Income focused mix with strong municipal bond core and meaningful tilt toward energy and quality stocks

Report created on Apr 14, 2026

Risk 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

The portfolio is built around a big core in a single municipal bond fund, with the rest split across broad stock ETFs, energy infrastructure, dividend shares, REITs, and a handful of individual stocks. That muni fund alone is over a third of the total, so it strongly shapes the income, tax profile, and stability. The stock side is mostly handled by diversified ETFs rather than lots of single names, which helps reduce company‑specific risk. Overall, this comes across as an income‑oriented, balanced mix: not ultra‑aggressive, but not conservative cash‑plus either. The main takeaway is that one big income fund plus a cluster of energy‑related holdings are the key drivers of how this behaves.

Growth Info

Historically, $1,000 grew to about $2,265 over roughly nine and a half years, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.97%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long trip, smoothing out all the bumps along the way. That return lagged both the US and global market benchmarks, which did 14.57% and 11.94% a year, respectively. On the other hand, the worst drop, or max drawdown, was slightly smaller than the benchmarks during the 2020 crash. This shows a classic trade‑off: giving up some upside to dial back the extremes. Past performance doesn’t guarantee similar results, but the pattern suggests a focus on steadier, income‑oriented growth rather than chasing maximum returns.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection takes the portfolio’s historical behavior and simulates 1,000 alternate futures, essentially “rerolling the dice” on returns year by year. It suggests that a $1,000 investment has a median outcome of about $2,229 over 15 years, or around 5.9% a year, with a wide range of possible results. Think of it as a weather forecast: it can’t say exactly what will happen, but it shows likely and unlikely zones. About two‑thirds of simulations end positive, but there’s still a meaningful chance of low or even negative real returns after inflation. This helps set expectations: the mix leans toward moderate growth with risk still very present, not a guaranteed income machine.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    50%
  • No data
    36%
  • Bonds
    11%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Roughly half the portfolio is in stocks, a bit over a tenth in bonds, a sliver in real estate, and a sizable chunk marked “no data,” mostly from vehicles where the look‑through asset split isn’t available. Asset class mix is important because stocks drive growth, bonds typically dampen volatility and provide income, and real estate can add diversification and inflation sensitivity. Compared to a classic 60/40 stock‑bond split, this looks slightly more conservative on the visible data, with bonds and income vehicles playing an outsized role. That’s consistent with a balanced risk profile. The main takeaway is that this is not an all‑equity bet; it’s built to blend growth and stability, though the unknown “no data” slice adds some opacity.

Sectors Info

  • Energy
    19%
  • Technology
    12%
  • Telecommunications
    5%
  • Health Care
    3%
  • Financials
    3%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    3%
  • Real Estate
    3%
  • Consumer Staples
    3%
  • Industrials
    2%
  • Utilities
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector‑wise, energy is the clear standout at about 19%, well above broad‑market norms, while technology, health care, financials, and consumer areas are each in the low‑to‑mid single digits. An energy tilt can be a double‑edged sword: it often delivers strong income and can benefit when commodity prices are high, but tends to be more cyclical and sensitive to global economic swings and policy changes. Compared with a broad market, this means less exposure to sectors that have driven a lot of recent growth, like tech, and more dependence on a single, more volatile area. The positive side is strong diversification across many other sectors; the caution is that energy will likely be a major driver of your ups and downs.

Regions Info

  • North America
    58%
  • No data
    4%
  • Europe Developed
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, the portfolio is strongly anchored in North America at about 58%, with only a small slice in developed Europe and a small “no data” bucket. This is actually quite close to global equity benchmarks, which are heavily tilted toward North America as well, so the regional mix is broadly in line with world market weights. That alignment is a plus: it means the portfolio isn’t making a big bet on one niche region and should move somewhat in step with major global markets. The flip side is that performance will be tied closely to the health of the US and Canadian economies and currencies, with relatively limited direct exposure to faster‑growing or more cyclical regions elsewhere.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    20%
  • Mega-cap
    19%
  • Mid-cap
    11%
  • Small-cap
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

The market‑cap breakdown shows a healthy spread across mega‑cap, large‑cap, mid‑cap, and a touch of small‑cap. Mega‑ and large‑caps dominate, which is normal for most broad index and dividend ETFs: these are the household‑name companies that tend to be more stable and liquid. Mid‑caps bring a bit more growth potential and volatility, and the small exposure adds some extra dynamism without overwhelming the risk profile. This blend is consistent with a balanced investor profile: skewed toward sturdier giants but not ignoring the middle and smaller layers of the market. It also aligns well with market‑weight benchmarks, which is generally beneficial for diversification and avoiding extreme size bets.

True holdings Info

  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.59%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 3.49%
  • Energy Transfer LP
    2.84%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF
    Direct holding 2.52%
  • Chevron Corp
    2.22%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    • iShares Global Energy ETF
    Direct holding 1.40%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    1.65%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Apple Inc
    1.48%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Exxon Mobil Corp
    1.01%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Global Energy ETF
  • Charter Communications Inc
    0.96%
  • Enbridge Inc
    0.83%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF
    • iShares Global Energy ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    0.81%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Williams Companies Inc
    0.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF
    • iShares Global Energy ETF
  • Top 10 total 17.18%

Looking through the ETFs, Microsoft stands out with a combined exposure of about 4.6%, split between a direct holding and slices inside broad funds. Energy Transfer and Chevron also appear both directly and via ETFs, creating “hidden” concentration in midstream and energy. Because only top‑10 ETF holdings are captured, actual overlap is probably a bit higher than shown. Overlap matters because it reduces diversification: several different tickers may still live and die with the same few companies or industries. The positive here is that concentration is spread across high‑quality, well‑known names rather than niche bets. Still, being aware that Microsoft and a few energy companies punch above their apparent weight is useful when thinking about overall risk.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 43%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 60%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 43%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 79%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
High
Data availability: 98%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 60%

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 shows notable tilts toward quality and yield, with both scoring well above neutral. In simple terms, factors are characteristics that explain why some stocks behave differently from others, like “cheap vs. expensive” (value) or “steady vs. jumpy” (low volatility). A high quality tilt means the portfolio leans toward companies with stronger balance sheets and profitability, which can help during downturns. A high yield tilt reflects the income focus, favoring holdings that pay higher dividends or distributions. Other factors like value, momentum, and low volatility sit near neutral, suggesting no strong bet there. The combination of quality and yield is generally a solid foundation for someone prioritizing reliable cash flows and more resilient businesses over speculative growth.

Risk contribution Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 15.93%
    21.0%
  • Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund
    Weight: 36.41%
    20.6%
  • Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF
    Weight: 7.27%
    11.9%
  • iShares Global Energy ETF
    Weight: 5.66%
    9.2%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 6.23%
    7.2%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 70.0%

Risk contribution looks at how much each holding actually drives the portfolio’s ups and downs, which can differ a lot from simple weight. The S&P 500 ETF, at about 16% weight, contributes roughly 21% of total risk, while the large muni fund, despite being over 36% of the portfolio, contributes only about 21% of risk. Conversely, the two main energy ETFs together are a relatively modest percentage by weight but punch above their size in risk terms. The top three holdings account for more than half the total risk, showing some concentration. For someone targeting a balanced risk profile, periodically checking that high‑volatility positions aren’t dominating the ride can help keep the overall experience aligned with expectations.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    High correlation

Correlation measures how closely different holdings move together. When two assets are highly correlated, they tend to rise and fall at the same time, which can limit diversification benefits. Here, the S&P 500 ETF and the total US stock market ETF move almost identically, which makes sense since they track very similar universes. Holding both doesn’t add much diversification; it’s more like owning two flavors of the same ice cream. That’s not inherently bad, but it means the real diversification in the equity sleeve comes from other types of funds, like dividend, sector, and real estate ETFs, plus the large muni and income holdings that behave differently from stocks.

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‑return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier by about 5 percentage points at its risk level. The efficient frontier shows the best possible trade‑off between risk and expected return using only the existing holdings but in different weightings. The Sharpe ratio, which compares excess return to volatility, is 0.31 for the current mix, versus 0.53 for the minimum‑risk mix and 0.94 for the highest risk‑adjusted option. In plain language, the ingredients are good, but the recipe isn’t fully optimized. Without adding anything new, just rebalancing the weights could potentially improve the balance between growth and stability, either by cutting risk for similar return or aiming for higher return at a given risk level.

Dividends Info

  • Chevron Corp 3.60%
  • Energy Transfer LP 7.00%
  • iShares Global Energy ETF 2.80%
  • Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF 4.20%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • Oppenheimer Rochester Fund Municipals A 4.70%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund ETF Shares 3.70%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
  • VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF 5.80%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.84%

Dividend yield across the portfolio averages around 1.84%, but that headline number hides a wide range under the hood. Some positions, like Energy Transfer and the muni and income funds, pay relatively high yields, appealing for cash‑flow seekers. Others, like QQQ and some growth‑driven holdings, contribute little to income but more to potential capital appreciation. Dividends matter because they can smooth returns and provide a source of cash without needing to sell shares, especially in sideways markets. The mix here indicates an income‑tilted approach, but not an extreme “high yield at all costs” strategy. That balance can be helpful for maintaining flexibility between reinvesting and drawing income as goals evolve.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares Global Energy ETF 0.44%
  • Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF 0.45%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Oppenheimer Rochester Fund Municipals A 1.20%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund ETF Shares 0.12%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF 1.82%
  • Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund 1.87%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.93%

Total annual costs, measured by Total Expense Ratio (TER), come in at about 0.93%, which is higher than a purely low‑cost index mix but understandable given the active muni funds and specialized ETFs. There’s a clear split: core index funds like the S&P 500 and total market ETFs are extremely cheap, while the main municipal income funds carry TERs above 1.8%. Fees matter because they compound over time, quietly eating into returns; even a fraction of a percent can add up over decades. The positive here is that the equity core is very cost‑efficient. The trade‑off is paying up for specialized income strategies, which may be reasonable if their tax and distribution profile fits the overall goals.

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