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.
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.
Balanced Investors
This setup suits someone who believes in capitalism broadly, hates stock-picking, and wants to feel worldly while still lazy. They’re comfortable with equity-level swings, probably have a long time horizon, and don’t flinch at 30–35% drawdowns as long as the story is “I own the whole planet.” They lean more optimistic than paranoid, accept that performance might lag the hottest region, and care more about low effort and low fees than bragging rights. There’s an almost contrarian streak, especially in underweighting the home market. Overall, it fits a patient, globally curious investor who’d rather tinker with weights once in a while than chase the latest investing fad.
This portfolio is three funds that all basically own the same gigantic stock salad, with one especially bloated bowl. Seventy-five percent in international, twenty in global, five in US is like ordering three “all inclusive” buffets and then eating mostly from the one labeled “not home.” The structure is weird: instead of a clean split between home and abroad or a single total-world fund, it’s an overengineered index smoothie. The result is lots of holdings, not much clarity. Takeaway: the building blocks are fine, but the weights look more like an accident than a plan.
Historically, this thing has trailed both the US market and the global market while taking almost the same punches. Your CAGR of 10.85% turned 1,000 into 2,558, while the US market got to 3,804 and the global market to 3,047. That’s the joy of underperforming the benchmarks you basically copy. Max drawdown at -34.7% vs roughly -33% for both benchmarks means you ate almost the same pain for less gain. And needing just 25 days to generate 90% of returns reminds you that timing those “big days” is fantasy. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful, but not a prophecy.
The Monte Carlo sim — basically a thousand alternate-universe timelines built from past returns — paints a surprisingly rosy picture. Median outcome more than quadruples money in 10 years, 5th percentile still up ~63%, and 992 of 1,000 paths positive. But this is all built on the assumption that tomorrow kind of rhymes with yesterday, which markets love to violate at the worst possible time. Think of it like planning your wardrobe using only last year’s weather: directionally helpful, occasionally disastrous. Takeaway: odds look good on paper, but this is comfort math, not a guarantee. You still need a stomach for very real volatility along the way.
Asset classes are basically “stocks and a token cash tip.” Ninety-eight percent in equities and 2% in cash is not balanced; it’s “I heard stocks go up in the long run, send it.” For a “balanced” risk profile, this is hilariously equity-heavy. There’s no meaningful ballast here — when markets tank, this whole portfolio is going down with them, give or take a couple percentage points of cash pretending to help. On the plus side, it’s simple and honest: this is a growth-first setup. Takeaway: anyone expecting bond-like calm from this mix is in for a dramatic character-building experience.
Sector-wise, you’ve got a pretty classic global index tilt: chunky financials, big tech, industrials, and a sprinkling of everything else. Nineteen percent in tech and 21% in financials screams “I trust capitalism and spreadsheets,” while utilities, energy, and real estate lurk in the low single digits like afterthoughts. This isn’t a focused sector bet so much as a default “whatever the world index says” posture. The risk: if global banks or big tech have a bad multi-year run, you’ll feel it more than you expect, because they’re silently steering the ship. The portfolio is diversified, but it’s still following the crowd’s sector mood swings.
Geographically, this is the rare American investor who apparently got homesick for everywhere except home. Only about a quarter in North America, with Europe developed leading the pack and a heavy dose of Japan and developed Asia. It’s “America? Yeah, I’ve heard of it.” That’s a deliberate or accidental bet that non-US markets finally stop being the value trap they’ve been for a decade. The risk: you’ve structurally underweighted the region that’s actually delivered the best returns in recent history. Again, past isn’t future — but you’ve definitely chosen to zig where many portfolios zag. Bold, or just contrarian by accident.
The market-cap breakdown is very “index textbook”: 46% mega, 30% big, 17% mid, and tiny sprinkles of small and micro. You’ve basically outsourced your conviction to capitalism’s current winners, which is reasonable but not exactly imaginative. This means your returns will be dominated by the mega and big names — the little guys are just there as decoration. If mega-caps stumble or de-rate, your portfolio will feel heavier than it looks. On the bright side, you’re not overdoing small caps and turning the portfolio into a roller coaster. It’s boringly sensible here — almost suspiciously so, compared to the rest.
The look-through shows a love letter to massive global tech and chip names, just through multiple wrappers. Taiwan Semi, Samsung, ASML, NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Tencent, Alibaba — you’re not avoiding concentration, you’re just hiding it inside index matryoshka dolls. Overlap is likely higher than reported because we only see ETF top-10s, meaning the true duplication iceberg is mostly underwater. Practically, a lot of your fate rides on a tiny club of global mega-companies, no matter how “diversified” the fund names sound. The takeaway: you’re not stock-picking, but the indexes are doing the picking for you, and they all picked the same kids.
Factor-wise, the portfolio is like a cautious speed addict: big tilts to Size, Momentum, and Low Volatility. Factor exposure is like reading the ingredient label instead of trusting the packaging — and yours says “likes winners, prefers calmer ones, not huge on tiny junk.” Momentum at 61% means you ride what’s been working; low vol at 65% tries to keep the tantrums down; the Size tilt suggests a preference away from the very smallest names. Signal coverage is low on some factors, so this isn’t a perfect X-ray, but still: this setup probably behaves okay in choppy markets, and decently when trends continue. Just don’t treat factor tilts as magic armor.
Risk contribution is the “who’s actually rocking the boat” metric, and here it’s almost hilariously proportional: your 75% international fund contributes ~75% of the risk, the 20% world fund about 20%, and the 5% US fund about 5%. No secret landmines, no tiny position causing big drama. The issue is more basic: you’ve basically handed the steering wheel to one fund. If that international piece stumbles, the other two can’t bail you out. Trimming or rebalancing to reduce that dominance could smooth the ride without changing what you own overall — just who’s in charge of the chaos.
Correlation is how much things move together — like how often two friends both make bad decisions on the same night. Your US total market fund and world fund are highly correlated, which is code for “this isn’t really diversification, it’s duplication with extra steps.” When markets drop, those two will likely sink in sync, turning your “three funds” into more of a one-and-a-half-fund experience. High correlation doesn’t mean useless, but it does mean the number of tickers is lying about how independent your risks are. Takeaway: owning many funds that all freak out at the same time isn’t much of a safety plan.
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.
The risk vs return picture is where this portfolio gets properly roasted. Your current setup has an expected return of 10.8% with 16.9% risk and a Sharpe ratio of 0.52. The optimal mix of the *same* holdings hits 14.8% expected return with slightly higher risk and a Sharpe of 0.75. Even the minimum variance version gets better return with similar risk. In English: you’re leaving performance on the table while not even earning extra stability. You’re below your own efficient frontier, which is like running slower while breathing harder. Reweighting these exact funds more intelligently could give you more upside or less stress — no new toys required.
A 2.67% yield is a decent middle ground: not a hardcore income machine, not a starvation diet. International stocks pulling a ~3% yield do most of the heavy lifting, while the US and world funds are more modest. This isn’t a “live off the dividends” setup; it’s more “nice to have some cash dribbling in while compounding.” Relying too much on yield would be a trap anyway — dividends can get cut faster than marketing copy. Here, the income is a side quest, not the main storyline, which is probably the right role for a globally diversified equity portfolio.
Costs are almost offensively low: a 0.05% total expense ratio is “did Vanguard forget to charge you?” territory. You’re basically paying couch cushion change to own the whole planet’s stock markets. That said, paying tiny fees on overlapping funds is still slightly wasteful — it’s like buying three cheap all-you-can-eat buffets and still only eating salad. There’s not much to roast here; fees are one of the few things you’ve absolutely nailed. Takeaway: don’t mess this up by adding expensive shiny toys. Low cost is one of the very few free lunches in investing. You actually grabbed it.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey