Concentrated US value factor portfolio with strong small company tilt and historically high growth
Report created on Apr 25, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VF Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
VFVA - US9219358051 88.83% -
AM Amazon.com Inc
AMZN - US0231351067 4.95% -
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA - US67066G1040 3.52% -
LL Eli Lilly and Company
LLY - US5324571083 2.70%
This portfolio is very focused: almost 89% sits in a single US value-factor ETF, with the rest in three large individual US stocks. That structure makes it mainly a one-fund strategy with a few high-profile growth names layered on top. The ETF sets most of the risk and style, while Amazon, NVIDIA, and Eli Lilly add some stock-specific behavior. A concentrated setup like this is simpler to track and understand because a single holding dominates. At the same time, it means portfolio outcomes will largely mirror how that value ETF behaves over time, with the three stocks adding extra bumps rather than changing the overall profile.
Growth
Historically, this mix has grown $1,000 into about $3,691 from early 2018 to April 2026, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.38%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip, smoothing out all the stops and accelerations. That return beat both the US market (about 14.19%) and the global market (about 11.15%) over the same period. The trade-off was a deeper maximum drawdown of about -42.7%, compared with around -34% for the benchmarks, showing sharper downs in tough markets. Only 27 days made up 90% of returns, underlining how much long-term results relied on a handful of very strong days.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection looks forward 15 years using thousands of simulated paths based on past volatility and returns. Monte Carlo is basically a “what if” engine that shuffles history to see many possible futures, not just one forecast. Here, a $1,000 investment has a median outcome of about $2,741, with a broad “likely” band from roughly $1,828 to $4,136. The overall average return across simulations is 7.92% a year, and about three-quarters of paths end positive. These numbers highlight both potential growth and a wide range of outcomes; they’re useful for understanding uncertainty but can’t predict exactly what will happen.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio is in stocks, so there’s no built-in cushion from bonds or cash. Equities historically offer higher potential long-term returns but usually come with larger swings in value. That’s consistent with the portfolio’s risk score of 5/7 and the significant drawdown seen in the historical data. Compared with more mixed-asset setups that blend in bonds or other defensive assets, this all-equity approach leans firmly toward growth and volatility. The upside is clear participation in stock market gains; the downside is that declines tend to be felt more directly, without other asset classes to offset them.
Sectors
- Financials 22%
- Health Care 17%
- Consumer Discretionary 16%
- Technology 13%
- Energy 9%
- Industrials 7%
- Consumer Staples 7%
- Telecommunications 6%
- Basic Materials 4%
Sector exposure is spread across many areas of the economy, with the largest slices in financials, health care, and consumer discretionary, followed by technology and energy. No single sector dominates the entire portfolio, which helps avoid putting everything on one economic theme. Compared with many broad US benchmarks that lean more heavily into technology, this mix is more balanced across traditional value-oriented sectors. That can mean the portfolio behaves differently from tech-heavy markets, especially during periods when older, cash-generating businesses do better or worse than fast-growing, high-valuation names. This spread supports diversification within the stock-only structure.
Regions
- North America 98%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely anchored in North America at 98%, with just a small 1% slice in developed Europe. That creates a strong link to the US economy, US corporate earnings, and the dollar. Global benchmarks typically have much larger allocations outside North America, so this is a clear regional tilt rather than a world-market replica. When US markets outperform, such a focus can look very favorable; when other regions lead or the dollar weakens, the portfolio may lag more globally diversified lineups. The benefit is clarity: results are primarily driven by one major market.
Market capitalization
- Micro-cap 26%
- Small-cap 22%
- Mid-cap 21%
- Large-cap 19%
- Mega-cap 12%
The market cap breakdown is unusually tilted toward smaller companies: micro- and small-caps together make up nearly half the portfolio, with mid-caps a further 21%. Large and mega-caps are smaller slices. Smaller companies often have more room to grow but also tend to be bumpier and more sensitive to economic shifts. That helps explain the higher volatility and deeper drawdowns relative to broad-market benchmarks, which weigh larger firms more heavily. On the flip side, this structure provides exposure to parts of the market that many cap-weighted indices underrepresent, adding a different growth engine compared with portfolios dominated by mega-cap names.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
CM Comcast Corp 0.94%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
-
BM Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 0.89%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
-
GM General Motors Company 0.88%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
-
VZ Verizon Communications Inc 0.86%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
-
T AT&T Inc 0.85%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
-
CI Cigna Corp 0.84%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
-
CV CVS Health Corp 0.84%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
- Top 10 total 17.26%
Looking through the ETF’s top holdings plus your direct stocks, company-level overlap appears low: Amazon, NVIDIA, and Eli Lilly are only held directly, not via the ETF’s disclosed top 10. The ETF itself adds diversified exposure to other names like Comcast, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Verizon, each at under 1% of the total portfolio. Because we only see the ETF’s top 10 positions, hidden overlap could exist further down the list, but the disclosed data suggests limited concentration in any single company outside your three direct positions. That supports diversification within a structure still dominated by one core fund.
Factors
Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.
Factor exposure is where this portfolio really stands out. It has very high tilts to value (89%) and size (88%), meaning it strongly favors cheaper stocks and smaller companies relative to the broad market. Factors are like investing “ingredients” that often drive returns over long periods. A strong value tilt can help when lower-priced, out-of-favor companies rebound, but may lag during stretches when expensive growth stocks dominate. A strong size tilt links performance to smaller firms, which historically have had higher average returns but rockier rides. Other factors sit closer to neutral, so value and size are the defining characteristics.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard U.S. Value Factor
Weight: 88.83% 91.3% -
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 3.52% 4.0% -
Amazon.com Inc
Weight: 4.95% 3.6% -
Eli Lilly and Company
Weight: 2.70% 1.1%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. The value-factor ETF is 88.83% of assets but contributes 91.32% of total risk, so it slightly over-pulls the portfolio’s volatility. NVIDIA, despite being only 3.52% by weight, adds nearly 4% of risk, reflecting its higher volatility, while Amazon and Eli Lilly contribute less risk than their weights. Overall, the top three holdings by weight account for 98.9% of risk, illustrating that, in practice, portfolio behavior is almost entirely dictated by the ETF plus a bit of NVIDIA.
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.
Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.
The efficient frontier analysis compares your current mix with the best possible risk/return combinations using the same holdings. Your portfolio sits below the efficient frontier by about 15.8 percentage points at its current risk level, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.49. Sharpe ratio is a simple measure of return per unit of risk after accounting for a risk-free rate. The optimal mix, with a Sharpe of 1.41, suggests that simply reweighting what you already hold could, in theory, offer more return for risk taken. This doesn’t add new investments; it just shows the potential impact of changing the balance between them.
Dividends
- Eli Lilly and Company 0.70%
- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor 2.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.80%
Dividend yield is moderate, with the portfolio overall around 1.8%. The value-factor ETF, at about 2.0%, does most of the income heavy lifting, while Eli Lilly’s 0.7% shows how some growing companies pay smaller dividends. Yield measures cash payments as a percentage of price, so it can be a useful part of total return alongside price gains. This level of income is in line with a growth-leaning equity portfolio that still has some value tilt. It won’t drive returns on its own, but it does provide a steady contribution that can help smooth the impact of market ups and downs over time.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard U.S. Value Factor 0.13%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.12%
Costs are impressively low, with the main ETF charging a total expense ratio (TER) of 0.13% and the overall portfolio coming in around 0.12%. TER is the annual fee taken by funds to cover management and operations, expressed as a percentage of assets. Keeping this number low is helpful because fees compound in reverse, quietly eating into long-term growth. Here, the cost structure is clearly a strength: it aligns well with widely accepted best practices for cost-conscious investing and supports better net returns over long horizons, especially when combined with the historically strong performance shown in the data.
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.
Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey