These are optional extras, not a step up in quality. A one-fund or two-fund portfolio from the starter page is a complete, sensible plan on its own. The mixes below add satellites, bonds, gold, gearing or factor tilts — more moving parts, more to rebalance, and more ways to second-guess yourself. Only add complexity you genuinely understand and will stick with. This is general education, not personal financial advice.
Three-fund and four-fund portfolios
Keep a broad, cheap core and add a deliberate tilt — a satellite, a bond buffer, a gold diversifier, or a geared sleeve. Each extra fund buys you a little more control at the cost of a little more management.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.
These returns cover an unusually strong period for US equities - a decade of US outperformance. The next decade may look different.
Three-fund portfolios
Keep a broad, cheap core (one of the mixes above) and add a third fund for a purpose: a small "satellite" tilt, a bond buffer to steady the ride, or a geared sleeve to chase more growth. The core does the heavy lifting; the third fund is a deliberate choice you understand.
60% VGS + 25% VAS + 15% NDQ
Global/home core with a US tech satellite
Holdings
past 5-year
past 5-year
A VGS/VAS core with a 15% NASDAQ-100 satellite to lean into large US technology companies — the engine behind much of the last decade's global return.
Benefits
- + Broad, cheap core with a small, understandable growth tilt.
- + NDQ has been a powerful performer and adds concentrated exposure to global tech leaders.
- + The tilt is capped at 15%, so the core still dominates the outcome.
Drawbacks
- − NDQ overlaps with VGS (you're doubling up on the same US mega-caps).
- − Higher fee and higher volatility than the core alone.
- − Tech is cyclical — a sector wobble hits the satellite hard.
Performs well when
Growth-led markets where US mega-cap technology outperforms.
Struggles when
Rising rates or a tech de-rating, when concentrated tech falls faster than the broad market.
60% VGS + 30% VAS + 10% EMKT
Global/home core with an emerging-markets satellite
Holdings
past 5-year
past 5-year
The same core with a 10% emerging-markets satellite (EMKT) to add the faster-growing but bumpier economies that a developed-markets fund like VGS leaves out.
Benefits
- + Fills the genuine gap in a developed-markets core — you actually own emerging markets.
- + Emerging markets can lead when developed markets stall, adding diversification.
- + The multifactor screen tilts toward cheaper, higher-quality emerging-market companies.
Drawbacks
- − Emerging markets are more volatile and carry political and currency risk.
- − EMKT's fee is well above the core building blocks.
- − Returns have been streaky — long stretches of underperformance are normal.
Performs well when
A weak US dollar and a global growth upswing, which historically favour emerging markets.
Struggles when
Risk-off periods and a strong US dollar, when emerging markets sell off hardest.
60% VGS + 25% VAS + 15% VAF
Global/home core with a bond buffer
Holdings
past 5-year
past 5-year
The familiar VGS/VAS core plus a 15% Australian bond sleeve (VAF). Bonds are the ballast — they usually fall far less than shares in a downturn, smoothing the ride and giving you a stable asset to rebalance from.
Benefits
- + The 15% bond allocation cushions drawdowns and lowers overall volatility.
- + Gives you a stable asset to sell from and rebalance into shares after a crash.
- + A sensible step toward a more defensive mix as a goal draws closer.
Drawbacks
- − Bonds lower expected long-run return — a drag during long bull markets.
- − Bond distributions are taxed as income each year (no franking), adding tax drag for high earners.
- − Bonds can fall alongside shares when the shock is rising interest rates, as in 2022.
Performs well when
Equity bear markets and 'flight to safety' periods, when high-quality bonds hold up or rise.
Struggles when
Strong bull markets, and inflation or rate-shock episodes where shares and bonds fall together.
50% GHHF + 25% VVLU + 25% VAS
Geared all-growth core + global value + home tilt (~125% market exposure)
Holdings
past 1-year
An aggressive, growth-tilted mix built around GHHF — an internally geared all-growth fund. At a 50% weight it lifts total market exposure to roughly 125%, magnifying long-run growth, balanced by a global value tilt (VVLU) and an Australian sleeve (VAS).
Benefits
- + Internal gearing amplifies returns in long, rising markets without you taking out a loan yourself.
- + The value tilt (VVLU) leans toward cheaper companies, diversifying away from pure growth.
- + Gearing is handled inside GHHF at institutional rates, with no margin calls passed to you.
Drawbacks
- − Leverage cuts both ways — expect deeper, faster drawdowns than an ungeared portfolio.
- − Higher fees and internal borrowing costs; geared funds can suffer volatility decay in choppy markets.
- − GHHF and VVLU are newly launched, so we have little return history for them yet.
Performs well when
Sustained bull markets, where gearing magnifies compounding gains.
Struggles when
Sharp or prolonged bear markets and choppy, sideways markets, where leverage and decay bite hardest.
Four-fund portfolios
For investors who want a true diversifier or to spread several tilts. A slice of gold (which often zigs when shares zag), a quality screen, or a mix of factor and geared sleeves can smooth the ride or lean the portfolio toward characteristics with long-run evidence behind them.
55% VGS + 25% VAS + 10% NDQ + 10% PMGOLD
Core + tech satellite + a gold diversifier
Holdings
past 5-year
past 5-year
A core-plus-satellite mix with a 10% gold sleeve. Gold tends to move independently of shares, so it can cushion the portfolio when equities fall — the classic non-correlated diversifier.
Benefits
- + Gold is a genuine diversifier — it often holds up (or rises) when shares fall.
- + Can reduce the depth of drawdowns and steady the overall ride.
- + A useful hedge against inflation shocks and currency debasement.
Drawbacks
- − Gold produces no income or earnings — it's a pure price bet with a long-run real return near zero.
- − The blended-risk figure below overstates it: gold's low correlation means the real portfolio swings less.
- − Adds a fourth holding to rebalance and a fund that can go nowhere for years.
Performs well when
Inflation shocks, falling real yields and equity bear markets, when gold typically shines.
Struggles when
Calm bull markets with rising real interest rates, when idle gold drags on returns.
45% VGS + 20% VAS + 25% QUAL + 10% PMGOLD
Market-cap core + a quality tilt + gold
Holdings
past 5-year
past 5-year
Pairs a market-cap core with a 25% quality tilt (QUAL screens for profitable, low-debt, stable companies) plus 10% gold. Quality has a long history of holding up better in downturns.
Benefits
- + The quality factor has strong long-run evidence and tends to be defensive in downturns.
- + Gold adds a second, share-independent diversifier.
- + A thoughtful, evidence-led portfolio rather than a punt on a hot theme.
Drawbacks
- − QUAL overlaps heavily with VGS, so the true tilt is smaller than 25% of your money.
- − Quality can lag badly in speculative, low-quality-led rallies.
- − Four funds, two of them pricier than the core — more cost and more to rebalance.
Performs well when
Late-cycle and risk-off markets, where profitable quality companies and gold both tend to hold up.
Struggles when
Early-cycle "junk rallies" led by unprofitable, speculative stocks, where quality lags.
25% GHHF + 25% QUAL + 25% VVLU + 25% VAS
Equal-weight split: geared growth, quality, value & home
Holdings
past 1-year
A simple equal-weight blend of four distinct engines — geared all-growth (GHHF), global quality (QUAL), global value (VVLU) and Australian shares (VAS). The gearing adds a modest growth kick while the quality and value tilts pull in different directions, spreading the factor bets.
Benefits
- + Diversifies across styles — growth, quality and value rarely all lag at the same time.
- + Equal weights are simple to maintain and avoid over-betting on any single idea.
- + A light dose of gearing (via GHHF) lifts growth potential without dominating the mix.
Drawbacks
- − Still carries leverage risk from the GHHF sleeve — deeper drawdowns than an ungeared mix.
- − Four funds, several with higher fees, and some overlap to keep track of.
- − Quality and value can offset each other, muting the benefit of each tilt.
Performs well when
Broad bull markets where the geared and quality sleeves lead, with value adding ballast.
Struggles when
Sharp sell-offs, where the geared sleeve amplifies losses across the whole portfolio.
Popular factor-investing funds
If you want to add a research-backed tilt around your core, these are the funds Australian investors reach for most often. Keep them as a satellite, and be ready to hold through long stretches of underperformance.
Global quality — profitable, low-debt, stable-earnings companies. The most defensive factor and a common core-satellite tilt.
Global value — cheaper companies relative to earnings and book value. Cyclical: long dry spells, then sharp catch-ups.
Vanguard's global value screen — a more diversified, deeper value tilt across global developed markets.
Australian quality — the quality screen applied to the local market, tilting away from the ASX's bank-and-miner concentration.
Dimensional's Australian value tilt — a systematic, research-driven lean toward cheaper Australian companies.
Avantis global small-cap value — combines the size and value factors, historically the highest-expected-return (and bumpiest) corner of the market.
How the portfolio figures are calculated
Blended return and volatility are the weighted average of each holding's own trailing figures, over the longest period for which every fund in the mix has data. A one-fund portfolio simply shows that fund's numbers.
This is an approximation, not a true backtest. It assumes the weights stay constant and doesn't model annual rebalancing or the fact that some funds have shorter histories than others. Treat the figures as a rough guide to a portfolio's character, not a precise prediction.
The volatility figure in particular overstates real risk. Adding a weighted average of each fund's volatility ignores the diversification benefit between holdings — real portfolios swing less than the parts suggest, especially when a low-correlation asset like gold is included.
Blended fee is the weighted average of each fund's management fee (MER). It excludes brokerage and buy/sell spreads.
All data comes from the figures we hold for each fund and is updated monthly — always confirm the latest numbers on the issuer's own website before investing.