Roast mode 🔥

Confused factor fan who accidentally built a pretty good but slightly redundant global equity blender

Report created on Apr 14, 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

This portfolio looks like someone started with a perfectly fine global one-stop ETF at 30% and then couldn’t resist adding three different factor side quests plus a separate S&P 500, just in case the world ETF forgot America. Structurally, it’s 100% equity, five funds, no ballast, and a lot of overlap in purpose. It’s like building a car with four steering wheels: technically it moves, but there’s more complexity than benefit. The upside is that everything is at least vaguely coherent: global core, plus momentum and value tilts. The downside is you’re paying with redundancy instead of using that complexity to actually shape radically different risk exposures.

Growth Info

The historical performance is annoyingly good, which makes roasting harder. Turning €1,000 into €1,648 in under 2.5 years with a 22.63% CAGR is basically “victory lap” territory, handily beating both the US and global markets by about 4.5% per year. Max drawdown at -19.39% is punchy but not catastrophic, and it even fell less than the benchmarks when things got rough. Just remember: this period was unusually kind to momentum-heavy, tech-boosted equity portfolios. Past performance is yesterday’s weather report: helpful vibes, zero guarantees. The real lesson is not to assume this pace continues unless you also believe trees grow to the sky.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation is the finance version of “choose your own adventure” run 1,000 times. It throws random return paths at the portfolio based on historical behaviour and volatility, then shows where you typically end up. Median outcome of €2,781 from €1,000 over 15 years is solid, but the possible range of roughly €1,041 to €7,847 is a polite way of saying “this can either be fine or incredible, with a non-trivial chance of underwhelming.” Simulations use past patterns plus maths; they’re not a prophecy. Takeaway: expect decent odds of a positive long-term result, but with a very wide comfort band.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class breakdown: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. Balanced risk rating, unbalanced reality. Calling this “balanced” is like calling a diet of only steak “macro-optimized.” It might be fine for someone with a long horizon and strong stomach, but there’s no built-in cushion here. No bonds, no cash sleeve, no alternatives: just pure equity rollercoaster. That’s great for growth but unforgiving when markets throw a tantrum. The key implication: drawdowns will be real, and the only shock absorber is psychological, not structural. Anyone expecting smooth sailing from a setup like this will be very confused during the next proper bear market.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    26%
  • Financials
    20%
  • Industrials
    13%
  • Health Care
    8%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Basic Materials
    5%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Utilities
    4%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, this thing is a tech‑and‑finance double shot with a garnish of everything else. About 26% in technology and 20% in financials means nearly half the portfolio is riding on two very cyclical, drama-prone areas. That’s not necessarily bad, but it does mean you’re signing up for mood swings: tech tantrums and financial crises will both hit harder than you might expect from a “broad” portfolio. The rest is reasonably sprinkled, but none of those smaller slices are big enough to bail you out if those two big pillars wobble together. Translation: when the main characters suffer, the side characters can’t save the plot.

Regions Info

  • North America
    47%
  • Europe Developed
    29%
  • Asia Developed
    9%
  • Asia Emerging
    6%
  • Japan
    5%
  • Latin America
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Europe Emerging
    1%
  • Australasia
    1%

Geography actually looks… suspiciously sane. Roughly 47% North America, 29% developed Europe, and a smattering across Asia, Japan, and emerging markets. This is one of the few places where the portfolio isn’t screaming “home bias” or “America cultist.” It’s broadly in line with global market weightings, which is almost boringly reasonable. The catch: “global” still tends to mean heavily driven by US megacaps when things get spicy, so don’t be fooled into thinking these country slices move independently. Still, for a factor-tilted setup, the global spread is surprisingly grown-up. You could have done much worse by just dumping it all into one region.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    47%
  • Large-cap
    39%
  • Mid-cap
    14%

The market cap mix is 47% mega-cap, 39% large-cap, and 14% mid-cap. So yes, this is firmly in “giant companies rule my fate” territory. Small caps are basically not invited to the party. On the plus side, mega and large caps tend to be more liquid and slightly less chaotic individually. On the minus side, you’re tying returns to the same global behemoths everyone else owns, which limits diversification by company type. It’s like saying you “support small business” while doing all your shopping at the biggest supermarket in town – convenient, familiar, but not exactly adventurous in risk/return profile.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.93%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.54%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    2.03%
    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
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.81%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.18%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.03%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Banco Santander S.A.
    0.97%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    0.97%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • ASML Holding N.V.
    0.91%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
  • Top 10 total 15.80%

The look-through holdings scream “I say I love factors but I still worship the mega-cap tech altar.” Nvidia, Apple, TSMC, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, ASML – this is basically the usual suspects list. And that’s with only 29% of the portfolio actually visible via top-10 data, so the real overlap is almost certainly higher. Different ETFs, same party guests. It’s diversification theatre: many tickers, one big bet on global large-cap growth engines. Hidden concentration like this means when big tech sneezes, your whole portfolio catches a cold, even though nothing on the surface looks obsessively single-stock heavy.

Risk contribution Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 30.00%
    29.7%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
    Weight: 20.00%
    20.7%
  • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    Weight: 20.00%
    20.2%
  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
    Weight: 15.00%
    15.6%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    Weight: 15.00%
    13.9%

Risk contribution is refreshingly proportional: each ETF carries about the same share of risk as its weight, with the top three funds adding up to ~71% of total risk. No single position is secretly hijacking the volatility. That said, when three funds dominate risk, they’re effectively the main storyline and everything else is a side quest. If any of those broad funds wobble together, the whole portfolio follows. The value and EM components do slightly punch above their weight, which is normal for spicier regions/styles. Rebalancing here is less about taming a rogue holding and more about deciding how much drama you want from those side tilts.

Redundant positions Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    High correlation

The correlation note is basically saying your S&P 500 ETF and your ACWI ETF move almost in lockstep. Shock. Horror. Two US-heavy global-ish equity funds… behave like US-heavy global-ish equity funds. This isn’t diversification; it’s wearing two slightly different versions of the same outfit and calling it a wardrobe. When markets drop, both of these will dance down together, offering emotional support but not actual protection. Overlapping exposures are fine, but pretending they’re different risk engines is where people get blindsided. If the goal was variety of behaviour, pairing highly correlated broad equity funds doesn’t really move the needle.

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 portfolio sits 1.65 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its current risk, with a Sharpe ratio of 1.3 versus 1.73 for the optimal mix. Translation: using just these existing ingredients, a smarter weighting could get you more return for the same bumpiness, or less risk for similar return. Being below the frontier is like picking the slow lane on a motorway when a faster one with the same speed limit is open right next to you. The min-variance version even offers higher Sharpe than you currently have. The holdings are fine; the recipe just isn’t fully dialled in.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD 0.40%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) 0.25%
  • 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) 0.29%

Total TER at 0.29% is pretty reasonable, especially given there are factor funds in the mix. You’re not getting robbed, just mildly overcharged compared with the cheapest plain-vanilla index stuff. The world ETF at 0.45% is the diva here, but it’s not outrageous. Call this “comfortably not terrible.” Still, with overlap between ACWI and S&P 500 plus extra factor layers, you’re paying for complexity that might not be pulling its full weight. Costs won’t sink this portfolio, but they’re also not as ruthlessly optimised as they could be for something that mostly hugs global large-cap equities in different costumes.

What next?

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