01 · Strategic architecture
Risk first.
Return second.
4 / 20 / 33%
The Dynamic Growth Bucket is deliberately small in Conservative, meaningful in Moderate and central in Aggressive. That is the cleanest distinction between the mandates.
Choose a profile
Same engine.
Different risk job.
Select a mandate to see the strategic risk budget, individual ETF roles and the evidence behind the rebalancing schedule.
RISK BUDGET
MModerate
20%Dynamic Growth
Bucket
Bucket
STRATEGIC TARGET
Quarterly policy weightsBalance offense and resilience
SHYGShort-duration credit income8%
JEPIEquity income / option premium12%
DGRWQuality growth10%
XLVDefensive healthcare6%
XLUDefensive utilities5%
SOXXGrowth satellite6%
XLKTechnology breadth4%
GRIDElectrification infrastructure4%
BUGCybersecurity4%
KSTRChina hard-tech satellite2%
INFLInflation-sensitive equities5%
HGERReal-return commodities8%
GLDMonetary hedge2%
DBMFManaged-futures crisis diversifier18%
BTALAnti-beta shock absorber4%
SGOVLiquidity reserve2%
REBALANCING DECISION
Same holdings · exact two-leg costsQuarterly is still the strategic default
Quarterly gross traded / yr19.78%buys + sells
Annual gross traded / yr9.21%buys + sells
Quarterly net CAGR12.40%10 bp per traded dollar
Annual net CAGR12.27%10 bp per traded dollar
Quarterly rebalancing traded more, but the incremental modeled cost was only 1.06 bp/year at the 10 bp tariff and 2.11 bp/year at 20 bp. In this sample its CAGR advantage was larger, so cadence is not being changed solely to save a few basis points. The annual alternative remains an operating-simplicity option, not the evidence-led default.
WHAT AN INVESTOR IS REALLY CHOOSINGA long-term risk budget—not a forecast.
Conservative is designed to make staying invested easier. Moderate balances resilience and upside. Aggressive gives the growth engine the most room to beat SPY, while accepting that doing so consistently is difficult and cannot be guaranteed by adding more theme ETFs.