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 would suit someone who says “balanced” to sound responsible but deep down is a growth junkie with a long time horizon. They can tolerate volatility, roll their eyes at short-term news, and believe in global capitalism doing its chaotic thing. They’re comfortable with small-cap and value tilts, maybe even enjoy checking factor charts for fun. The main risk is overconfidence: assuming past double-digit returns are a birthright and underestimating how a real 40% drawdown actually feels. Time horizon is likely 10+ years, maybe much longer, with goals like wealth building, early retirement, or just maximizing future optionality rather than near-term income.
This thing calls itself “balanced” but it’s basically a global stock junkie with a token bond sidekick. You’ve got broad US and international index funds (nice), then you randomly shove in a LifeStrategy Growth fund that already holds those same indexes plus bonds, and then layer a bunch of small-cap value spice on top. That LifeStrategy position is basically a “fund of the stuff you already own,” so you’re double-dipping like it’s a Super Bowl party. Cleaning this up into a clear core (total US + total international) and a modest value tilt would make the whole structure more honest, easier to track, and less like an accidental Frankenstein.
Historically, a roughly 12% CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) with a -25% max drawdown is solid, borderline brag-worthy. CAGR is like your average road-trip speed after traffic, snacks, and wrong turns. Versus a classic 60/40 portfolio, this feels closer to an 80/20 in behavior: better in bull markets, punchier in downturns. But here’s the catch: those 15 days that made up 90% of returns basically scream “miss a handful of big days and your story changes fast.” Past data is yesterday’s weather — useful, but it won’t apologize when the next storm looks totally different.
The Monte Carlo results are flashing “mostly fine” with a side of “don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of rolling the market dice 1,000 times to see how often you end up rich versus mildly disappointed. A 5th percentile outcome of 66% means in ugly worlds you might just crawl forward, while median and upper outcomes look very rosy. The 13% simulated annual return is generous; markets rarely care about your spreadsheet. Future returns could be lower, inflation more annoying, or crises more frequent. Treat simulations as weather forecasts, not promises carved into your retirement plan.
Asset class mix: 96% stocks, 3% bonds, 1% cash. For something labeled “Balanced,” this is like ordering a salad and getting a burger with one lettuce leaf. You are unapologetically in the growth camp, which is fine if the time horizon is long and you don’t emotionally combust at a 30–40% drop. Bonds here are essentially decorative, not actually cushioning much. If a smoother ride really matters, bond exposure needs to be a serious chunk, not a rounding error. Decide if you want real downside dampening or if this “balanced” label is just there to make statements look less scary.
Sector spread is actually pretty reasonable but still very equity-party-esque: tech at ~20%, financials at ~19%, then industrials and cyclicals following. Nothing screams “obsession with one shiny toy,” which is good — no full-blown “Tech cult” situation. However, this is still a pure economic-growth bet: lots of business-cycle-sensitive areas, modest defensive stuff like utilities and consumer defensive. In hard recessions, this setup tends to catch more of the downside. If you care about weathering bad years without doom-scrolling every night, gently nudging a bit more toward defensive or income-oriented exposure would give some emotional padding.
Geographically, this is “America first but not America only,” which, for once, is surprisingly sane. Around 53% North America with meaningful doses of Europe, Japan, developed Asia, and emerging markets. This actually looks more globally aware than most US portfolios that pretend the rest of the world is a rounding error. The roast: you get full global pain when the world sells off, but you won’t win any purity awards from either “US-only” maximalists or “all-EM or bust” zealots. That’s fine. Just be mentally ready for foreign stocks to underperform US for multi-year stretches without panicking and bailing.
Market cap mix — 35% mega, 25% big, then a solid chunk in mid, small, and even micro caps — tells me you like market efficiency with a side of chaos. The Avantis small-cap value positions are the rowdy cousins at the family reunion: long-term they can boost returns, but they also show up drunk to every downturn. Small and micro caps can drop harder and take longer to recover. If you’re going to lean this hard into the size/value tilts, you need the stomach and the time horizon to leave them alone during multi-year stretches of underperformance, not “fix” them at exactly the wrong time.
The correlation issue is pretty on-the-nose: your LifeStrategy Growth fund is highly correlated with your total US market fund because — surprise — it holds a big chunk of the same underlying stuff. Correlation just means things move together; if two positions scream and cheer at the same time, they’re not really giving you variety, just duplicate emotions. That fund is basically layering a small bond position and global equity on top of what you already own directly. If you want actual diversification, focus on fewer overlapping funds and clearer roles: core equity, core bonds, and then intentional tilts instead of low-key copies.
A total yield around 2.6% is “nice but not life-changing.” It’s like getting free coffee refills — useful, but you’re not retiring on it. The LifeStrategy Growth fund with a 5.7% yield is a bit of a red flag for anyone tempted to chase payouts; high yield often means more bond exposure or underlying price drag. Dividends are just one way companies hand you your own money back, not magic income. If the plan is long-term growth, obsessing over yield is unnecessary. Think of dividends as a side-effect of your strategy, not the main event driving how you pick holdings.
On costs, you actually didn’t screw it up — Total TER of 0.11% is impressively low. The Vanguard pieces are practically free; the Avantis funds are pricier but still reasonable given they’re doing more than blind indexing. This is one area where the portfolio behaves like it read a personal finance book instead of Reddit threads. The only mild dig: if you’re going to pay up for factor tilts (like small-cap value), make sure you’re intentionally using them, not just layering complexity because it feels fancy. Overall though, fees are under control — you must have clicked the right tickers on purpose.
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 an efficiency angle, the numbers are blunt: for the same risk level, there’s a theoretical setup with higher expected return. That’s what the “efficient frontier” is — the best trade-off line between risk and return, like the sweet spot between ordering cheap junk and overpriced fine dining. Right now you’re slightly off that line, mainly because of overlapping holdings and half-committed bond exposure. You’re paying in complexity for not much extra benefit. Trimming redundant funds, clarifying how much risk you actually want, and aligning the bond allocation with that would move this closer to a cleaner, sharper risk–return mix.
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.