Barbell chaos cautious label this is a risk-on portfolio wearing a grandma cardigan
Report created on Mar 27, 2026Risk 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
-
DB iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
DBMF - US53700T8273 40.00% -
SG abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF
SGOL - US00326A1043 20.00% -
VB Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund ETF Shares
VBR - US9229086114 15.00% -
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 15.00% -
BN Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares
BND - US9219378356 10.00%
The overall mix looks like two different investors got into a slap fight and both won. On one side you’ve got 40% in a managed futures fund and 20% in gold – that’s a hardcore “end of the world but make it tradable” stack. On the other, 30% in broad and small-cap value stocks plus 10% bonds screams “I read a Boglehead wiki once.” The result is a barbell of spicy alternatives and plain-vanilla index funds that somehow still claims to be “cautious.” The main takeaway: this is not a simple portfolio, it’s a weird mash-up of hedge-fund cosplay and retirement account basics.
Growth
Historically, this Franken-portfolio actually did fine: $1,000 turned into about $2,152 with an 11.7% CAGR. That underperforms the US market by roughly 2.5% a year but basically matches global stocks, while suffering only about half the max drawdown of the US index (-16.9% vs about -34%). CAGR is just the “average annual speed” of the ride, and max drawdown is the worst peak-to-trough drop. You basically traded some upside for a shallower faceplant. Not glamorous, but rational. Just remember: past data is yesterday’s weather — helpful to pack a jacket, useless for predicting the exact storm.
Asset classes
- Stocks 42%
- Bonds 34%
- Other 24%
Asset class split: roughly 42% stocks, 34% bonds, 24% “other.” That “other” bucket, driven by managed futures and gold, is what makes this portfolio look like a doomsday-prepper who still maxes their 401(k). For a supposedly cautious setup, 24% in weird or opaque stuff is a bold choice. Bonds are the quiet kid in the corner at only 10% by weight but 34% of the classification, which suggests most of your stability is theoretical rather than actually pulling the risk levers. General takeaway: if something is over a fifth of your assets and you can’t explain in one sentence how it works, that’s homework, not diversification.
Sectors
- Technology 6%
- Industrials 4%
- Financials 4%
- Consumer Discretionary 3%
- Health Care 3%
- Telecommunications 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Consumer Staples 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only. Some holdings may not have full classification data available. Percentages may not add up to 100%.
Sector exposure on the equity side looks almost aggressively neutral: little bits of everything, nothing dominating. Tech is just 6%, financials and industrials around 4%, with the rest sprinkled like a half-hearted index sampler. If this were only the equity sleeve, it’d be the definition of “I’ll have what the market’s having, but less.” The twist is that sectors aren’t the main story here — they’re the side quest. If someone thought this balanced sector pie would drive behavior, the 60% allocation to non-traditional stuff politely disagrees. Sector risk is vanilla; the real drama is happening off-menu.
Regions
- North America 30%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only. Some holdings may not have full classification data available. Percentages may not add up to 100%.
Geographically, the visible piece is almost entirely North America at 30%, which is code for “US-centric, as usual.” That’s very on-brand for a US investor, but it does mean the explicit equity story is mostly home bias with very little visible global flavor. Now, some of the “other” exposure may be trading around global markets under the surface, but that’s tactical, not long-term ownership. In plain terms: you own the US for growth and sprinkle in alternative strategies to smooth the ride instead of owning more regions directly. It’s a fair choice, but let’s not pretend this is a grand global citizenship portfolio.
Market capitalization
- No data 40%
- Small-cap 9%
- Mid-cap 7%
- Mega-cap 6%
- Large-cap 5%
- Micro-cap 2%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Market cap data basically says, “Here’s 40% mystery meat, don’t ask.” Of the part we can see, you’ve got exposure across mega, large, mid, small, and even micro-caps, plus a nice 9% in small caps and 7% in mids. That’s actually a decent size spread, but the real tilt is toward smaller, cheaper stuff via small-cap value. The missing 40% labeled “No data” is doing its own thing, likely unrelated to traditional cap buckets. Takeaway: the visible equity side is a bit scrappy and adventurous, while a huge chunk of the portfolio refuses to show its size tag at all.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 0.93%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 0.88%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 0.66%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 0.46%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 0.41%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 0.34%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.32%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 0.32%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.26%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 14.50%
Look-through holdings are hilariously misleading here: the single biggest “holding” shown is… the managed futures ETF itself. The big tech names (NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla) sneak in via the broad market and small-cap value sleeves, but their weights are tiny. Overlap risk from individual stocks is actually low, which is good, but the catch is we only see top-10 holdings, and your biggest piece is a derivatives-heavy strategy that doesn’t really show what’s under the hood. In ingredient-list terms, you can clearly see the salt and sugar, but the mystery sauce remains very much mystery.
Factors
Factor-wise, this thing is a full send on Value, Size, and Yield — basically “cheap, smaller, and paying something.” Factor exposure is just the hidden flavor profile of the portfolio, and yours is like ordering the “rustic thrift special.” Momentum and low volatility are moderately loaded, quality isn’t really the star. The awkward bit: signal coverage is low, so these readings come from a partial snapshot. Still, leaning hard into value and small size while also chasing yield is like building a team of underdogs who also smoke — potential upside, but definitely not the cleanest risk profile. It’ll shine in some regimes and sulk in growth-mania markets.
Risk contribution
-
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
Weight: 40.00% 32.3% -
Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 15.00% 26.5% -
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 15.00% 22.6% -
abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF
Weight: 20.00% 17.4% -
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 10.00% 1.2%
Risk contribution reveals who’s actually driving the drama, not just who takes up space. Your top three holdings by weight account for over 81% of the total risk. The managed futures ETF, despite being 40% of the portfolio, contributes “only” about 32% of the risk — respectable but not outrageous. The real troublemaker is the small-cap value ETF: 15% weight but over 26% of risk, with a risk-to-weight ratio of 1.77. That’s the loud drunk at the party. Bonds, meanwhile, are 10% of the weight and barely 1% of the risk, basically the designated driver. Trimming the loud guest a bit would calm the overall vibe fast.
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, this portfolio is clearly not living its best possible life. You’re sitting at about 11.85% return with 10.27% risk and a Sharpe ratio of 0.96, while the optimal mix of the *same* holdings could get around 15.6% return at slightly higher risk and a Sharpe of 1.25. Even worse, a same-risk optimized setup could theoretically push return up near 19.2% if you were willing to stomach more volatility. The efficient frontier is basically the “you could be hotter with the same genetics” curve, and you’re hanging below it. Translation: the ingredients are decent, but the recipe is inefficient and could be reweighted for a much better tradeoff.
Dividends
- Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares 3.90%
- iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF 5.60%
- Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund ETF Shares 1.90%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 3.10%
A total yield of about 3.1% is pretty solid for a portfolio that isn’t an outright income-chasing machine. The managed futures ETF at 5.6% and the bond fund at 3.9% do most of the heavy lifting, while the stock funds are more meh in the yield department. Income is nice — it’s like rent from your money — but remember distribution yield doesn’t mean “free return.” Some of this can come from underlying trading gains or even capital being handed back in fancy packaging. Relying too hard on yield alone is like judging a restaurant purely by portion size instead of, you know, not getting food poisoning.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF 0.85%
- abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF 0.17%
- Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund ETF Shares 0.07%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.39%
Fees are mostly angelic with one little devil. Vanguard is basically paying you in moral superiority with those 0.03–0.07% TERs. Then the managed futures ETF shows up at 0.85%, casually eating most of your 0.39% blended TER all by itself. Total cost is still reasonable, but let’s be honest: you’re sponsoring a quant shop’s coffee budget for the privilege of that 40% allocation. If the fancy strategy actually delivers diversifying returns and smoother drawdowns, that tax might be tolerable. Just don’t pretend this is an ultra-frugal monk portfolio — it’s more like minimalism plus one very expensive hobby.
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