A chill moderate portfolio sneakily juiced with tech and way more risk than the label admits
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.
What type of investor this portfolio is suitable for
Balanced Investors
This setup fits someone who says “balanced” but clearly nods enthusiastically whenever “long-term growth” comes up. Comfortable with decent volatility, willing to sit through 25–30% drawdowns without panic-selling, and probably investing with a multi-decade horizon in mind. There’s a quiet belief that broad markets, especially U.S. and tech-leaning growth, will win over time. Income today is not the priority; the focus is bigger numbers later. This personality is okay with some academic-sounding tools like Monte Carlo and index funds but doesn’t want to micromanage. Overall, it suits a patient, mildly risk-seeking investor who wants to feel moderate while secretly playing in the growth lane.
Positions
-
Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
FSKAX - US3159116934 50.00% -
FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
FTIHX - US31635V6386 25.00% -
Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 15.00% -
FIDELITY LONG-TERM TREASURY BOND INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
FNBGX - US31635V2328 10.00%
This thing calls itself “balanced” but it’s basically an equity portfolio with a 10% Treasury sidekick. About 50% in total US market, 25% in total international, 15% in QQQ, and a lonely 10% in long-term Treasuries. That’s roughly 90% stocks, which is more “aggressive with a conscience” than genuinely balanced. Think of it as a sports car wearing a seatbelt sticker. The structure is at least clean and logical, but the labels underplay the volatility. If a steadier ride is the goal, shifting a bit more into bonds or shortening bond duration would bring the risk profile closer to what the marketing brochure suggests.
Growth
Historically this thing has actually crushed it: a 12.68% CAGR is spicy. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is basically your average speed on a long road trip, ignoring the potholes. The potholes here are real: a max drawdown of about -29% means that at some point, a $100k ride could’ve been staring at ~$71k. That’s stock-heavy behavior, not “balanced middle-of-the-road” behavior. Versus classic 60/40 portfolios, this sits closer to a 80–90% equity setup, so the outperformance came with extra stomach churn. If the future feels scarier than the backtest, dialing risk down a notch wouldn’t be crazy.
Projection
The Monte Carlo results are basically saying, “Most futures look good, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo just runs thousands of random what-if market paths using past-like returns and volatility, then shows the range of outcomes. Median outcome of ~287% and 67th percentile ~419% is great on paper, but the 5th percentile at ~30% reminds you bad decades exist. Also, simulations are like weather models: useful, but the market doesn’t read the script. Heavy equity plus long-term bonds means the extremes — both great and ugly — are amplified. Someone wanting smoother, boring predictability would tone down equity and shorten interest-rate risk.
Asset classes
- Stocks 89%
- Bonds 10%
- Cash 1%
- Other 0%
- Not Classified 0%
Asset-class split: 89% stocks, 10% bonds, 1% cash. For a “balanced” profile, that’s like calling a double espresso “lightly caffeinated.” On the plus side, you avoided the classic sin of piling into random “other” junk — this is a very clean stock-bond mix. The lazy simplicity is actually a strength. The issue is just mismatch: risk label says moderate, allocation screams growth. Equities will dominate results, while 10% in long-term Treasuries won’t save much in an equity crash and will suffer when rates spike. If the aim is true balance, consider more bonds and/or mixing in shorter-duration or more defensive exposures.
Sectors
- Technology 27%
- Financials 13%
- Industrials 9%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 2%
Sector exposure is basically “U.S. economy plus a tech crush.” Tech at 27% with QQQ on top of a total market fund is a noticeable tilt. Financials, industrials, comms, and cyclicals are all present, but tech is clearly the teacher’s pet. It’s not insane — broad index funds naturally lean techy these days — but layering QQQ on top turns it into a mild tech addiction. If tech has a multi-year hangover, this portfolio will absolutely feel it. Someone wanting less drama could cool the QQQ exposure or boost allocation to more defensive sectors via broader or factor-based holdings instead of doubling down on growth darlings.
Regions
- North America 67%
- Europe Developed 10%
- Unknown 10%
- Japan 4%
- Asia Emerging 4%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
- Europe Emerging 0%
Geographically, it’s textbook American home bias: 67% North America and then token representation of the rest of the planet. Europe Developed at 10%, Japan at 4%, emerging bits scattered in low single digits — enough to say “I’m global” but not enough to really matter. The unknown 10% is likely classification noise, not secret Martian equities. The good news: this roughly mirrors global-cap plus a U.S. tilt, which many investors survive just fine with. But it’s still a bet that the U.S. remains the star of the show. Anyone wanting less “America or bust” energy could slowly push more into ex-US broad indexes over time.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 40%
- Large-cap 28%
- Mid-cap 15%
- Small-cap 4%
- Micro-cap 1%
Market-cap mix is very index-like: 40% mega, 28% big, 15% mid, 4% small, 1% micro. Basically: “I let capitalism decide the weights.” Nothing outrageous here, but don’t pretend this is a small-cap discovery engine — it’s a who’s-who of large established companies, with smaller names sprinkled in for seasoning. In crashes, mega and big caps still fall, just usually slightly less chaotically than tiny names. The portfolio isn’t getting much extra growth juice from small caps, and it’s not ultra-defensive either. If the goal is either more stability or more factor tilts (like value or small), this setup is a bit too middle-of-the-road.
Dividends
- FIDELITY LONG-TERM TREASURY BOND INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 3.60%
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.10%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.30%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.46%
Total yield of 0.46% is basically pocket lint. QQQ and the total market fund are growth-oriented and don’t pay you much, and the only real yield hero here is the long-term Treasury fund. That’s fine if the plan is “grow first, cash later,” but it’s laughable for income-seekers. Relying mostly on price growth means you’re fully exposed to market mood swings whenever you need money. If steady cash flow is a real goal, this setup is not it. A more income-aware design would lean into higher-yielding but still diversified equity and bond choices, without chasing yield for its own sake.
Ongoing product costs
- FIDELITY LONG-TERM TREASURY BOND INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.03%
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.02%
- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.06%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio looks suspiciously competent. A 0.06% total expense ratio is impressively low — almost like someone actually read a fee disclosure. The Fidelity index funds are dirt cheap, and even QQQ’s 0.20% is reasonable for what it is. Fees aren’t what’s holding this back; if anything, they’re the quiet MVP. But ultra-low cost doesn’t fix an aggressive risk profile or concentration in tech-heavy growth. With such cheap building blocks, there’s no excuse not to fine-tune the mix. The structure is Ikea-simple and inexpensive; it just needs a little rearranging to match the stated risk vibe.
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.
On risk versus return, this is more “efficient for a growth investor” than for someone truly balanced. The Efficient Frontier (fancy term for “best return for each risk level”) would probably place this on the higher-risk flank, where maxing equities and a bit of long-duration bonds makes sense if you’re chasing long-term growth and can handle pain. Max drawdown near -29% and equity at 89% scream higher-volatility regime, not gentle middle ground. For someone with a long horizon and strong nerves, it’s a solid trade-off. For a genuine risk-4-of-7 cautious soul, the risk-return mix is tilted too far toward drama and not enough toward sleep.
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.
