A supposedly balanced portfolio that is actually a stock junkie in business casual
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 strong stomach and a growth-first mindset. It suits a person comfortable watching their account swing by double digits without immediately reaching for the panic button. Goals likely lean toward long-term wealth building rather than near-term withdrawals, and the time horizon probably stretches 10+ years. There’s a bias toward simplicity—three funds, low costs—combined with a not-so-subtle love for tech and stocks in general. It’s made for someone who intellectually knows risk exists, emotionally tolerates it, and secretly enjoys the drama as long as the long-term chart points up and to the right.
Positions
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 60.00% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 25.00% -
Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
VGT - US92204A7028 15.00%
This thing calls itself “balanced” but it’s basically 99% stocks in a trench coat pretending to be moderate. The core is fine: S&P 500 at 60% and broad international at 25% is straight-from-the-textbook boring in a good way. Then the extra 15% tech tilt strolls in like “what if we just made it spicier for no reason.” Compared with a typical balanced mix (which usually throws in 30–40% bonds or safer stuff), this setup is more like an aggressive growth portfolio wearing a fake mustache. If true balance is the goal, some actual low-volatility ballast would not hurt.
Growth
Historically, a 16.09% CAGR is fantastic, almost suspiciously smooth-looking on paper. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is just the average yearly growth, like averaging your speed on a road trip where you definitely sped through some parts. Max drawdown at -33.38% shows the real story: when things got ugly, this portfolio didn’t “balance” anything, it just went down with the stock ship. Against typical balanced portfolios that often drop less in crashes, this looks more like a full-equity roller coaster. Past data is useful, but it’s yesterday’s weather, not a forecast, so nobody should assume 16% will just keep repeating politely.
Projection
The Monte Carlo results are pure optimism on caffeine: median outcome around 789% and an average simulated annual return of 18.49% screams “let’s extrapolate the best decade ever into infinity.” Monte Carlo is just running thousands of “what if” futures using past patterns, like rolling dice loaded with historical data. The wide spread from 141% (5th percentile) to over 1,100% (67th) quietly reminds you this can still go pretty sideways. Also, 999/1000 positive outcomes should set off your skepticism alarm. Future markets don’t care about nice simulation curves, so dialing back expectations and stress-testing ugly scenarios would be a lot more honest.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
- Cash 1%
- Other 0%
- No data 0%
Asset classes here are basically: stocks, stocks, and more stocks, plus a sad 1% cash sitting in the corner. A truly balanced setup usually mixes in bonds, maybe some real assets, and other less dramatic stuff so everything doesn’t fall together. Here, you’ve built a one-asset-class empire and slapped “Broadly Diversified” on it like a misleading product label. Yes, it’s diversified *within* stocks, but when the stock market decides to have a tantrum, there’s nowhere to hide. If the stated risk profile is “balanced,” adding at least one grown-up asset class would make the label a lot less laughable.
Sectors
- Technology 40%
- Financials 14%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Telecommunications 8%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector mix translation: “Tech addiction with some friends.” Technology at 40% is a major tilt, not a minor seasoning. The rest—financials, consumer cyclicals, industrials, healthcare, etc.—do give it breadth, but tech clearly has the steering wheel. That’s great when tech is printing money, less fun when regulators, rates, or earnings remind everyone gravity exists. A broad index like the S&P 500 is already pretty tech-heavy; stacking an extra dedicated tech fund on top is like ordering a double dessert after a huge meal. If smoother rides matter, dialing back the concentrated sector bet would reduce the portfolio’s mood swings.
Regions
- North America 77%
- 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, second, and most of third.” With 77% in North America, it basically treats the rest of the world like a side quest. The international slice does show up—Europe, Japan, emerging markets—but in modest doses. It’s actually not crazy compared with global market-cap weights, but it definitely leans home bias. That’s comfy when the US dominates, but if leadership rotates to other regions, this setup might watch from the sidelines. Global diversification is like socializing your money: talking mostly to the US is fine, but ignoring the rest of the party can get awkward long-term.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 32%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 3%
- Micro-cap 1%
Market cap mix is very conventional: 47% mega, 32% big, 17% mid, and a tiny sprinkle of small and micro. This is basically an index fund’s personality—large caps running the show while smaller companies sit quietly at the back of the bus. Nothing extreme, nothing wild, but also not exactly imaginative. It means returns will mostly mirror how big, established companies do, with only a bit of small-cap spice. If the goal is smoother, index-like behavior, this is aligned. If someone secretly wants lottery-ticket upside, this tilt is too polite and needs either more small caps or more realism.
Dividends
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.90%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.44%
A total yield of 1.44% is basically a polite tip jar, not an income machine. The tech-heavy tilt drags the payout down, since tech companies usually prefer “grow fast” over “pay you.” The international fund tries to help with ~2.9% yield, while the S&P 500 sits in the middle, but overall this is built for growth, not for sending regular cash love notes. For someone relying on income, this setup would feel like waiting for a paycheck that never shows up. Anyone craving stability or withdrawals would need to either shift toward higher-yield assets or accept selling shares as the norm.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.05%
Costs are the one area where this setup looks almost suspiciously competent. A total expense ratio around 0.05% is basically stealing efficiency from Vanguard in broad daylight. You’re paying pocket change for market-level exposure, which is exactly what most investors *should* be doing—but rarely do. It’s so low that trying to shave it further would be like arguing over pennies while ignoring actual risk. Still, cheap doesn’t mean appropriate: a low-cost all-stock rocket is still a rocket. The fee win is real, but it doesn’t magically turn a growth-heavy configuration into the balanced profile the labels are promising.
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 a risk–return efficiency scale, this setup sits closer to “growth enthusiast” than “balanced optimizer.” Efficient in theory means getting the most return for a given level of risk, not chasing fantasy returns with training-wheel volatility. Here, the risk dial is turned higher than the “balanced” tag suggests, mostly because there’s no real safety net—99% stocks plus a big tech tilt equals sharp drawdowns when markets misbehave. The historical and simulated returns look juicy, but they’re built on a strong past decade for stocks and tech specifically. For a truly efficient mix, the trade-off between smoother rides and high-octane growth needs a more honest rethink.
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.
