Highly concentrated crypto and tech portfolio with strong quality tilt and significant return volatility
Report created on Mar 24, 2026Risk 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.
Positions
-
BT Bitcoin
BTC 31.25% -
ET Ethereum
ETH 25.97% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 22.23% -
FT Fortinet Inc
FTNT - US34959E1091 5.51% -
IN Intel Corporation
INTC - US4581401001 5.37% -
QQ NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
QQQI - US78433H6751 5.14% -
JE JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
JEPQ - US46654Q2030 4.53%
This portfolio is dominated by two big buckets: crypto at 57% and individual stocks at 42%, with almost everything riding on Bitcoin, Ethereum, and a handful of large tech names. That creates a very focused, high-conviction structure rather than broad diversification. Structurally, it behaves closer to a thematic bet than a classic multi-asset portfolio. This matters because when the main themes do well, returns can be spectacular, but when they fall out of favor, the whole portfolio can drop sharply at the same time. Anyone using a setup like this typically treats it as a high-risk growth engine and may pair it with safer, steadier assets elsewhere in their overall finances.
Growth
Over the recent period, a hypothetical $1,000 grew to about $1,209, giving a 16.45% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing out the bumps. That’s slightly ahead of the U.S. market’s 15.75% and close to the global market’s 16.28%. However, the max drawdown of -42.33% is more than double the market benchmarks, which dropped around -17% to -19%. Max drawdown measures the worst peak-to-trough fall and is a good proxy for pain tolerance. The big takeaway is: returns have been competitive, but the ride has been much rougher, which fits the aggressive risk profile shown by the score of 6 out of 7.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection simulates 1,000 possible 10‑year paths based on how this portfolio has behaved historically. Monte Carlo is like running many alternate futures, each with random ups and downs drawn from past volatility and returns, then seeing the range of outcomes. After 10 years, the median (50th percentile) shows about +195%, while the 5th percentile shows a severe loss of roughly -77.5%. The average simulated annual return near 19.28% is attractive, but the spread is wide, reflecting substantial risk. It’s crucial to remember simulations use historical patterns and assumptions; real markets can shift regimes, so these numbers are guideposts, not promises.
Asset classes
- Crypto 57%
- Stocks 42%
- Not classified 1%
By asset class, this setup is overwhelmingly split between crypto (57%) and equities (42%), with almost nothing in traditionally stabilizing assets like bonds or cash. That’s textbook aggressive growth positioning: heavy exposure to high-volatility assets that can swing dramatically with sentiment and macro conditions. Compared with broad global or balanced portfolios, this is underweight defensive components that tend to cushion drawdowns. The positive is strong upside participation in bull markets. The tradeoff is large portfolio swings and the need for a long time horizon plus emotional resilience. People using a structure like this often rely on other accounts or income sources to cover short‑term needs.
Sectors
- Crypto 57%
- Technology 38%
- Telecommunications 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 1%
- Consumer Staples 1%
Sector-wise, everything is clustered: 57% in crypto, and most of the equity side in technology, with small slivers in communication services, consumer cyclicals, and consumer defensive. That’s a big tilt toward innovation-related themes and growth-oriented business models. Tech-heavy allocations often do great when interest rates are stable or falling and when investors prize future growth, but they can be hit hard when rates rise or when markets rotate toward more defensive, cash-generating businesses. The concentration here is notable, but it also aligns with the idea of an aggressive growth profile. It’s important to be clear that this is more of a “bet” on a narrow set of economic drivers than a broad, all-weather mix.
Regions
- North America 43%
Geographically, the equity side is almost entirely North American at 43%, with crypto sitting outside traditional country breakdowns. That effectively means the portfolio depends heavily on the U.S. and Canadian markets plus global crypto behavior, rather than having substantial exposure to other major regions. Many global benchmarks diversify more across different economies and policy regimes, which can help when one region struggles. Here, the combination of U.S.-centric tech and global crypto links returns closely to U.S. growth sentiment, tech regulation, and broader risk appetite. This alignment is very common for aggressive growth investors in the U.S., but it does mean that regional shocks won’t be offset much by other areas.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 32%
- Large-cap 9%
- Mid-cap 1%
Market cap exposure is dominated by mega-cap and large-cap companies, with around 32% in mega caps and 9% in big caps, plus a tiny slice in mid caps. Mega caps are giant companies that can be more stable than small caps, but they’re still fully exposed to market cycles. Paired with large crypto holdings, this tilt means risk is coming more from asset class volatility (especially crypto) than from small, speculative stocks. One positive here is that the equity side leans toward established, high-quality names, which can provide some ballast relative to the very high volatility of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Still, because crypto is such a large piece, overall risk remains elevated.
True holdings
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 22.75%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
FT Fortinet Inc 5.51%
-
IN Intel Corporation 5.46%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 0.77%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 0.66%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.41%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 0.41%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 0.33%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.31%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 0.28%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Top 10 total 36.89%
Looking through the ETFs, Microsoft ends up at about 22.75% total exposure, mainly from your direct holding, with a small extra slice via ETFs. Intel also has slight duplication through ETF exposure. Overlap means the same company can hit you multiple ways if it has a bad period, even if it looks like separate positions. Because only ETF top-10 holdings are captured, the real overlap is likely a bit higher than shown. This overlap isn’t inherently bad; it just means concentration in a few names is even stronger than the surface weights suggest, so any view on those companies’ long-term prospects really drives outcome risk here.
Factors
Factor exposure shows strong tilts to quality, low volatility, and yield, with moderate value and momentum and essentially neutral size. Factors are like underlying “traits” of investments—quality focuses on strong balance sheets and profitability; low volatility on smoother price paths; yield on income generation. Interestingly, the equity slice scores very high on quality (87.6%) and has decent low-volatility and yield signals, which is a positive sign: the stocks and ETFs lean toward robust, income-supportive names. However, factor coverage is only about 45% overall and doesn’t fully capture crypto, which behaves very differently. So the comforting factor profile mostly reflects the equities, while the overall portfolio remains very high risk because of the large crypto allocation.
Risk contribution
-
Ethereum
Weight: 25.97% 46.9% -
Bitcoin
Weight: 31.25% 38.8% -
Microsoft Corporation
Weight: 22.23% 7.1% -
Intel Corporation
Weight: 5.37% 3.1% -
Fortinet Inc
Weight: 5.51% 1.6% - Top 5 risk contribution 97.5%
Risk contribution shows how much each position drives total volatility, which can be very different from its weight. Here, Ethereum is 26% of the portfolio but contributes almost 47% of risk; Bitcoin is 31% of weight yet nearly 39% of risk. Together with Microsoft, the top three holdings drive about 93% of total portfolio risk. That means the experience of owning this portfolio is overwhelmingly dictated by crypto moves, with Microsoft adding a smaller, but still meaningful, layer. When a position’s risk share is far above its weight, it acts like the “loudest instrument in the band.” Adjusting those weights—even without adding new assets—can dramatically change the day-to-day and long-term volatility profile.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationJPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETFNEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
Asset correlation measures how often different investments move together. Values close to +1 mean they usually rise and fall in sync; close to 0 means they move more independently. The two Nasdaq income ETFs are highly correlated, so they behave similarly in most environments and don’t add much diversification against each other. Crypto often has its own rhythm but tends to correlate with risk-on markets during stress episodes, reducing its diversification benefit when it’s needed most. When large holdings move together, sharp drawdowns become more likely because there are fewer “offsetting” positions. This is why even a portfolio with several tickers can still be effectively concentrated if correlations are high.
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.
On the risk vs. return chart, the current mix sits below the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier is the curve of best possible returns for each risk level, using only your existing holdings in different weights. The current portfolio’s Sharpe ratio—return per unit of risk—is about 0.48, while an alternative weighting of the same assets could roughly double that to around 0.97 at lower risk. There’s also a same-risk optimized mix with much higher expected return but even higher volatility. The key takeaway: the ingredients are strong, but the recipe isn’t yet as efficient as it could be. Reweighting positions, without adding anything new, could materially improve the balance between upside and swings.
Dividends
- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 11.00%
- Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 15.90%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.52%
The total yield of about 1.52% is fairly modest, but that number hides an interesting mix. The two option-income Nasdaq ETFs throw off very high headline yields (around 11% and 15.9%), while Microsoft adds a small, steady dividend. Dividends matter because they provide cash returns that don’t rely on price appreciation, which can help with reinvestment or supplementing income. In this case, the high-yield ETFs partly counterbalance the zero-yield nature of crypto and some growth stocks. However, yield from option-writing strategies can come with tradeoffs, like capped upside in strong rallies. Overall, this setup is still growth-first; income is a nice side feature rather than the main design.
Ongoing product costs
- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.05%
Costs are impressively low overall, with a blended total expense ratio around 0.05%, mostly driven by the modest fees on the two ETFs (0.35% and 0.68%). Expense ratios are like a small annual “toll” on your investments; every 0.1% saved compounds over time. Since individual stocks and crypto have no ongoing fund fees, the weighted average fee stays very lean. This is a strong advantage: when pursuing high-risk, high-return strategies, avoiding unnecessary drag from costs gives more of the upside back to you. In terms of fee structure, this portfolio is well-aligned with best practices and does not appear to be leaving much performance on the table via fund expenses.
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