Roast mode 🔥

A so called balanced portfolio that is actually an equity junkie in a fake mustache

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 clearly enjoys a bit of adrenaline. Think moderate‑to‑high risk tolerance, comfortable seeing the account wobble during corrections as long as the long‑term chart slopes up. Goals probably lean toward long‑term growth—retirement, serious wealth building—rather than near‑term spending or capital preservation. Time horizon likely 10+ years, with enough patience to sit through bear markets without panicking. There’s also a hint of “I like simple, brand‑name ETFs and low hassle,” even if that means living with a heavy US and large‑cap bias. Someone who wants growth with a thin safety net, not full‑on gambler, but definitely not a safety‑first personality.

Positions

  • State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
    SPYM - US78464A8541
    50.00%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    QQQM - US46138G6492
    20.00%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    SCHD - US8085247976
    20.00%
  • Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    BND - US9219378356
    10.00%

This setup calls itself “balanced” but it’s basically 90% stocks in a trench coat with 10% bonds as a prop. Half is plain S&P 500, then you stack another 20% on the NASDAQ 100 for extra growth adrenaline, and 20% on a dividend ETF that still mostly lives in large US stocks. The result is a big US‑equity smoothie with slightly different flavors but the same base ingredient. Compared with a typical balanced mix (think 60/40 or even 70/30), this is much closer to an aggressive growth profile. If the goal really is “balanced,” dialing down equity risk and adding a bit more true ballast would make the label less of a joke.

Growth Info

Historically, a 13.95% CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is hot. CAGR is basically your average yearly speed on a crazy road trip, ignoring the potholes along the way. Turning $10,000 into roughly $37,000 over 10 years is the kind of chart people screenshot. The -23.67% max drawdown is actually mild compared with full‑stock indexes that can drop 30–50%, but it’s still the kind of hit that tests nerves. The catch: this period was fantastic for US large‑cap tech‑heavy stuff. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: helpful, but not a prophecy. A bit more resilience for bad decades wouldn’t hurt.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo stats are basically saying, “Most futures look good… unless they don’t.” Monte Carlo simulation runs thousands of alternate histories by shaking returns and volatility, like rolling dice with your portfolio. A 5th percentile outcome of 64.1% means in nasty scenarios, $10,000 might crawl to about $16,400, while the median 342.5% suggests more like $44,000 in middling worlds. Average simulated return at 12.38% screams “optimistic but plausible” if the US mega‑cap party continues. But simulations lean on past behavior, so if the US/tech bias has a long hangover, those rosy middle outcomes could shift down. Blending in more diversification would make those bad‑case tails less ugly.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    40%
  • Bonds
    10%
  • Cash
    0%
  • No data
    0%

On paper you’ve got “Stocks 40%, Bonds 10%,” but that snapshot is clearly off versus the ETF weights you listed, which are 90% equity / 10% bonds. Either the data feed is drunk, or there’s some mis‑tagging going on. Assuming reality is 90/10, this is not a classic balanced mix; it’s an equity‑first setup using bonds purely as a shock absorber. Bonds at 10% won’t save you in a full‑blown storm; they’ll just hand you a slightly smaller umbrella. A saner structure for real balance would steadily ramp bonds or cash‑like assets higher if the intent is stability over brag‑worthy returns.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    12%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Health Care
    4%
  • Telecommunications
    4%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Industrials
    3%
  • Financials
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    0%
  • Utilities
    0%
  • Real Estate
    0%

Sector-wise, this thing is basically “US large‑cap index” in three outfits, so no surprise: tech at 12% leads, with consumer, healthcare, communication, energy, and industrials scattered behind. But remember: your sector breakdown here is undercounting because the S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 overlap heavily and are both tech‑tilted. The listed sector weights look oddly low for tech because of aggregation quirks, not because you’re actually diversified. Real story: tons of exposure to big US growth and mega‑platform companies. If a tech or big‑growth cycle breaks down hard, this setup takes a synchronized kick. Adding sector variety through different styles or regions would reduce that herd behavior.

Regions Info

  • North America
    39%
  • Europe Developed
    0%
  • Latin America
    0%
  • Asia Emerging
    0%

Geographically, this is “USA or bust.” North America at 39% in the data is clearly not capturing the full picture; in reality these ETFs are overwhelmingly US‑domiciled holdings. There’s essentially zero deliberate exposure to Europe, emerging markets, or other regions. You’re betting that the US continues to dominate the global economic story indefinitely. That might work, but it’s still a concentrated worldview. Global diversification is like not eating only one kind of food: you may be fine, but when that cuisine has a bad season, you’ll wish you had options. A modest slice of non‑US equities would make the ride less tied to a single country’s fate.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    19%
  • Mega-cap
    10%
  • Mid-cap
    9%
  • Small-cap
    1%
  • Micro-cap
    0%

Market-cap spread says Mega and Big dominate, with Medium just tagging along and Small at a pity 1%. Translation: you’re basically owning the corporate royal family and ignoring the scrappy cousins. That’s not inherently bad—large caps tend to be more stable and liquid—but it also means you’re fully plugged into index‑style crowd behavior. When big names move, your portfolio obediently follows. A more deliberate small and mid‑cap presence could add different growth engines and reduce the “index clone” feel. On the flip side, if you actually wanted a clean, mega‑cap core, then at least lean into that identity and stop pretending it’s edgy or diversified.

Dividends Info

  • Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares 3.90%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.30%
  • State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF 1.10%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.70%

Dividend yield at 1.70% is fine but nowhere near “income portfolio” territory, despite the 20% dividend ETF cameo. The Schwab dividend fund and the bond ETF are doing the heavy lifting while the NASDAQ 100 contributes basically pocket change at 0.5% yield. This setup is more about total return than income, even if it pretends to care about dividends. If the goal is living off cash flows, this won’t cut it without selling shares regularly. If growth is the goal, then the dividend slice is more of a style preference than a necessity. Clarifying whether income or growth really matters more would help shape a more coherent mix.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%

On costs, you accidentally did something smart. A total expense ratio around 0.04% is impressively low; it’s like buying index exposure from the bargain bin. The individual ETFs—0.03%, 0.06%, 0.15%—are all in the “not worth complaining about” zone. Costs are one of the few things investors can control, and here you actually nailed it. That said, saving a few basis points doesn’t fix concentration or risk issues; it just means you’re efficiently riding the wrong roller coaster if the allocation doesn’t match your real goals. Keep the cheap funds, but pair them with a structure that isn’t pretending to be more balanced than it really is.

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.

From a risk–return efficiency standpoint, this portfolio is like someone who lifts a lot but skips leg day. You’re getting strong returns for the risk taken, but you’re not using diversification to smooth the ride as much as you could. The “efficient frontier” is just the best combo of risk and return for a given level of volatility, not some magic high‑return‑low‑risk unicorn. With such similar equity exposures, you’re stacking risk in one dimension instead of spreading it. A more thoughtful blend of asset classes, regions, and styles could keep returns decent while trimming drawdowns, making the trade‑off less “all‑in on US growth” and more genuinely balanced.

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.