Growth tilted global equity mix with strong US exposure and modest single stock satellite bets
Report created on May 7, 2024Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 41.11% -
UR iShares MSCI World ETF
URTH - US4642863926 24.67% -
EE iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
EEM - US4642872349 16.94% -
PE Perion Network
PERI - IL0010958192 4.96% -
LB Liberty Broadband Srs A
LBRDA - US5303071071 4.73% -
DM Desktop Metal Inc
DM - US25058X1054 2.30% -
AP Alpha Pro Tech Ltd
APT - US0207721095 2.02% -
CN Concentrix Corporation
CNXC - US20602D1019 1.65% -
OS OraSure Technologies Inc
OSUR - US68554V1089 1.62%
The portfolio is a pure equity mix built around three broad index ETFs plus a handful of single stocks. Roughly four-fifths sits in diversified funds tracking large global companies, with the rest spread across smaller, more idiosyncratic positions. This structure uses the ETFs as a “core” for stability and diversification, while the individual stocks form a higher-risk “satellite” sleeve that can meaningfully move results. A setup like this is common for growth-oriented investors who want market-like exposure with a bit of personal conviction layered on top. The main takeaway is that overall risk is driven primarily by equity markets, while a smaller slice is driven by stock‑specific stories.
Growth
Historically, $1,000 grew to $1,322 over the period, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.65%. CAGR is like an average yearly “speed” for your money, smoothing out the bumps. Over the same time, both the US and global markets grew faster, so the portfolio lagged by about 2–6 percentage points per year. The deepest loss from a prior peak, or max drawdown, hit about –28.9%, which is slightly worse than the benchmarks’ drawdowns. This shows the portfolio behaved like a risk-on equity strategy but didn’t fully capture market upside. Past performance is only a rough guide though and cannot predict future returns.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All holdings are in stocks, with no bonds, cash substitutes, or alternative assets. That creates a clean, straightforward growth profile but also removes the natural cushion that safer assets can offer during market stress. Asset classes behave differently at different times; mixing them is a classic way to smooth the ride. A 100% equity stance typically suits investors who can handle larger swings and have long horizons. The upside is strong participation in global economic growth; the trade‑off is sharper drawdowns and more emotional pressure in bear markets. Anyone wanting a gentler experience would usually introduce some defensive assets alongside equities.
Sectors
- Technology 30%
- Telecommunications 18%
- Financials 12%
- Industrials 10%
- Health Care 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is tilted toward technology and telecommunications, together making up almost half the portfolio’s economic backdrop. Financials, industrials, and health care form a solid second tier, while areas like utilities and real estate are minor. Compared with broad global benchmarks, this means a slightly more growth‑oriented posture with extra sensitivity to innovation cycles and interest‑rate moves. Tech and telecom‑heavy setups often shine when growth stocks lead but can be hit hard when rates rise or markets rotate into more defensive areas. The positive here is a forward‑leaning growth tilt, but it’s worth being aware that sector swings can amplify volatility.
Regions
- North America 72%
- Europe Developed 9%
- Asia Developed 7%
- Asia Emerging 7%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Japan 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, the mix is dominated by North America at about 72%, with the rest split across developed Europe, developed Asia, and emerging regions. This is somewhat more US‑centric than a typical global index, which usually has a lower North American share and slightly more weight in other developed and emerging markets. A US tilt has helped over the last decade as that market outperformed, so this alignment with recent winners has been beneficial. The flip side is higher dependence on one region’s economic and policy environment. Broadening non‑US exposure can sometimes reduce single‑region risk and capture different economic cycles.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 41%
- Large-cap 28%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 7%
- Micro-cap 6%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans toward mega‑ and large‑cap companies, which together account for roughly two‑thirds of exposure. Mid‑caps play a meaningful role, while small‑ and micro‑caps form a smaller but notable slice. Bigger companies typically bring more stability, established business models, and deeper liquidity; smaller names can be more volatile but may have higher growth potential. This mix aligns well with broad market standards, showing a healthy spread across company sizes rather than an extreme tilt. It means most risk and return will follow large global leaders, with a dash of extra volatility from the smaller holdings.
True holdings
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.32%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares MSCI World ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 3.87%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares MSCI World ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.85%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares MSCI World ETF
-
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 2.23%
Part of fund(s):- iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.04%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares MSCI World ETF
-
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.79%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares MSCI World ETF
- Top 10 total 31.10%
Looking through the ETFs, the largest underlying names are big global leaders like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet. Several appear across multiple funds, creating hidden concentration even though each ETF is diversified on its own. On top of that, standalone holdings such as Perion and Liberty Broadband add focused bets outside the index heavyweights. Because only ETF top-10 holdings are included here, real overlap is probably higher than shown. Hidden overlap matters because several positions can all fall at once if they’re exposed to the same big companies. A reasonable guardrail is periodically checking whether these underlying giants line up with your intended conviction.
Factors
Factor exposure is broadly neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility, all sitting near the 50% “market-like” level. Factors are characteristics like “cheapness” (value) or “trend following” (momentum) that academic research has tied to returns over decades. A neutral profile means the portfolio behaves similarly to a broad global equity index, without big bets on any particular style. That is a strength if the goal is to avoid timing factor cycles or making complex style calls. It may be less appealing to someone explicitly seeking a strong tilt, but for many investors, this well‑balanced factor mix is reassuring.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 41.11% 36.9% -
iShares MSCI World ETF
Weight: 24.67% 21.6% -
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
Weight: 16.94% 14.1% -
Perion Network
Weight: 4.96% 10.2% -
Desktop Metal Inc
Weight: 2.30% 6.8% - Top 5 risk contribution 89.6%
Risk contribution looks at how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. The three ETFs dominate risk, contributing over 70% combined, which is expected given their high weights. What stands out is that some small satellite stocks punch well above their size: Perion and Desktop Metal have risk/weight ratios above 2, meaning they add a lot more volatility than their allocation suggests. This is typical for concentrated, volatile names. If those positions align with deliberate high‑conviction views, that may be fine; otherwise, trimming or capping such names is one way to keep portfolio risk aligned with comfort levels.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard S&P 500 ETFiShares MSCI World ETF
Correlation measures how closely assets move together, from –1 (opposite) to +1 (identical). Here, the S&P 500 ETF and the MSCI World ETF have an extremely high correlation of 0.98, meaning they behave almost the same most of the time. Holding both still has uses, but from a diversification perspective, they function like near‑duplicates. That limits the benefit of owning both in large size because they rise and fall together during major market moves. One practical takeaway is that if simplification or reweighting is ever on the table, treating these two as one “bucket” may help clarify how much is really allocated to the same underlying theme.
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. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk, is 0.37 versus 0.74 for the optimal mix using the same holdings. Being below the frontier means there are alternative weightings of these exact positions that offer higher expected return for roughly the same risk, or similar return with less volatility. The minimum variance version even improves Sharpe without dramatically changing return. This is actually encouraging: it suggests that reweighting, rather than adding new products, could materially improve efficiency. Periodic rebalancing toward the optimal or minimum‑variance mix could better align outcomes with the taken risk.
Dividends
- Concentrix Corporation 5.20%
- iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF 2.20%
- iShares MSCI World ETF 1.60%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.35%
The overall portfolio yield sits around 1.35%, which is modest and typical for a growth‑oriented equity mix. Most of the income comes from the ETFs’ broad market yields, with one individual stock offering a noticeably higher payout. Dividends can be important for investors seeking regular cash flow or a smoother total return experience, as they provide some return even when prices move sideways. For a growth investor focused on long-term compounding, a lower yield isn’t necessarily a drawback; reinvested dividends from broad funds still contribute meaningfully over time. The key point is this setup prioritizes capital growth over high ongoing income.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF 0.70%
- iShares MSCI World ETF 0.24%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.19%
The portfolio’s weighted total expense ratio (TER) is about 0.19%, which is impressively low for a globally diversified equity allocation. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, taken out of returns behind the scenes. Keeping this number small is one of the easiest ways to improve long‑term outcomes, because every dollar not spent on fees stays invested and can compound. The mix of ultra‑low‑cost core ETFs with slightly pricier emerging markets exposure is sensible and aligns with best practices. From a cost perspective, this setup is very efficient and already in a range that supports strong long‑term performance.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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