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.
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.
Balanced Investors
This setup fits an investor who is comfortable with moderate to above‑average risk and is focused on long‑term growth rather than short‑term stability. A typical horizon might be 10 years or more, with goals like building retirement wealth, funding future major expenses, or growing a nest egg for future flexibility. This person accepts that the portfolio can drop 20–30% or more in bad markets and is willing to stay invested through those periods. They value diversification, appreciate evidence‑based tilts like small and value, and care about low ongoing costs. Income is a secondary concern; the main objective is compounding capital over time while still maintaining some downside cushion.
This portfolio is built around a core broad US stock fund, tilted toward smaller and value‑oriented companies, plus a small slice of high‑quality bonds. Around 90% sits in stocks and 10% in intermediate government bonds, which fits a balanced but growth‑leaning profile. Compared with a classic balanced benchmark (often closer to 60% stocks and 40% bonds), this mix is more aggressive and equity heavy. That matters because the portfolio should grow faster over long periods, but will bounce around more in rough markets. If stability is a priority, gradually nudging the bond share higher could smooth the ride without abandoning the overall strategy.
Historically, this mix has delivered a very strong compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 18%. CAGR is just the “average yearly speed” of growth, as if returns were smoothed out each year. A -23% max drawdown means the worst peak‑to‑trough drop was painful but far from extreme for a 90% stock allocation. Needing only 34 days to generate 90% of returns highlights how a few big up days drive long‑term outcomes. This is a good reminder that staying invested matters; missing just a handful of strong days can seriously hurt results. As always, past performance can’t guarantee the future, but it does show the strategy has been rewarded historically.
The Monte Carlo results point to very attractive upside with meaningful uncertainty, which is exactly what you’d expect from a growth‑tilted portfolio. Monte Carlo simulations basically “re‑roll the dice” on returns 1,000 times using patterns from history to see many possible futures, not just one forecast. The median outcome of roughly 742% and the 5th percentile of about 167% both suggest positive long‑term odds, with 999 of 1,000 paths ending ahead. The estimated 17.6% annualized return is in line with the backtest. Still, simulations assume the future behaves somewhat like the past, which may not hold, so these numbers should be treated as rough ranges, not promises.
With 90% in stocks and 10% in bonds, this setup clearly prioritizes growth over income or capital stability. Compared with a more traditional “balanced” mix that might hold 30–40% in bonds, this tilt means bigger swings but higher expected returns. The bond slice is in intermediate‑term government debt, which usually acts as a stabilizer when stock markets drop and can help with liquidity needs. This allocation is well-balanced for someone comfortable with moderate to high volatility over long horizons. If shorter‑term spending needs or sleep‑at‑night comfort are important, slowly adding more high‑quality bonds or cashlike holdings could bring risk closer to a textbook balanced profile.
Sector exposure is broad and nicely spread out, with double‑digit allocations to technology, financials, industrials, and consumer cyclicals, plus meaningful stakes in energy, materials, and healthcare. This looks close to diversified global benchmarks, which is a strong indicator of healthy sector balance. No single area dominates enough to become a single‑theme bet, yet the portfolio still captures growth‑oriented parts of the economy. That matters because certain sectors can lag for long stretches; spreading across many groups helps smooth those cycles. Tech‑heavy or cyclical tilts can feel rougher when interest rates rise or economies slow, so periodically checking whether any one area has grown too large can help keep risk in check.
Geographic exposure is anchored in North America at around 63%, with solid allocations to developed Europe and Japan, plus smaller positions in other developed regions. That is somewhat US‑tilted but not extreme, and it broadly mirrors many global benchmarks, which is reassuring. A strong home bias can boost familiarity but may miss opportunities abroad; this mix strikes a reasonable middle ground. The main gap is very limited direct exposure to emerging markets, which can offer higher growth but also higher volatility and political risk. Anyone who wants more global balance could consider gradually increasing emerging exposure, while those preferring stability may be comfortable keeping the current developed‑markets focus.
Market‑cap exposure is nicely layered across the spectrum: meaningful stakes in mega, large, mid, small, and even micro‑cap companies. This is where the small‑cap value ETFs really show their impact, adding a deliberate tilt toward smaller, cheaper stocks that historically have offered higher long‑term returns but bumpier rides. Having around 47% combined in mid, small, and micro caps is a clear but thoughtful tilt away from pure large‑cap dominance. That can be powerful over decades, though it can underperform broad markets for long stretches. Periodically checking whether the small/value portion still matches comfort levels and goals can help avoid abandoning the approach during inevitable cold streaks.
The portfolio’s total yield of about 2% is a nice side benefit without turning it into an income‑only strategy. Yield is just the annual cash payouts (dividends and interest) as a percent of the portfolio value. The bond fund and international equity ETFs contribute the highest yields, while the broad US market and small‑cap value funds are more about growth with modest income. For long‑term accumulators, reinvesting these payouts can significantly boost compounding over time. For someone seeking future income, this current yield is a decent starting point, but you’d still be relying mostly on growth and possibly later shifts into higher‑yielding holdings when regular withdrawals become a priority.
Overall costs are impressively low, with a total expense ratio (TER) around 0.13%. TER is the annual fee taken by the funds as a percentage of assets, similar to a small management toll. Keeping this number low is one of the few things investors can tightly control, and every 0.10–0.20% saved per year adds up significantly over decades. The small‑cap value funds are understandably pricier than the broad market ETFs, but still reasonable for specialized strategies. This mix of ultra‑low‑cost core funds plus selective factor tilts is a strong combination. There’s no urgent need to chase lower fees, as the current structure already supports solid long‑term net returns.
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.
On a risk‑return spectrum, this portfolio looks like it sits near an efficient frontier for someone aiming for growth with moderate risk control. The Efficient Frontier is just the set of portfolios that give the highest expected return for each possible level of volatility, using only the existing ingredients and reshuffling their weights. Because bonds are a relatively small slice, small tweaks—like raising or lowering the bond weight by a few percent—would shift volatility more than returns. Within stocks, dialling the small/value tilt up or down also slides you along that frontier. “Efficient” here only means best tradeoff between risk and return, not necessarily best income, taxes, or other personal goals.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.