A growth obsessed tech leaning portfolio pretending to be balanced while quietly chain smoking risk
Report created on Mar 17, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 29.96% -
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 14.61% -
QQ NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
QQQI - US78433H6751 14.61% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 14.28% -
SW Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund
SWVXX 12.21% -
AX American Express Company
AXP - US0258161092 10.89% -
TS Tesla Inc
TSLA - US88160R1014 3.44%
This setup looks like you started to build a clean index portfolio and then rage-clicked “more yield” and “more tech.” Almost 30% in an S&P 500 ETF is textbook, but then you double-dip with QQQ and a Nasdaq 100 income fund, plus a chunky single-stock bet on AmEx and a Tesla side quest. For something labeled “balanced,” this is 87% stocks and 0% true bonds—basically a stock portfolio wearing a “moderate” name tag. Cleaning this up means deciding what the core actually is, then trimming the clones and pet names so the pieces each have a clearly different job.
Growth
Historic performance at ~16.35% CAGR is undeniably spicy. If someone had tossed in $10,000 at the start, it’d be sitting near $47,000 after 10 years at that pace. But remember, CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is just the smoothed-out story of a bumpy ride. A -19% max drawdown looks mild only because markets have been unusually kind to U.S. large-cap tech and growth. And “11 days making up 90% of returns” screams “miss a few big days and the magic disappears.” Treat this track record as a helpful highlight reel, not proof that gravity stopped working.
Projection
Monte Carlo simulations are basically a financial “what if” machine: shuffle returns thousands of ways and see what happens. Here, the median outcome turning $10,000 into around $103,500 (935%) looks fantastic, and even the 5th percentile still leaves you with ~71% of your starting value. But that 22%-ish annualized projected return is borderline fantasy-land based on a very generous recent past. Past data is like yesterday’s weather forecast—useful, not prophetic. This setup could crush it if growth keeps winning, but a decade of flat or choppy markets would turn those glossy projections into a very humbling reality check.
Asset classes
- Stocks 87%
“Balanced” with 87% stocks and effectively 0% bonds or real diversifiers is like calling a double espresso “hydration.” The one nod to safety is the Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund at 12%, which is really just souped-up cash, not a full-blown ballast asset. In a real storm, this portfolio will move like an equity portfolio, not like something with genuine downside protection. If the goal is growth with guardrails, think in layers: growth engines, income generators, and actual stabilizers that don’t all crash when stocks sneeze. Right now you basically have growth engines plus a small emergency brake.
Sectors
- Technology 26%
- Financials 16%
- Consumer Discretionary 12%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Staples 7%
- Health Care 7%
- Industrials 5%
- Energy 4%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, this is tech and financials at the front, everyone else in the back of the bus. Around 26% in technology plus 12% consumer cyclicals and 9% communication services means a strong tilt toward “things that do great when optimism is high.” Financials at 16% is mostly fine, though that big AmEx position kicks that exposure into “hope you really like the consumer credit cycle” territory. Underweight areas like utilities, real estate, and basic materials suggest limited ballast if growth sectors crack. If smoothing the ride matters, spreading more love to boring, unsexy sectors wouldn’t hurt—assuming you can tolerate owning things that don’t trend on Reddit.
Regions
- North America 87%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, this is “USA or bust” with 87% in North America and a token rounding error in Europe. It’s basically betting the home team wins every season, forever. That can work for long stretches—U.S. mega-caps have been the main character for over a decade—but leadership does change. Ignoring international markets entirely is like only ever eating one cuisine because it’s been good so far. A bit more global flavor could reduce the risk that a long U.S. slowdown torpedoes everything at once. No need to become a world-tour investor, but this is currently more patriotic than diversified.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 44%
- Large-cap 29%
- Mid-cap 13%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap exposure screams “big names only, please.” With 44% mega-cap and 29% big-cap, you’re heavily reliant on the giants—Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, etc.—to keep carrying the story. Only 13% mid-cap and 1% small-cap means very little exposure to the potential up-and-comers. That’s comfortable, but it also ties your fate to already-expensive, widely-owned juggernauts. If the mega-caps take a breather or de-rate, there’s not much of a Plan B. A more even mix across big, mid, and some smaller names would reduce the “top handful of stocks decide my year” risk baked into this structure.
True holdings
-
AX American Express Company 10.99%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 5.19%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.92%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.12%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.34%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.47%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
0 Tri-Party Federal Reserve Bank Repo - 03jan22 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund
-
1 Tri-Party Federal Reserve Bank Repo - 03jan22 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund
-
2 Tri-Party Federal Reserve Bank Repo - 03jan22 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund
-
3 Tri-Party Federal Reserve Bank Repo - 03jan22 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund
- Top 10 total 40.84%
The look-through is basically shouting, “Congratulations, you own the Nasdaq… a lot.” American Express at almost 11% total exposure is a full-on conviction bet, not a background character. Tesla at 5% plus hefty doses of NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon means the same mega-cap tech and growth names are doing double and triple duty through multiple wrappers. With only ETF top-10s included, overlap is probably worse than it looks. Think of it as buying three different pizzas that all somehow end up being pepperoni. If trimming complexity, start by asking which funds are just re-packaging the same usual suspects.
Factors
The factor profile is oddly sensible for such a personality-driven portfolio. Factors are the hidden ingredients—value, size, momentum, quality, low volatility, yield—explaining why returns behave a certain way. Here you’re loaded on quality, yield, and low volatility, with decent value and momentum, but basically no size tilt. That’s like saying, “I want solid, profitable, somewhat stable companies that also pay me,” all delivered through huge caps. The catch: factor coverage is only about 50%, so this picture is incomplete. Still, it implies the portfolio should hold up better than pure meme-growth in rough markets, though it will likely lag in wild speculative rallies.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 29.96% 30.4% -
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 14.61% 18.9% -
American Express Company
Weight: 10.89% 16.3% -
NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
Weight: 14.61% 15.8% -
Tesla Inc
Weight: 3.44% 9.6% - Top 5 risk contribution %
Risk contribution makes it clear who’s actually driving the drama. The top three positions are about 60% of the weight but a hefty 65% of the risk. Tesla is the real chaos agent: only 3.4% of the portfolio but 9.6% of total risk—a risk-to-weight ratio of 2.8 is wild. That’s the small, loud kid in class flipping chairs. AmEx also punches above its weight, contributing 16% of risk at 11% weight. If a smoother ride is the goal, this is where the scalpel goes: dial down the hyperactive names so the diversified ETFs can actually do their job instead of being hostages to single-stock tantrums.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard S&P 500 ETFNEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETFInvesco QQQ Trust
Your core holdings—S&P 500, QQQ, and the Nasdaq income ETF—are basically moving in lockstep. Correlation is just “do these things zig and zag together?” and here the answer is “yep, almost always.” That’s fine on the way up, when everything rallies and you feel like a genius. In a downturn, though, they all fall together, because they’re built from the same large-cap growth-heavy U.S. backbone. Multiple wrappers don’t equal multiple risk streams. If the intent is actual diversification, not just a collection of different ticker symbols, you’d want more stuff that behaves differently when markets get punched in the face.
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.
From a risk–return perspective, this portfolio is playing below its potential. Think of the Efficient Frontier as the curve showing the best bang-for-buck combinations of risk and return. You’re sitting in an awkward middle spot: equity-style risk, with extra concentration and correlation, but without much true diversification benefit from all that complexity. Dropping overlapped growth-heavy funds, rethinking the single-stock hero bets, and adding genuinely different exposures could move you closer to that “same return, less nausea” zone. Right now you’re paying for a lot of volatility you don’t strictly need to hit your apparent growth and income targets.
Dividends
- American Express Company 1.10%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 14.30%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund 3.90%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 3.57%
The yield story here is sneaky interesting. Headline yield of ~3.6% looks decent, but it’s doing a lot of the work via that NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF at a massive 14% yield and the Schwab dividend ETF plus money fund. That high-income piece is basically an option-selling machine—solid cash flow when markets behave, but with strings attached in ugly selloffs or monster rallies you partially cap. Relying on that as a core “income rock” is optimistic. Using income is great, but focusing on sustainable payout engines rather than engineered yield fireworks would make the cash flows less fragile.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.15%
Costs are the one area where this setup isn’t trying to self-sabotage. A total TER around 0.15% is pleasantly low; you clearly haven’t been suckered into expensive active funds for no reason. That said, the NEOS ETF at 0.68% is the diva in an otherwise frugal cast, charging a chunky fee for its income tricks. Fees are like slow leaks—tiny in a year, brutal in decades. If you’re going to pay up relative to the rest of the lineup, it should be for something you truly need, not just a flashy way to turn growth exposure into today’s extra pocket money.
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