This portfolio has only about 10 months of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.
Get this analysis for your own portfolio Paste your holdings — the first report is free and takes about a minute. Analyze mine Roast mode 🔥

Yield chasing with a safety blanket and a side of accidental concentration risk

Report created on Apr 5, 2026

Risk profile Info

2/7
Conservative
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification
Curious how your own portfolio scores? Same analysis, your holdings. First report free — no card needed. Analyze mine

Positions

This portfolio looks like it was built by someone who typed “high income ETF” into a screener and just took the top results. Seven positions, all income-focused, heavily leaning on option-writing funds and infrastructure, with a little gold income on top like decorative parsley. It’s technically diversified across a handful of funds, but in spirit it’s one big “please pay me now” trade. For a “conservative” label, it’s bizarrely dependent on a few complex strategies that only pretend to be simple. The big-picture takeaway: this isn’t a classic balanced portfolio; it’s a specialized income machine that really wants yields today and is quietly hoping the future sorts itself out.

Growth Info

Performance over the last ~10 months looks flattering: about $1,000 turning into $1,142, beating both US and global markets with a 17.64% CAGR. Nice, but let’s not frame the trophy yet. Ten months of data is basically a market mood swing, not a track record. Max drawdown of -8.5% was slightly better than the benchmarks, which fits the “income-and-low-vol” story, but one small dip in one short period doesn’t prove it’ll always behave nicely. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: helpful for packing a jacket, not enough to plan your life around. Treat this outperformance as a pleasant surprise, not a guarantee.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection is basically a thousand “what if” simulations using the short historical data as a rough guide. Median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,505 over 15 years, with a wide possible range from roughly $1,002 to $5,842. Translation: could be fine, could be great, could just limp along. The average simulated annual return of 6.91% is solid but not magical, especially for something paying out a lot as income. But with only ~10 months of history, the inputs here are shaky — it’s like trying to predict your future health from one good week at the gym. Use it as a feel for risk, not a prophecy.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    75%
  • No data
    20%
  • Not classified
    3%
  • Bonds
    1%

Asset class mix screams “equity income cosplay” rather than real multi-asset diversification: 75% in stocks, 1% in bonds, and the rest sitting in “no data” or “not classified” limbo. For a “conservative” label, being basically an equity shop with a side of mystery bucket is… bold. There’s no visible ballast from traditional bonds or cash-like holdings that would normally soften big hits. It’s pretending to be low drama while still going to the equity party every night. Takeaway: if the goal is stable income, relying almost entirely on stock-based structures is more of a calculated gamble than the label suggests.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    21%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Utilities
    8%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    7%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Health Care
    7%
  • Financials
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector exposure looks like a compromise between “I love tech” and “I should probably own boring stuff, too.” Tech is the biggest visible slice at 21%, with industrials, utilities, telecoms, health care, and financials all getting decent chunks. So the story isn’t “one-sector maniac,” but more “diversified, with a clear soft spot for whatever’s driving modern markets.” Given this is delivered through high-income wrappers, a lot of the stability comes from option strategies rather than truly dull sectors. Takeaway: sector mix isn’t the main problem here; it’s the way income is engineered on top of it that adds complexity.

Regions Info

  • North America
    68%
  • Europe Developed
    5%
  • Latin America
    2%
  • Asia Emerging
    1%
  • Asia Developed
    1%
  • Japan
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, this is very much a “USA first, world if we must” setup: 68% in North America, tiny slices elsewhere, and the rest effectively in the shadows. For a US-based investor this is totally normal, but normal doesn’t mean optimal. The portfolio behaves like global diversification is something you sprinkle on at 5–10% just to be able to say you did it. If the US keeps winning, this works; if not, those small allocations elsewhere won’t move the needle. Takeaway: this is basically a domestically focused income engine with faint international seasoning, not a truly global approach.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    30%
  • Large-cap
    29%
  • Mid-cap
    15%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Market cap distribution is firmly in “big and established” territory: 30% mega-cap, 29% large-cap, and 15% mid-cap in the visible data. That’s a polite way of saying this portfolio prefers the corporate equivalent of middle-aged professionals over scrappy startups. For an income strategy, that makes sense — dividends and covered-call premiums don’t play nicely with tiny, chaotic companies. The flip side is limited explosive upside if small caps go on a tear. You’ve traded lottery-ticket potential for a more boring, pay-me-now profile. That’s fine, just don’t expect this mix to be the hero in a small-cap boom.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.24%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.88%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.09%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF
    1.94%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Gold High Income ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.64%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    1.15%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.13%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.12%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
  • Top 10 total 17.64%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Under the hood, the usual suspects are running the show: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, Meta, Broadcom. You didn’t pick them directly, but they still moved in, raided the fridge, and grabbed a big share of the return potential and risk. Several of these appear across multiple ETFs, so the real exposure is more concentrated than it looks. And remember, this overlap is understated because we only see ETF top-10s. It’s like thinking you’re dating seven different people and then realizing four of them are the same person wearing different sunglasses. Takeaway: fund count does not equal diversification.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
No data
Data availability: 0%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 70%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
No data
Data availability: 0%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
No data
Data availability: 0%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Very high
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Very high
Data availability: 50%

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 hilariously on-the-nose: extremely high tilt to Yield (87%) and Low Volatility (91%), and almost no Size tilt. Factor exposure is basically the ingredient list behind performance, and here it reads: “I want big, slow, and constantly paying me.” It leans hard into the “grandparent portfolio” stereotype even if the actual holdings are anything but simple. Chasing yield while hugging low-vol sounds safe, but can backfire if high income comes from writing options or holding leveraged products under the hood. Takeaway: the factor profile is consistent with the story, but it’s very one-dimensional — you’ve picked a lane and welded the steering wheel.

Risk contribution Info

  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    23.9%
  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    18.7%
  • Amplify International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF
    Weight: 10.00%
    13.8%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    13.5%
  • Aberdeen Standard Global Infrastructure Income Fund
    Weight: 10.00%
    11.1%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 81.0%

Risk contribution shows who’s actually driving the drama, not just who looks chunky on a pie chart. The NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF is 20% of the weight but almost 24% of total risk. Amplify International Dividend is only 10% of weight yet contributing nearly 14% of risk — that position is punching above its weight like it’s on pre-workout. Top three holdings drive over 56% of total risk, so when the portfolio moves, it’s mostly these few singing lead. Takeaway: if future volatility feels spicier than the “conservative” label suggested, trimming or reweighting these risk hogs is the lever, not the tiny positions.

Redundant positions Info

  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    High correlation

The correlation story is basically: your two main US equity high-income engines move almost in lockstep. The NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF and the NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF are highly correlated, which means when one has a bad day, the other is probably sending sympathy flowers instead of acting as a shock absorber. Correlation just measures how often things move together; high correlation in the core holdings means diversification is more cosmetic than functional. You’ve ended up with two flavors of the same mood. In a real downturn, this won’t feel like two separate lines of defense — more like one big synchronized wobble.

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.

Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it

The efficient frontier chart quietly roasts this setup: at your current risk level, the portfolio sits about 3.09 percentage points below what could be achieved just by rearranging the same holdings. Sharpe ratio of 1.34 vs 2.2 for the optimal mix says you’re leaving a lot of risk-adjusted return on the table. Think of the efficient frontier as “best possible combo of these ingredients”; you’ve basically made a decent sandwich when you could’ve had a much better one using the same groceries. Takeaway: the issue isn’t what you own, it’s how you’ve mixed it — the weights are dragging down efficiency.

Dividends Info

  • Aberdeen Standard Global Infrastructure Income Fund 11.10%
  • Amplify International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF 5.50%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 7.70%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 14.90%
  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF 12.40%
  • Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund 7.10%
  • NEOS Gold High Income ETF 10.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 10.37%

A total portfolio yield of around 10.37% is not “income,” it’s “are you sure about this?” territory. Individual pieces paying 11–15% yields are basically screaming, “There’s a catch.” Those yields don’t come from fairy dust; they’re often funded by covered calls, leverage, or return of capital. It feels amazing in the short term — like getting a bonus every month — but the trade-off can be muted growth or capital slowly eroding in rough markets. High yield is not free lunch; it’s usually just rent paid with your future upside. Takeaway: enjoy the cash flow, but don’t confuse it with low risk.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Amplify International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF 0.66%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund 2.29%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.64%

Overall TER of 0.64% is… fine-ish, but that 2.29% fee on the infrastructure closed-end fund is doing its best impression of a financial black hole. Paying over 2% a year is like voluntarily signing up for a subscription that quietly eats a chunk of your returns forever. The rest of the funds sit in the “could be worse, could be cheaper” zone; not outrageous, but not exactly minimalist either. For a portfolio already giving up upside via option-writing, layering chunky fees on top is like paying a cover charge to enter your own living room. Takeaway: the income is high enough to hide the cost drag, but the drag is still real.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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