Highly concentrated US tech and semiconductor portfolio with strong past growth and meaningful drawdown risk
Report created on May 9, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 70.00% -
SM VanEck Semiconductor ETF
SMH - US92189F6768 30.00%
This portfolio is built from just two ETFs: a broad Nasdaq 100 tracker at 70% and a semiconductor-focused ETF at 30%. That means 100% of the money is in growth-oriented US stocks, with a big tilt toward technology and chips. A structure like this is simple and easy to follow, but it also concentrates risk in a narrow slice of the market. When those areas do well, the whole portfolio can move up quickly; when they struggle, there are few offsets. The low diversification score of 2/5 reflects this narrow focus and limited number of holdings.
Growth
From late 2020 to May 2026, a hypothetical $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $3,616. That works out to a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 26.05%, far ahead of both the US market (15.77%) and global market (13.65%). CAGR is like average speed on a road trip, smoothing out all the bumps along the way. The trade-off has been a max drawdown of -38.56%, meaning the portfolio once fell that much from peak to trough before recovering. This deeper fall than the benchmarks shows how the growth tilt can cut both ways.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses 1,000 simulations to imagine many different future paths for this portfolio, based on its historical ups and downs. Think of it as rolling the dice thousands of times using past volatility as the guide. After 15 years, the median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,691, with a wide “likely” range from roughly $1,714 to $4,039. The very wide possible range ($910–$7,442) highlights uncertainty. An average simulated annual return of 7.81% is much lower than recent history, illustrating how past returns are not a promise of what comes next.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with no bonds, cash-like holdings, or other asset classes. Equities tend to offer higher long-term growth potential but also larger short-term swings. Having 100% in stocks means there is no built-in cushion from traditionally steadier assets, which is one reason the risk score is 5/7. Compared to broad market mixtures that include bonds or other stabilizers, this structure leans strongly toward growth and volatility. This pure-equity setup is straightforward to understand yet relies entirely on stock markets for both risk and return.
Sectors
- Technology 69%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Health Care 3%
- Industrials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector-wise, about 69% of the portfolio sits in technology, with the rest spread mainly across telecommunications, consumer discretionary, and a few smaller sectors. That tech share is much higher than common broad benchmarks, which makes this a very sector-concentrated portfolio. Heavy tech and semiconductor exposure can benefit from innovation and digital trends, but these areas also tend to be sensitive to interest rates, regulation, and earnings expectations. When tech booms, performance can look spectacular; during tech slowdowns or rate spikes, the same concentration can drive sharp pullbacks.
Regions
- North America 94%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Europe Developed 3%
Geographically, the portfolio is overwhelmingly focused on North America at 94%, with only small slices in developed Asia and Europe. Many global indices are more balanced across regions, so this is clearly a US-centric setup. A strong US tilt has paid off over the last decade, and that alignment has helped performance relative to global benchmarks. The flip side is that nearly all economic, political, and currency risk is tied to one region. If US markets underperform other areas for a stretch, this portfolio has limited exposure to any offsetting strength abroad.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 54%
- Large-cap 37%
- Mid-cap 9%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans heavily to mega-cap (54%) and large-cap (37%) companies, with just 9% in mid-caps. Mega-cap stocks are the very largest firms in the market, often global leaders with established business models. This kind of tilt tends to reduce company-specific risk compared with a heavy small-cap allocation, but it can concentrate exposure in a handful of dominant names. The strong presence of large and mega caps aligns fairly well with major indices, which can help make the portfolio’s behavior somewhat easier to compare with familiar benchmarks.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 10.62%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 4.81%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 4.16%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.68%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.54%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
TS Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 3.04%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.73%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.52%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.34%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Top 10 total 42.46%
Looking through the ETFs’ top 10 holdings, a handful of big names stand out: NVIDIA, Apple, Broadcom, Micron, Microsoft, Amazon, TSMC, Alphabet (both share classes), and Tesla. Together, just these ten companies already represent over 40% of the portfolio, and overlap likely extends beyond the visible top 10 lists. When the same company appears in multiple funds, its influence on performance increases more than the ETF count suggests. This creates hidden concentration: if a few of these giants have a rough period, they can strongly sway the overall portfolio’s ups and downs.
Factors
Factor exposure shows a very low tilt to value (14%), with value meaning stocks that look cheap relative to fundamentals like earnings or book value. This implies a strong tilt away from “bargain” style names and toward more expensive, growth-oriented companies. At the same time, yield (30%) and low volatility (25%) are also on the low side, meaning the portfolio doesn’t lean much toward high-dividend or more stable stocks. In practice, this mix often behaves like a classic growth portfolio: it can shine when growth stories are in favor but lag when markets rotate toward cheaper, steadier names.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 70.00% 60.4% -
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
Weight: 30.00% 39.6%
Risk contribution data shows that the 70% Nasdaq 100 ETF accounts for about 60% of total portfolio risk, while the 30% semiconductor ETF drives nearly 40% of risk. Risk contribution measures how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall volatility, not just its size. The semiconductor ETF’s risk/weight ratio of 1.32 means it contributes more risk than its weight alone would suggest, reflecting its higher volatility. This pattern is typical when combining a broad growth index with a more focused, cyclical industry fund that tends to swing more sharply.
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 suggests the current mix sits on or very near the optimal risk–return curve using only these two ETFs. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above a “risk-free” rate, is 0.83 for the current portfolio, compared with 1.09 for the mathematically optimal weighting and 0.81 for the minimum-variance mix. Being close to the frontier means that, given these two building blocks, the allocation is already quite efficient. Any meaningful change in the risk/return tradeoff would mainly come from adding different types of holdings, not just tinkering with these weights.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.34%
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is about 0.34%, with 0.40% from the Nasdaq 100 ETF and 0.20% from the semiconductor ETF. That’s a low income level compared with many broad equity or income-focused strategies. Dividends are the cash payments companies share with investors; over long periods, they can be a meaningful part of total return. Here, most of the historical growth has come from price appreciation rather than cash payouts. This pattern matches the growth and tech-heavy nature of the holdings, where companies often reinvest profits instead of paying higher dividends.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.21%
Total ongoing fund costs, measured by the Total Expense Ratio (TER), average around 0.21% per year. TER is the annual fee charged by each ETF, expressed as a percentage of assets. For an all-equity, index-based portfolio, this is a relatively low overall cost and aligns well with best practices around fee awareness. Lower fees mean more of the portfolio’s returns stay with the investor instead of going to fund providers, and that difference compounds over time. Given the concentrated focus, it’s helpful that the building blocks themselves are cost-efficient.
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