Highly concentrated US growth portfolio with exceptional past returns and significant tech driven risk
Report created on Apr 9, 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
-
SP SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
SPY - US78462F1030 32.10% -
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 30.41% -
AM Amazon.com Inc
AMZN - US0231351067 11.64% -
AA Apple Inc
AAPL - US0378331005 8.36% -
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA - US67066G1040 8.00% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 4.47% -
ME Meta Platforms Inc.
META - US30303M1027 2.96% -
KO The Coca-Cola Company
KO - US1912161007 2.06%
This portfolio is made up entirely of equities, split between two broad US index ETFs and a handful of mega-cap growth stocks. Around 60% sits in diversified ETFs, while roughly 40% is in single-company positions, several of which also appear inside the ETFs. That structure puts you firmly at the aggressive end of the spectrum, since stocks are the most volatile mainstream asset class. The upside is strong growth potential; the downside is big swings in account value. A key takeaway is that, despite the number of line items, economic exposure is actually quite concentrated, so day‑to‑day performance will largely track a handful of major US growth names.
Growth
Historically, this mix has been a rocket ship: a $1,000 investment grew to about $21,372 over ten years, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 36%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out the bumps. That massively beat both the US and global markets, which grew in the low‑teens. The flip side is a max drawdown of about ‑47%, meaning almost half the value vanished at one point before recovering. Only 55 days drove 90% of returns, showing gains were clustered in a few powerful bursts. Past results are unusually strong and unlikely to repeat at the same pace, and they came with gut‑testing volatility.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection takes past volatility and returns, then runs 1,000 random “what‑if” futures to estimate a range of outcomes over 15 years. It’s like simulating many alternate timelines using the same dice you’ve rolled historically. The median result turns $1,000 into about $2,776, implying an annualized return around 8.3%, with a wide but mostly positive range of possibilities. Roughly 73% of simulations end with more than you started, but there’s still a real chance of disappointing outcomes or long flat stretches. These models are useful for planning, but they rely on historical patterns that might not hold, especially after an unusually strong decade for US mega‑cap growth.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class allocation is simple: 100% stocks, 0% bonds, cash, or alternatives. That aligns with an aggressive growth mindset and can be a good fit for long horizons where short‑term drops are tolerable. The trade‑off is that there’s no built‑in ballast when markets fall; everything is pulling in the same direction. Many broad benchmarks include a mix of stocks and other assets to dampen volatility. Here, risk and return are both turned up. The meaningful takeaway is that time horizon and emotional tolerance for big drawdowns are crucial; without them, an all‑equity stance can become hard to stick with right when discipline matters most.
Sectors
- Technology 47%
- Consumer Discretionary 19%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Health Care 5%
- Financials 4%
- Industrials 4%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is heavily skewed toward technology and related growth areas, which together make up nearly half the portfolio. Consumer‑oriented growth exposure is also substantial, while more defensive areas like consumer staples, utilities, and health care are relatively small. Compared with broad market baselines, this looks clearly growth‑tilted rather than balanced. Tech‑heavy allocations often benefit from innovation and scalability but can be hit hard when interest rates rise, regulations tighten, or sentiment shifts away from high‑growth stories. The upside is strong participation in long‑term growth themes; the trade‑off is sharper cycles and larger drawdowns when those themes fall out of favor.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely tied to North America, at roughly 99%. That’s not unusual for US‑based investors, and US markets have led global returns for much of the last decade, which helped historical performance. But it also means economic and currency risk are concentrated in one region. Many global benchmarks allocate closer to half or a bit more to the US, with sizeable exposure elsewhere. With such a strong home bias, outcomes will be deeply linked to how the US economy, policy, and corporate sector evolve. If the US continues to dominate, that’s a plus; if leadership rotates abroad, it may lag more diversified global mixes.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 68%
- Large-cap 22%
- Mid-cap 9%
Most holdings are mega‑ and large‑cap companies, with nearly 90% of the portfolio in the largest firms and only a modest slice in mid‑caps. These giants tend to have stronger balance sheets, global footprints, and more diversified revenue streams, which can reduce company‑specific risk versus smaller names. At the same time, they’re widely followed and already richly valued, so future growth might be steadier but slower than in smaller, more speculative stocks. Compared with a market‑wide blend, this skew toward mega‑caps means performance will be closely tied to a small group of headline companies that dominate major indices and financial news.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.04%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.77%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.76%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.68%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
- Top 10 total 61.85%
Looking through the ETFs, hidden concentration becomes clear. Amazon, NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, and Meta all show up both as direct holdings and inside SPY and QQQ, pushing total exposures in the mid‑teens for some names. For example, Amazon ends up around 14%, NVIDIA 13%, and Apple nearly 13% of overall exposure. Because we only see top‑10 ETF holdings, true overlap is probably a bit higher. This matters because a portfolio that looks diversified by ticker can still be heavily tied to a small group of companies. When those names do well, returns soar; when they struggle, everything tends to move down together.
Factors
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 a strong tilt toward “quality,” with a high score around 69%. Quality refers to characteristics like solid profitability, stable earnings, and healthier balance sheets; think of it as preferring sturdier businesses over fragile ones. That tendency can help during downturns, since higher‑quality firms often hold up better than speculative names. On the other side, the portfolio has low exposure to value, yield, size, and low volatility factors, meaning it leans away from cheaper, higher‑dividend, smaller, or more defensive stocks. This combination reinforces a growth‑biased profile: resilient, dominant businesses with strong fundamentals, but without the cushion of high income or bargain pricing.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 30.41% 30.1% -
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Weight: 32.10% 24.3% -
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 8.00% 14.2% -
Amazon.com Inc
Weight: 11.64% 13.7% -
Apple Inc
Weight: 8.36% 8.8% - Top 5 risk contribution 91.2%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s total ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. SPY and QQQ together are about 62% of capital but roughly 54% of risk, thanks to diversification inside them. NVIDIA, at just 8% weight, contributes over 14% of total risk, with a risk‑to‑weight ratio of 1.77, making it a major volatility driver. Amazon also punches above its weight. When a few positions provide a disproportionate share of risk, results become highly sensitive to those companies. Re‑sizing such holdings, even slightly, can materially change how wild the ride feels without necessarily changing the overall story of the portfolio.
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 compares risk (volatility) and return across different weightings of your existing holdings. Sharpe ratio is the yardstick here: it measures return per unit of risk above a risk‑free rate, like judging how much “speed” you get for each bump in the road. The current portfolio’s Sharpe of 0.87 sits below the optimal mix at 1.34 and about 6.4 percentage points under the efficient frontier at the same risk level. That means that, using the same building blocks, a different weighting could potentially improve the risk/return tradeoff. The minimum‑variance mix shows you could also dial risk down meaningfully while still earning a solid expected return.
Dividends
- Apple Inc 0.40%
- The Coca-Cola Company 2.70%
- Meta Platforms Inc. 0.30%
- Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust 0.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.55%
Dividend yield across the portfolio is low, around 0.55%, with only Coca‑Cola offering a noticeably higher payout. Most of the major holdings are growth‑oriented companies that reinvest profits instead of returning a lot of cash to shareholders. For an aggressive, total‑return‑focused approach, that can be perfectly fine: returns are expected to come mainly from price appreciation rather than income. It does mean this setup is not ideal for funding regular withdrawals or living expenses. If income becomes a goal later, adding more dividend‑oriented or higher‑yielding assets could change the profile, but for now this is a classic growth‑first design.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust 0.10%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.09%
Costs are a real bright spot. The ETFs charge 0.10% and 0.20% annually, and the blended total expense ratio (TER) lands around a very low 0.09%. TER is the ongoing fee paid to run a fund, taken out quietly in the background. That’s well below many active funds and in line with best practices for cost‑efficient investing. Over decades, saving even a few tenths of a percent per year can add up to thousands of dollars kept in your account instead of going to fees. This cost discipline is a genuine strength and provides a solid foundation for long‑term compounding.
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