A so called balanced portfolio that is actually just the global stock market on caffeine
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 secretly enjoys an adrenaline rush. It suggests a person comfortable with big swings in portfolio value and focused heavily on long-term growth rather than near-term stability or income. The mindset here is: “I’ll ride out the storms, just give me the highest odds of strong long-run gains.” Time horizon is likely measured in decades, not years, and tolerance for seeing large temporary losses must be reasonably high. It fits a goal set like retirement far away, major long-term wealth building, or simply maximizing growth while being calm enough not to panic when markets fall 30% and financial news turns apocalyptic.
Positions
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 80.00% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 20.00%
This so-called “balanced” setup is basically two index funds in a trench coat pretending to be sophisticated. Around 80% in a US large-cap index and 20% in international stocks is basically “own the world, but mostly America.” It’s clean, simple, and brutally stock-heavy for something labeled balanced. Compared with a classic balanced benchmark (think roughly 60% stocks and 40% bonds), this thing is more like 100% pedal with a token 1% cash as decoration. If the label says balanced but the contents scream “equity roller coaster,” the fix is obvious: either change the label or add actual stabilizers like bonds or other lower-volatility assets.
Growth
Historically, a 15.49% CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is outrageously good. If someone had tossed in $10,000 years ago and let it ride, it would have grown like a weed on fertilizer, easily crushing typical “balanced” portfolios that might sit closer to 7–9% a year. The catch: a -33.92% max drawdown means one-third of the value evaporated on paper at some point. CAGR is like bragging about top speed on a road trip while ignoring the moments you almost hit the guardrail. Past returns are yesterday’s weather; useful, but no guarantee. Anyone using these numbers should mentally discount them and plan for a much bumpier future.
Projection
The Monte Carlo results are basically shouting: “Huge upside possible, but bring a seatbelt.” Monte Carlo is just fancy dice-rolling with historical-like returns and volatility to see many possible futures. A 5th percentile outcome of 95.4% means that in the bad-luck scenarios, you roughly tread water over the full period; in the median and higher cases, your money multiplies several times. The average simulated annual return of 15.03% is eyebrow-raising and probably optimistic going forward. Simulations are like video game replays: they look real but the physics are borrowed from the past. Sensible next step: mentally plan for lower returns and remind yourself that “positive return in 997 out of 1000 runs” still leaves room for unpleasant surprises.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
- Cash 1%
- Other 0%
- No data 0%
Asset-class mix: 99% stocks, 1% cash, 0% chill. For something tagged “balanced,” this is basically an all-equity growth engine with a rounding error in cash. Broadly diversified within stocks is nice, but when the only real asset class is “stocks,” you’re still living in one weather system. Classic asset allocation usually blends stocks with things that don’t freak out at the same time, like bonds or other defensive assets. Here, when equities sneeze, the whole portfolio catches pneumonia. A more genuinely balanced mix would dial in some shock absorbers rather than trusting that long-term equity returns will magically make every crash feel fine emotionally and financially.
Sectors
- Technology 31%
- Financials 15%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Health Care 9%
- Industrials 9%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector spread is actually decent but heavily tuned to “modern economy fanboy.” Tech at 31% is basically a tech dependency, even if it matches typical US indexes. Financials, cyclicals, communication services, and healthcare pile on more growth and economically sensitive exposure. Sure, you’ve got a token 2–5% in defensives like utilities and consumer staples, but they’re background characters, not leads. This means the portfolio behaves like a standard big index: amazing in good times, overly dramatic in recessions or rate shocks. Sector diversification is fine, but it’s all still inside one giant stock bubble. If smoother behavior is the goal, shifting some overall exposure away from pure equity risk would do more than micromanaging sector weights.
Regions
- North America 81%
- Europe Developed 8%
- Asia Emerging 3%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 0%
- Europe Emerging 0%
Geographically, this screams “America first, everyone else if there’s room.” With about 81% in North America and the rest sprinkled like seasoning across Europe, Japan, and emerging markets, it shadows common global benchmarks but still leans hard on the US. That’s not insane, given how dominant US markets have been, but it is a bet that the past decade of US outperformance keeps going. The “broad diversification” label sounds grand, but under the hood this is very US-dependent. A more neutral global spread would trim US weight and lift foreign markets, accepting that sometimes being diversified means owning regions that are having a bad decade so future-you isn’t overexposed to one country’s fortunes.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 46%
- Large-cap 34%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 1%
- Micro-cap 0%
Market cap exposure is textbook index junkie: 46% mega, 34% big, 18% mid, 1% small, basically nothing tiny. Translation: this is a bet on the global giants, not the scrappy underdogs. That’s fine for stability relative to small caps, but it does mean the fate of the portfolio is welded to the biggest corporate names on the planet. When mega-caps are hot, this looks genius; when they mean-revert or get punched by regulation, antitrust, or slowing growth, there isn’t much of a backup plan in smaller companies. If someone wanted more growth spice or diversification, nudging a bit more into mids and smalls could spread the risk beyond the “corporate Mount Rushmore” crowd.
Dividends
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 3.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.48%
Dividend yield at about 1.48% is classic “I’m here for growth, not for pocket money.” This isn’t a portfolio built to shower anyone with income; it’s built to reinvest and compound. That can be smart for long horizons, but anyone dreaming of living off dividends here is basically planning to live off a trickle. Dividends aren’t magic, but they can soften the ride and provide some psychological comfort in downturns. In this setup, income is more like a side quest than the main mission. If steady cash flow is a goal, increasing exposure to higher-yielding but still diversified holdings—without chasing yield blindly—would make more sense than squeezing this low-yield growth machine.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.03%
Costs are the one area where this looks suspiciously competent. A total expense ratio around 0.03% is basically free by industry standards. You’ve managed to buy the global stock market at dollar-store pricing, which is quietly the best decision in the whole setup. Fees are the silent termites that eat returns over decades, and here they’re more like harmless ants. So yes, credit where it’s due: the cost side is dialed in nicely. The real work isn’t chopping fees; it’s deciding whether the all-in equity risk matches the actual goals and nerves behind the scenes, because cheap can still be very volatile.
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 angle, this is like showing up to a 5K in sprinting spikes: optimized for speed, not comfort. The portfolio lives near the high-return, high-volatility end of the Efficient Frontier (that’s just the curve showing the best return you can reasonably expect for each risk level). For a long-term, high-risk investor, this can be totally fine. For someone who truly wants “balanced,” this is mis-labeled. The trade-off is simple: you’re getting strong expected returns at the cost of brutal drawdowns. If the emotional or financial tolerance for 30–50% drops isn’t there, shifting toward a mix with more defensive pieces would land closer to a genuinely efficient risk–return combo.
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.
