This is an almost all‑equity portfolio with 99% in stocks and about 1% in “other,” mainly via the gold plus equity ETF. The core is a global total stock ETF at 25%, surrounded by strong tilts: 28% in US small cap value, 14% in international small cap value, and 12% in emerging markets value and ex‑China. Momentum mid caps and developed international momentum add another 11%, while 10% sits in the gold plus equity fund. Structurally, this is an aggressive equity engine wrapped in a diversified global shell. The takeaway is that returns will be driven mostly by stocks, with modest diversification from the gold strategy rather than from bonds or cash.
Over the recent period, $1,000 grew to $1,454, giving a portfolio CAGR of 20.27%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing the ups and downs over time. This return comfortably beat both the US market (13.49%) and global market (14.58%) while experiencing a max drawdown of -17.34%, similar to the benchmarks. That -17% drop shows the emotional reality of owning equities: values can fall sharply before recovering. This recent outperformance is encouraging, especially given comparable drawdowns, but it is a short window. Past data over just two years can be heavily influenced by factor cycles and may not repeat in the same way going forward.
The Monte Carlo projection uses thousands of simulated paths, remixing past return and volatility patterns to estimate a range of future outcomes. For a $1,000 starting point over 15 years, the median result is about $2,759, implying an annualized return around 8.05%. The likely middle range runs from roughly $1,758 to $4,149, with an outside band from about $1,004 to $7,580. This illustrates that even with the same starting portfolio, outcomes can vary widely depending on market paths. Simulations are helpful for setting expectations, but they’re still based on history and assumptions; they can’t account for future structural changes, regime shifts, or personal behavior during rough markets.
Asset‑class wise, this is effectively a pure equity portfolio with 99% in stocks and only a sliver in “other,” largely from the gold plus equity ETF. Compared with a typical “balanced” allocation that might hold 40–60% bonds, this structure is much more growth‑oriented and sensitive to equity market swings. The positive side is higher long‑term return potential, especially when combined with the value and small‑cap tilts. The flip side is deeper and more frequent drawdowns, since there’s very little ballast from fixed income. For someone truly “balanced” by temperament, this means the emotional ride may feel more like a growth or even aggressive allocation during downturns.
Sector exposure is quite spread out: financials (19%), industrials (17%), and technology (16%) are the largest, followed by consumer discretionary at 12%, with energy and basic materials together at 17%. Health care, telecom, staples, utilities, and real estate round out the mix. Overall, this is a fairly diversified sector spread and aligns reasonably well with broad global patterns, especially the meaningful but not overwhelming tech weight. That’s a strength: it avoids being overly tied to one theme like pure tech or energy. Sector tilts toward financials and industrials are consistent with value and small‑cap strategies, which can shine in certain economic cycles but lag in growth‑led rallies.
Geographically, about 64% sits in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and emerging regions like Asia, Latin America, and Africa/Middle East. This is a bit more US‑tilted than a typical global market weight but still has solid international representation. That’s beneficial for diversification: returns aren’t fully tied to one economy, policy regime, or currency. The emerging markets allocations, plus intentional ex‑China exposure, create a more nuanced global profile than a simple world index. The tradeoff is that foreign and emerging positions can be more volatile and sensitive to currency and political risk, adding another dimension to the ride.
By market cap, this portfolio has a strong tilt away from pure mega‑caps: small caps are 26%, mid caps 23%, micro caps 13%, with mega and large caps at 20% and 17%. This is a meaningful departure from typical global indices, which are dominated by mega and large companies. Smaller companies historically have offered higher long‑term return potential but come with bumpier performance, wider swings, and less liquidity. That shows up here as a more “punchy” equity profile. The presence of broad total‑world exposure helps anchor things, but investors should expect this mix to deviate noticeably from standard benchmarks in both good and bad periods.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, mega‑cap US tech names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Amazon appear across several funds, totaling a few percent each. Because this overlap is only based on top‑10 positions and coverage is about 17% of the portfolio, hidden concentration is likely understated; many of these companies probably show up again deeper in the ETFs. This matters because owning several funds doesn’t always mean you’re truly diversified if they share the same stars. Here, the overlap is noticeable but not dominant, thanks to big allocations to small caps and value strategies that hold very different stocks from the mega‑cap growth leaders.
Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.
Factor exposure is where this portfolio really stands out. Value exposure is very high at 85%, and momentum is also high at 75%, while size is low at 38%, meaning it leans away from the largest stocks and toward smaller names. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” of investments that research links to long‑term returns. A strong value tilt can pay off after growth‑dominated periods, but it can underperform when markets chase expensive winners. High momentum exposure tends to do well in persistent trends yet can get hit hard in sharp reversals. Together, this mix creates powerful factor bets that can outperform benchmarks but will likely be more cyclical.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The US small cap value ETF is 28% of capital but contributes about 32.7% of risk, while the gold plus equity fund at 10% weight contributes 12.4% of risk. The world stock ETF, despite being 25% of the portfolio, accounts for only 21.6% of risk. The top three positions together drive roughly two‑thirds of total volatility. That’s not extreme concentration, but it’s meaningful. Tweaking position sizes can shift which holdings dominate risk without changing what you own, helping align how the portfolio behaves with your comfort level.
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 has a Sharpe ratio of 0.93, meaning its return per unit of risk trails what’s theoretically possible with these same funds. The efficient frontier shows that reweighting could either move toward a higher‑Sharpe “optimal” mix (1.71) or a lower‑risk minimum‑variance mix (Sharpe 1.08) without adding new holdings. Being about 8.6 percentage points below the frontier at the current risk level suggests there’s room to improve the balance between volatility and return simply by adjusting allocations. The positive news: the ingredients are strong; it’s mainly the recipe that could be refined to get more out of the existing lineup.
The overall dividend yield of about 2.02% is modest but not negligible. Some components, like emerging markets value and the gold plus equity fund, show higher yields around 3–4%, while US small cap value and midcap momentum are lower. Dividends are only one part of total return, but they can help smooth the ride by providing a regular cash component even when prices are choppy. For investors not currently drawing income, reinvesting dividends can quietly boost compounding over time. Yield levels will also fluctuate with market prices and payout policies, so they’re best seen as a bonus rather than a guaranteed, stable income stream.
The weighted total expense ratio (TER) sits at a very competitive 0.22%. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, expressed as a percentage of assets, and it quietly reduces returns every year. Here, the extremely low‑cost world ETF at 0.07% pulls the average down, while more specialized factor and regional funds come in around 0.20–0.36%. For an actively tilted, factor‑heavy portfolio, this overall cost is impressively low and supportive of long‑term performance. Keeping fees under control is one of the few things investors can reliably influence, and this structure does a good job of balancing targeted strategies with reasonable cost levels.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey