Comfortable index hugger accidentally strapped to a broken Monte Carlo doom simulator
Report created on Mar 26, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 69.71% -
FT FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
FTIHX - US31635V6386 18.15% -
DU Duolingo Inc
DUOL - US26603R1068 5.89% -
SP Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund
SPAXX - US31617H1023 3.84% -
SO SoFi Technologies Inc.
SOFI - US83406F1021 1.41% -
GO Alphabet Inc Class A
GOOGL - US02079K3059 1.00%
This portfolio is 70% plain-vanilla S&P 500, 18% foreign index, a splash of cash, and three tiny “spice” stocks pretending to matter. Structurally, it’s basically a two-fund core with some stock-picking cosplay bolted on the side. For a “Balanced” risk label, it’s hilariously equity-heavy; 96% stock is not what most people mean when they say balanced unless they balance with vibes instead of bonds. Think of it as a sensible Toyota with racing stickers on the bumper. The general takeaway: either commit to being an equity-heavy index portfolio or admit the side bets are more for entertainment than real diversification.
Growth
The historical performance section is comedy. Your portfolio crawls from $1,000 to $1,006 while the “US Market” allegedly turns into $1,035 and “Global Market” into $1,061 with absurd CAGRs over a few months. That CAGR math is clearly on illegal substances; the time horizon is too short and the numbers are obviously garbage-y. Max drawdown around -4% is totally normal, nothing heroic or terrifying. Main point: with such a short window, performance tells you almost nothing. Past data over half a year is like judging a marathon runner after 200 meters; it’s noise, not insight, so don’t anchor on it.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation here is totally broken: 0 of 1,000 simulations positive, -100% at basically every percentile, and an annualized -81% return. That’s not a warning; that’s a software panic attack. Monte Carlo is supposed to model many possible futures based on past volatility and returns, like running your portfolio through 1,000 alternate timelines. Here, with only 15 data points, the input is so useless the model decided you go to zero in every universe. Treat this as a big red “don’t trust me” sign. Real takeaway: ignore these projections completely and remember simulations are only as sane as their data.
Asset classes
- Stocks 96%
Asset class split: 96% stocks, a tiny bit of cash, and basically no ballast. For something labeled “Balanced,” this is more like “fully caffeinated growth-chaser.” No bonds, no real diversifiers, just vibes and equity beta. In stormy markets, this kind of setup moves with the market, not around it. Asset classes are like food groups: you can live on protein powder and caffeine for a while, but it’s not exactly stable nutrition. If the goal is long-term growth and you can handle big swings, fine; just don’t pretend this is a chill, smoothed-out ride. It’s a stock portfolio in a balanced costume.
Sectors
- Technology 32%
- Financials 14%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, you’re tilted hard toward Tech (32%) with solid chunks of Financials and Communication Services. Translation: growthy, cyclical, market-sensitive stuff runs the show. This is a “we believe in capitalism and shiny apps” portfolio, not a “steady and boring” one. Having 30%+ in a single broad sector is like letting one friend drive every road trip: fun when they’re good, a mess when they crash. Your sector mix will sing in boom times and sulk hard when growth and rates get weird. The upside is clear participation in innovation; the downside is you’ll feel every tech mood swing.
Regions
- North America 79%
- Europe Developed 7%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Asia Emerging 2%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
Geography screams “Home bias and proud of it”: 79% North America, scraps for Europe, Japan, and assorted rest-of-world. For someone in the US, that’s common, but still very “America or bust.” The international slice is real but modest; it diversifies headlines more than returns. Geographic allocation matters because different regions peak and crash at different times; right now, you’re basically betting the US continues to be the main character of global capitalism. That might work, but it isn’t exactly imaginative. General idea: if the US stumbles, this portfolio limps right alongside it, not in a different direction.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 42%
- Large-cap 32%
- Mid-cap 21%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap profile is aggressively mainstream: ~74% in mega and big caps, 21% mid, and a hilarious 1% in small. This is basically “I bought the big kids’ table and tossed in a token scrappy startup for personality.” Large caps bring stability and predictability, but they also mean you’re hugging the index and not really hunting for off-the-beaten-path returns. Small caps are too tiny here to move the needle; they’re decorative. Takeaway: this is a blue-chip-centric portfolio with a mid-cap side dish, not a high-octane small-cap thrill ride. Volatility will still come from stocks, just mostly from big familiar names.
True holdings
-
DU Duolingo Inc 5.89%
-
0 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 5.71%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
1 Fidelity Cash Central Fund 5.22%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
2 TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD 4.60%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
3 ASML HOLDING NV 2.89%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
4 Fidelity Securities Lending Cash Central Fund 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
5 ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTD 2.39%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
6 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD 1.95%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
7 SAP SE 1.80%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
-
8 ASTRAZENECA PLC 1.56%
Part of fund(s):- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund
- Top 10 total 34.46%
Look-through shows a weird cast: Duolingo on its own, then a pile of mega international names like TSMC, Tencent, ASML, Alibaba, Samsung, and some cash-y Fidelity funds lurking inside. Overlap coverage is low, so hidden concentration is probably worse than it looks. You’re clearly indexing, but the underlying reality is: a few massive global firms plus a lot of stuff you’re not seeing in this snapshot. Think of this as reading only the back-cover summary of a 600-page book. The important bit: you are far more concentrated in big global champions than your surface “lots of positions” count would suggest.
Factors
Factor exposure is dominated by Quality, Momentum, and Low Volatility, with mediocre Value and almost irrelevant Yield. Factors are like the flavor profile of your portfolio: quality is “good companies,” momentum is “what’s been winning,” low vol is “not totally insane.” But signal coverage is weak (around 22% on average), so these readings are half-blind. Still, the combo suggests a closet preference for strong, steady winners rather than trashy lottery tickets—despite Duolingo and SoFi trying to cosplay as them. The mildly ironic bit: you’re leaning into momentum and quality while barely acknowledging yield, so this is clearly a growth ride, not an income one.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 69.71% 90.6% -
FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
Weight: 18.15% 46.5% -
Alphabet Inc Class A
Weight: 1.00% 6.0% -
Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund
Weight: 3.84% 0.9% -
Duolingo Inc
Weight: 5.89% 0.0% - Top 5 risk contribution 143.9%
Risk contribution is where the mask slips. The S&P 500 fund is 70% of the weight but 91% of the risk; the international fund is 18% weight and 46% of the risk. Alphabet is 1% weight yet nearly 6% of total risk, punching way above its size. Also, Duolingo showing 0% risk contribution is straight-up data nonsense, not reality. More importantly, top three positions account for 143% of risk, which just signals correlation and model quirks, but directionally: these few holdings drive the whole roller coaster. General rule: if one or two funds dominate risk, that’s where trimming or rebalancing actually matters.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationFidelity® Government Money Market FundSoFi Technologies Inc.Duolingo IncAlphabet Inc Class A
-
High correlationFIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASSFidelity 500 Index Fund
Correlation-wise, your stuff basically moves in cliques. The US and international index funds are highly correlated, so when one hurts, the other probably sulks too. The money market latching onto SoFi, Duolingo, and Alphabet in the “highly correlated” club is more a data oddity than real life, but the broader point holds: your assets tend to move together. Correlation is just how similarly two things dance to the market music. In a crash, highly correlated assets don’t protect you—they all fall in a sad synchronized dive. Diversification here is more costume than armor; you’re still mostly tied to one big equity story.
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.
Risk vs return is where the portfolio gets properly roasted. Your current setup has expected return ~11.3% with ~19.9% risk and a Sharpe ratio of 0.47, while the “optimal” mix of the same holdings allegedly spits out 32% return with 7.6% risk and a Sharpe over 4. That massive gap screams “the model is sketchy,” but directionally it still says you’re below the efficient frontier. Efficient frontier = best possible return for each risk level using your current ingredients, just rearranged. Translation: even with only these funds and stocks, a smarter weighting could get you more return per unit of pain. You’re leaving efficiency on the table.
Dividends
- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 2.70%
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.20%
- Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
- Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund 1.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.40%
Total yield around 1.4% is “don’t quit your day job” territory. The international fund does some heavy lifting at 2.7%, but the S&P side is only 1.2%, and Alphabet barely registers. This is not a portfolio designed to pay the bills; it’s a growth-first, income-later setup. Dividends are the boring paycheck of investing, and here you’re mostly working for capital gains instead. That’s fine if the goal is long-term growth and you’re not depending on cash flow, but anyone dreaming of living off this yield would be…hungry. Key point: this is an accumulation engine, not an income machine.
Ongoing product costs
- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.06%
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%
Costs are freakishly low. Total TER of 0.02% is basically free by industry standards. You somehow managed to pay almost nothing, which is either intentional genius or you just clicked the cheapest Fidelity defaults and walked away. Costs are the slow leak that silently kills portfolios over decades; here, you’ve patched the tire. The only real roast is that with fees this good, you don’t get to blame expenses if returns disappoint—you’ll have to look at allocation choices instead. Still, credit where due: you are not bleeding money on management fees, which is more than most people can say.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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