A supposedly balanced portfolio that is actually an equity caffeine overdose in index clothing
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” to sound responsible but deep down loves watching markets swing. It suits a growth‑oriented personality with decent risk tolerance, willing to see 30–40% drops without panic-selling everything into cash. The likely goal is long-term wealth building rather than near‑term income — think multi‑decade horizon, not “I might need this for a house next year.” This person probably trusts broad indexes, doesn’t want to stock-pick, but also can’t resist juicing returns with a bit of tech‑heavy spice. Emotionally, it fits someone who checks markets often, enjoys the game, and can handle volatility as long as the long‑run trend points up.
Positions
-
Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
FSKAX - US3159116934 55.00% -
FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
FTIHX - US31635V6386 30.00% -
Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 15.00%
This thing calls itself “balanced” but it’s basically a 99% stock rocket with a tiny 1% cash seatbelt. In structure, it’s dead simple: broad US index, broad international index, then a QQQ turbo button on top. Compared to a typical balanced benchmark (which usually has 40%ish bonds), this is an all‑gas no‑brakes setup pretending to be a family sedan. That’s fine if the owner knows it, dangerous if they don’t. If the goal is genuine balance, mixing in some stabilizers like bonds or other low‑volatility stuff would make sense. If the goal is growth, then just admit this is aggressive and treat it like one.
Growth
Historically, the numbers look shiny: a 14.71% CAGR means $10k turned into about $40k over 10 years, give or take, if markets behaved like they did in the backtest. But max drawdown of –33.2% means a $100k account would have flirted with $66k at the lows. That’s the “sleep on the couch and question everything” phase. For context, this is more in line with a pure equity index than a typical “balanced” mix. And remember: past performance is like your ex’s Instagram — heavily curated and not a promise of future behavior. Expect similar gut‑punch drops again someday.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation here basically said, “Chill, this usually works out,” but it’s still rolling dice with style. Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of running a thousand what‑if market paths using past volatility and returns. Median outcome of ~661% means $10k hypothetically climbs to around $76k, while even the lousy 5th percentile still ends above break-even at ~126%. Sounds magical, but this is all built on the assumption that the future sort of rhymes with the past. It won’t always. Treat those projections like weather apps: good for planning, dumb to trust blindly. Build a plan assuming some bad‑luck paths actually show up.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
- Cash 1%
- Other 0%
- Not Classified 0%
Asset classes here are a joke in terms of variety: 99% stocks, 1% cash, and 0% “things that might not crash at the same time.” This is not “balanced,” it’s a stock fund with a tiny emergency water bottle. True asset allocation usually means mixing stuff that behaves differently — like stocks vs. bonds vs. maybe alternatives — so when one sulks, another at least pretends to help. In this setup, if equities get wrecked, everything important gets wrecked together. If stability, income, or shorter‑term goals matter, bringing in some less jumpy asset classes would make the whole thing less of a drama series.
Sectors
- Technology 29%
- Financials 15%
- Industrials 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 2%
Sector-wise, this is a tech-flavored equity buffet: about 29% in technology plus another 9% in communication services, which is basically tech with a different shirt. Then you’ve got financials, industrials, healthcare, and consumers fairly spread out. Compared to broad indexes, it’s slightly tech‑heavy but not “YOLO in AI” insane. The risk is simple: if growth and tech get stomped, this portfolio will feel it louder than a plain vanilla global blend. Sector balance is decent overall, but if someone’s nerves can’t handle watching the NASDAQ dictate their mood, dialing back the QQQ turbocharger or pairing it with steadier sectors could calm the ride.
Regions
- North America 72%
- Europe Developed 12%
- Japan 5%
- Asia Emerging 4%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
- Europe Emerging 0%
Geographically, this is very “America first and we’ll sprinkle the rest of the planet on top.” Around 72% in North America, then small slices of Europe, Japan, and emerging markets. This basically mirrors a global cap‑weighted reality, where the US dominates. It’s not irrational, but it is a bet that US markets stay the main character forever. If the next 20 years belong more to non‑US regions, this setup might lag the global party. On the flip side, at least there *is* some international exposure, which is more than many home-biased portfolios can say. Tweaking the US vs. rest‑of‑world ratio slightly could help smooth out country-specific drama.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 44%
- Large-cap 31%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 5%
- Micro-cap 1%
Market cap spread is textbook index nerd: 44% mega, 31% big, 17% mid, with tiny seasoning of small and micro caps. This is basically saying, “I trust capitalism, but mostly the giants.” It’s normal and roughly in line with total‑market indexes but don’t pretend this is some deep small‑cap value play. When big tech and mega names sneeze, this portfolio catches pneumonia. The upside is stability relative to crazy small‑cap tilts; the downside is concentration in the usual corporate celebrities. If more growth optionality is desired, leaning a bit more into mid/small caps could add spice. If sleep matters more, this setup is already reasonably sane.
Dividends
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.10%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.30%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.10%
Dividend yield here is almost comically low for a “balanced” profile: total yield around 0.10–0.30% is latte money, not income. This is clearly a growth‑tilted structure, not something designed to pay the bills. Dividends are just cash payments from companies; higher yields can help in sideways markets or for living expenses. Here, the strategy is basically “rely on price growth or bust.” That’s fine for long‑term accumulation, terrible for someone expecting steady cash flow. If income ever becomes a real objective, layering in higher-yielding assets or funds would be needed unless the plan is to sell chunks regularly and emotionally detach from red‑day withdrawals.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.02%
- FIDELITY TOTAL INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.06%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are suspiciously good, like someone accidentally did homework. A blended TER around 0.06% is elite—cheaper than most people’s attention span. The broad Fidelity index funds are dirt cheap, and even QQQ, while pricier, isn’t outrageous for what it is. Low fees matter because they’re the one guaranteed part of investing: they always show up, every year, no matter what markets do. Shaving off even 0.5% a year compounds into serious money over decades. There isn’t much to fix here; the only small question is whether QQQ is worth its extra fee and concentration risk or if a simpler, even cheaper structure would do almost the same job.
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 angle, this thing sits closer to the “efficient frontier” of aggressive growth than of balance. The efficient frontier is just the best combo of risk and return for a given level of volatility — not a fantasy land of high returns with no risk. Here, the trade-off is pretty blunt: high historical returns, high drawdowns, minimal diversification across asset classes. For someone with decades ahead, that’s defensible. For anyone pretending this is middle‑of‑the‑road, it’s delusional. To move closer to a genuinely efficient mix for a moderate risk score, nudging some equity into stabilizers (bonds, defensives, truly low‑correlated assets) would give more return per unit of stomach ache.
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.
