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 says they’re “moderate” but secretly loves watching markets swing around. It fits a person with decent risk tolerance, a long time horizon, and a bias toward growth over comfort. They probably care about diversification enough to sprinkle in foreign, small-cap, and value exposure, but not enough to actually sacrifice returns for true safety. Retirement or long-term wealth-building is likely the main goal, with withdrawal day still comfortably far away. Emotional tolerance needs to be strong enough to handle a 25–30% drop without bailing. In short: patient, growth-focused, claims to like balance, but clearly okay riding the roller coaster.
This thing calls itself “Balanced” but it’s 98% stocks and 2% bonds, so let’s not pretend it’s wearing a helmet. The structure is basically: big U.S. core, lots of growth spice, and a random sprinkle of bonds and dividend fluff small enough to be decorative. Compared with a typical balanced mix, which might sit closer to 60% stocks and 40% bonds, this is closer to an aggressive growth setup cosplaying as moderation. That’s fine if the goal is long-term growth and you can stomach big drops. If the label says “balanced,” the mix should slowly drift toward more bonds and/or defensive assets, not just call itself moderate and hope no one checks the ingredients.
Historically, a 12.69% CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is very solid. If someone started with $10,000, that’s roughly $33,000 after 10 years — not shabby. But the max drawdown of -27.15% means there were stretches where the portfolio looked like it fell down the stairs. For context, a truly balanced portfolio would often drop less in big crashes, trading some upside for fewer panic-inducing moments. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful, but not psychic. The takeaway: strong growth, but you’re clearly paying for it with higher volatility. If the goal is “sleep at night,” more risk dampeners wouldn’t hurt.
The Monte Carlo stats are basically simulations where a computer throws dice 1,000 times using past return and volatility patterns. Here, the median outcome of about +373% screams “growth engine,” and even the 5th percentile at +49% is surprisingly kind, though that’s still not “guaranteed safe.” The annualized 13.12% across simulations looks rosy, but simulations are like flight simulators: helpful for training, useless against actual turbulence if the inputs are too optimistic. This setup should do well in most long-term scenarios but could feel ugly in nasty bear markets. If future comfort matters, dialing in a bit more protection and fewer overlapping growth rockets can make the ride less stomach-churning.
Asset classes here are basically “stocks and… oh right, 2% bonds.” Calling that “broadly diversified” is generous. You’ve built a race car, then bolted on one tiny bicycle brake and called it risk management. Stocks at 98% means performance will be great in good markets, but when everything sells off, that sliver of bonds isn’t going to save much. A more genuinely balanced setup usually spreads across stocks, bonds, and sometimes other stabilizers. If the goal is to actually behave like a balanced profile, slowly increasing fixed income and other low-volatility holdings over time would make this less of a one-trick equity pony.
Sector-wise, this is a tech enthusiast’s dream with a side of denial. Technology at 28% plus growth-heavy funds and a tech sector ETF on top is basically “Tech addiction detected.” Financials, industrials, cyclicals, and the rest are there, but tech is clearly the favorite child. Compared with broad market indexes, this tilt isn’t insane, but layering a dedicated tech fund on top of already tech-heavy U.S. growth and broad market exposure is doubling down. When tech wins, you’ll feel brilliant; when it stumbles, you’ll wonder why everything fell at once. Trimming pure sector bets and leaning more into broad, diversified funds would calm that concentration risk.
Geographically, this is a patriotic U.S. fan club with a healthy but not dominant foreign sidekick. About 64% in North America screams “America first,” with Europe, Japan, and other regions playing supporting roles. Compared with global market weights, it’s very U.S.-centric but not insanely so; lots of DIY investors are way worse. On the plus side, there is actual exposure to developed and emerging markets, which is more sophistication than many portfolios manage. Still, if long-term resilience matters, nudging a bit more toward a truly global spread and not just “U.S. plus some foreign garnish” would reduce the risk of one country’s fate driving everything.
Market cap mix is one of the more reasonable parts: 38% mega, 27% big, 19% mid, 10% small, 4% micro. That’s a nice barbell between household names and spicy small caps without screaming “YOLO micro-cap casino.” The added small-cap value funds show a conscious tilt toward historically rewarded factors, which is almost suspiciously thoughtful. The catch is that those tiny companies and value tilts can amplify volatility when markets are stressed. A bit less overlapping exposure to small international names and more focus on clean, broad core holdings could keep the intended tilt without turning every correction into a full-blown drama.
The correlated asset groups basically say: you’re buying the same themes multiple times and pretending it’s diversification. International small caps and value funds are marching in lockstep, so holding several versions adds complexity more than real risk reduction. Same story with tech-heavy U.S. growth, broad U.S. market, and a dedicated tech sector ETF — it’s like ordering three flavors of the same ice cream and calling it variety. Correlation means assets tend to move together; when they all fall at once, that “diversification” vanishes. Streamlining overlapping funds into fewer, broader building blocks would simplify the portfolio and make each holding actually pull its own weight.
A total yield of 1.82% is basically a light snack, not an income strategy. Despite having a dividend equity ETF and some value funds, the overall setup still screams growth-first, cash-later. That’s fine if the plan is long-term compounding where dividends get reinvested, but anybody dreaming of near-term income from this will be disappointed. Chasing yield too hard can backfire, though; high yield often comes with higher risk or slower growth. If income is a real goal down the road, gradually tilting toward more income-oriented, stable assets closer to the withdrawal phase would make more sense than trying to squeeze big paychecks from a growth-heavy machine.
Costs are where this portfolio accidentally looks like it knows what it’s doing. A total TER around 0.07% is impressively low — you must have clicked the cheap ETFs on purpose. The Avantis funds are pricier than the Schwab stuff, but still far from outrageous, especially for factor-based strategies. Over decades, costs are like small leaks in a boat; this one is pretty close to watertight. The only mild critique is complexity: multiple overlapping funds for tiny slices of extra factor exposure might not be worth the extra fees and mental overhead. Tightening the lineup while keeping costs low would make this both cleaner and smarter.
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.
Risk versus return here is tilted firmly toward “take more risk, get more potential return,” not exactly a model of efficiency. Efficient Frontier just means the best mix of risk and return for a given volatility level — not magic free money. This portfolio leans hard into equities and growth sectors while pretending to be balanced, which likely puts it off that efficient sweet spot for a “moderate” profile. There’s obvious room to improve by cutting redundant, correlated holdings and using simpler, broader funds to hit a similar return with slightly lower drama. You’re not miles off, but you’re definitely paying for more roller coaster than the label suggests.
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.