A supposedly balanced portfolio that is actually an all equity caffeine binge in disguise
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 suits someone who says “balanced” but actually loves speed. Think: comfortable with seeing 20–30% drops without panic selling, focused on long‑term growth rather than near‑term stability. Goals are likely wealth building, not steady income, with a time horizon of at least 10+ years where volatility is more annoyance than disaster. There’s a strong belief in global capitalism, big companies, and especially US and tech leadership. This kind of investor can handle ugly headlines, doesn’t obsess over monthly performance, and is okay with a bit of internal chaos as long as the long‑term chart points up and to the right.
Positions
-
State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
SPYM - US78464A8541 55.00% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 25.00% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 20.00%
This “balanced” portfolio is 100% stocks with a small 1% cash sprinkle, so the word balanced is doing stand‑up comedy here. You’ve basically built an equity rocket with three big broad funds and called it moderate. Structure‑wise, it’s clean and simple, but you doubled down on US large caps, then slapped on a NASDAQ 100 booster for extra whiplash. Compared to a typical balanced mix that might have 40–60% bonds, this thing is running with scissors. If actual balance is the goal, it needs some slow, boring stabilizers: think assets that don’t move like stocks when markets panic, not just three flavors of “equity rollercoaster.”
Growth
Historically, this thing has sprinted: a 14.88% CAGR is “everything went right” territory. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is just your average yearly speed over the whole trip, ignoring all the potholes. A max drawdown of -27.21% means at one point you watched over a quarter of the value vanish — that’s not balanced, that’s “hope you like stress.” Only 23 days made up 90% of returns, which means miss a handful of big up days and the story gets uglier. And remember, past data is like last year’s weather: useful, not psychic, especially with this much equity risk.
Projection
The Monte Carlo results are basically the market whispering, “This could be awesome… or mildly painful.” Monte Carlo is just a nerdy way of running thousands of what‑if scenarios using past volatility patterns to see a spread of outcomes. Median result at 550.9% and annualized simulation return near 16% screams optimism. Even the 5th percentile at 118.1% still shows growth, which is pretty generous. But simulations are like video game difficulty settings: they’re based on old levels, not surprise boss fights. For a truly balanced risk profile, you’d want a future range with smaller swings, not just big upside and “hopefully not too bad” downside.
Asset classes
- Stocks 44%
- Cash 1%
- Other 0%
- No data 0%
Asset classes here are basically “stocks… and vibes.” With 44% explicitly labeled stocks and the rest functionally still equity inside broad ETFs, you’ve skipped bonds, real estate (beyond tiny REIT exposure), and anything that behaves differently when stocks tank. Asset classes are like different players on a team: if you field 11 strikers, it looks fun until you have to defend. This setup will move strongly with global equity markets, good and bad. If the goal really is a balanced profile, it needs at least a token defensive squad: fixed income, real estate, or other diversifiers that don’t panic every time equities sneeze.
Sectors
- Technology 14%
- Financials 6%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Industrials 5%
- Telecommunications 4%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Health Care 3%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, this is a tech‑leaning growth fan club wearing an index mask. Technology at 14% plus heavy exposure to growthy names in the S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 means you’re very tied to the “innovation must always win” narrative. Financials, industrials, and consumer cyclicals are present but not exactly beefy, and defensives like utilities and real estate are basically background extras. Sector diversification matters because when one theme breaks — say tech valuations get punched — everything correlated with “future hype” bleeds together. To calm this down, you’d want a more even split across boring sectors that make money in normal, unexciting ways, not just the cool kids of the index world.
Regions
- North America 22%
- Europe Developed 10%
- Asia Emerging 4%
- Japan 4%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
- Europe Emerging 0%
Geographically, it’s “USA is main character, everyone else is supporting cast.” With 22% North America and another chunk of US hiding in the S&P and NASDAQ ETFs, home bias is alive and well. There is some international exposure—developed Europe, Japan, developed and emerging Asia, a sprinkle of EM regions—but it’s more “polite nod” than “true global balance.” Geography matters because different regions have different economic cycles, politics, and currency moves. Overweighting the US has worked historically, but that’s a story, not a guarantee. A more even global mix could soften the blow if US markets finally decide gravity still exists.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 22%
- Large-cap 15%
- Mid-cap 6%
- Small-cap 1%
- Micro-cap 0%
Market cap tilt? This thing worships giants. Mega caps at 22% and big caps at 15% dominate, with mid at 6% and small at a lonely 1%. That’s not a blend; that’s a fan club for the largest companies on earth. Market cap just means company size; you’re mostly betting on the already‑huge staying huge. That can be fine, but it also links your fate to the same few hundred names that drive every major index headline. If the intent is diversification, sprinkling more into smaller and mid‑sized companies could add different growth drivers instead of repeating “big tech + big US blue chips” three times.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.90%
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.43%
Yield at 1.43% is fine if growth is the objective, but let’s not pretend this is an income machine. Dividends are basically companies handing you some cash for holding their stock; here, most of the story is price growth, not steady paychecks. The international fund brings a decent yield, but the NASDAQ 100 is famously stingy, and the S&P isn’t exactly a dividend aristocrat factory at this weighting. For someone actually wanting cash flow, this setup is more “reinvest everything and hope it compounds” than “pay the bills.” If income is even a side goal, you’d need more deliberate exposure to higher, more stable payouts.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%
Costs are suspiciously good, like you accidentally did something smart. A total TER around 0.04% is dirt cheap in ETF land. TER (Total Expense Ratio) is the annual fee to hold the fund; at this level, it’s background noise, not a problem. You’re not lighting money on fire through fees, which is nice since the risk side is already doing the entertainment. Still, low cost doesn’t magically fix concentration or volatility; it just means you’re taking those risks cheaply. The next level up would be keeping this fee discipline while also fixing the “equity maniac dressed as balanced investor” identity crisis.
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.
In risk–return terms, this portfolio is efficient only if the goal is “max growth, shrug at drawdowns.” The return has been great, but the volatility and drawdown profile clearly live above what most people would call balanced. Efficient here means best mix of return for a given level of risk, not fantasy land of high returns with no pain. Right now, you’re shifted toward the spicy end of the Efficient Frontier, pretending to be middle‑of‑the‑road. To truly hit a balanced profile, you’d pull back some equity risk, add genuine diversifiers, and accept slightly lower expected returns in exchange for not sweating every correction like it’s 2008 again.
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.
