the minimum‑variance option, the current setup doesn’t extract the most reward per unit of volatility. In practice, that suggests rebalancing between the ETF and single stocks could move the portfolio closer to the frontier, improving efficiency without adding new products — especially if the goal is either smoother returns or a more return‑heavy but still efficient configuration.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation 0.19%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.10%
Costs are a real strength: the ETF’s total expense ratio of about 0.19% drives an overall portfolio TER around 0.10%, which is impressively low. TER is the ongoing fee charged by funds each year, and even small differences compound meaningfully over decades. Keeping costs down means more of the portfolio’s returns stay in your pocket rather than being eaten by fees. This aligns closely with best practices used by many institutional investors. From a cost perspective, there’s very little to improve here; the main focus can stay on allocation, risk levels, and behavior, rather than on fee 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