Roast mode 🔥

A growth hungry stock portfolio wearing a fake balanced badge and calling it diversification

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 has a growth-core personality and a decent risk appetite. The ideal owner is long-term focused, comfortable with double-digit drawdowns, and more afraid of missing upside than of seeing red on the screen. They probably like the idea of global diversification but secretly believe the US and big tech will keep carrying the world. Time horizon here should be measured in decades, not years, with the emotional stamina to sit through ugly downturns without bailing. Think disciplined, return-driven, willing to accept pain in the short term to chase strong long-term compounding.

Positions

  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    VTI - US9229087690
    45.00%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    VXUS - US9219097683
    25.00%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    QQQM - US46138G6492
    15.00%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    SCHD - US8085247976
    15.00%

This thing calls itself “balanced” but it’s basically 99% stocks with a 1% cash garnish for decoration. Structure-wise, you’ve got a simple four-fund stack: total US, total international, a NASDAQ sugar shot, and a dividend comfort blanket. Compared to a typical balanced mix (often roughly 60% stocks and 40% bonds), this is more like 100% send-it mode. The good news: it’s at least logically built and not a random clown car of funds. If true balance is the goal, though, it needs some actual stabilizers: bonds, T-bills, or other lower-volatility assets, not just more flavors of “stocks that all fall together.”

Growth Info

Historically, this has been a total show-off: a 14.31% CAGR is spicy. If someone tossed in $10,000 and just napped, they’d be sitting on roughly $38k after 10 years at that pace. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is basically your average yearly speed over a long road trip, potholes included. But that -25.57% max drawdown means a quarter of the value can vanish in a bad stretch, which is not exactly “balanced portfolio” behavior. Benchmarks like a plain 60/40 mix would probably look tamer. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: it explains the puddles, not the next storm, so no victory laps.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo results are screaming “stonks go up,” with a median outcome over 500% and even the ugly 5th percentile still slightly above break-even at 111.4%. Monte Carlo is basically running thousands of alternate-universe timelines to see where things might land. It’s helpful, but remember: if you feed it a very strong historical return pattern, it happily assumes the party continues. Reality is messier: markets change, regimes flip, and sometimes the DJ just cuts the music. Those great-looking percentiles suggest high growth potential, but also rely heavily on the same stock-heavy, tech-tilted engine that can stall hard when conditions turn nasty.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    99%
  • Cash
    1%
  • Other
    0%
  • No data
    0%

Asset classes here are…singular: 99% stocks, 1% cash, and precisely 0% chill. For a “balanced” label, that’s basically false advertising. Different asset classes—stocks, bonds, real estate, cash, etc.—behave differently across market cycles. If all you own is stocks, you’ve bet that growth assets will always save the day, which is adorable but risky. The upside is maximum simplicity and clear long-term growth focus. The downside is that when stocks eat pavement, everything in here hits the same pavement. To actually earn a “balanced” badge, this setup needs at least one meaningful non-stock sleeve to help cushion drawdowns.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    28%
  • Financials
    13%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    11%
  • Industrials
    10%
  • Health Care
    10%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Consumer Staples
    7%
  • Energy
    6%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector spread looks broad on paper, but let’s not pretend this isn’t tech-led: 28% in Technology plus 9% in Communication Services is basically “growth stock mainline.” Financials, industrials, and healthcare show up respectably, but this isn’t some chill, evenly spread sector buffet—it’s a modern growth tilt with some side dishes. Compared to broad indexes, this is maybe a notch more tech-hungry than a textbook global blend, thanks to NASDAQ exposure layered on top of total market funds. That’s great while tech is the hero, not so great in a dot-com-style hangover. Dialing down the extra growth tilt could reduce the “all eggs in future-innovation hype” risk.

Regions Info

  • North America
    76%
  • Europe Developed
    10%
  • Asia Emerging
    4%
  • Japan
    4%
  • Asia Developed
    3%
  • Australasia
    1%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%
  • Europe Emerging
    0%

Geographically, this is “America first and also second,” with North America hogging 76%. Europe and Asia get some crumbs, but this clearly believes the US is the only show worth watching. A lot of global indices are also US-heavy, so this isn’t wild, but layering on NASDAQ just doubles down on home bias. Home bias is like only investing in companies you drive past—it feels safe, but it’s not actually diversified risk. The one redeeming feature is that there *is* genuine non-US exposure, and even a sprinkle of emerging markets. Still, if global balance is the goal, the US hero worship could be toned down.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    37%
  • Large-cap
    36%
  • Mid-cap
    19%
  • Small-cap
    5%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

By market cap, this portfolio is very “index-core with a growth flex”: 37% mega, 36% big, 19% mid, and then tiny sprinkles of small and micro. That’s basically “I believe in the giants, but I’ll let the little guys tag along for spice.” It tracks common benchmarks pretty closely, so there’s nothing outrageous here—no wild small-cap casino vibes, no hyper-megacap concentration beyond the usual modern-market reality. The catch: big and mega caps are heavily crowded trades, so you’re fully tied to whatever the dominant global companies do. If the goal is extra diversification, slightly more intentional mid/small-cap presence could spread risk beyond the usual megacap suspects.

Dividends Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 3.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.83%

The overall yield at 1.83% is cute but not exactly “income investor” material, despite that 15% chunk in a dividend ETF. This setup is clearly built for growth first, cashflow second. Dividends are nice—like getting small loyalty payments while you wait—but they don’t magically make a risky portfolio safe. That 3%+ yield from the dividend ETF does help smooth things a bit, yet the rest of the lineup drags the average down to a modest level. If income is supposed to matter, this structure is half-hearted. If income is just a bonus, then fine—but let’s not pretend this is a serious paycheck machine.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio behaves like a responsible adult. A total blended TER of 0.06% is impressively low; you basically refused to tip Wall Street. Expense ratio (TER) is just the yearly management fee, and here it’s barely noticeable. That means more of the return actually belongs to the investor, not the fund company. I’ll give this credit: “You must have clicked the right ETFs by accident” levels of sensible. Still, low cost doesn’t fix concentration risk, sector tilts, or fake “balanced” labels. Dirt-cheap fees on a risky allocation are still attached to a risky allocation—just a cheap one.

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 more “I want equity-like returns with equity-like drama” than truly optimized. The historical numbers and Monte Carlo outcomes show juicy growth, but for a risk score of 4/7 and a “balanced” tag, the volatility and drawdown potential are on the spicy side. Efficient Frontier is just a fancy name for the best mix of return for a given risk level. Here, you’ve basically shoved everything into the high-return, high-risk end and skipped the chance to smooth the ride with genuinely defensive assets. It’s efficient for growth-chasing, not for someone who actually wants sleep-friendly balance.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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.