An income focused low volatility portfolio with strong US tilt and room for further diversification

Report created on Mar 17, 2026

Risk profile Info

3/7
Cautious
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is built almost entirely from equity income vehicles, mixing ETFs and closed-end funds with a strong focus on dividends and option-premium strategies. About a fifth sits in a broad US dividend ETF, with sizable weights in option-writing funds and a couple of more concentrated active funds. Compared with a typical broad-market benchmark, this setup is much more income-oriented and slightly more complex structurally. That matters because equity income and options-based funds can behave differently from plain index funds, especially in sharp rallies or selloffs. To keep things aligned with a cautious risk profile, it can help to regularly check whether each position still fits the overall goal of steady income with controlled volatility rather than maximizing growth.

Growth Info

The historic performance numbers are strong for an income-tilted, cautious profile: a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) around 12% with a max drawdown under 15% is better-behaved than many all‑equity portfolios. CAGR is just the “average yearly speed” of growth over time, smoothing out bumps. The relatively mild drawdown suggests the low-volatility and option-income focus has helped reduce big hits during market stress. For context, a broad stock index often falls much more in major downturns. Still, past performance only shows how this mix handled previous environments. It is useful to view these results as evidence the approach has worked historically, while staying open to tweaks as markets and interest rates change.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo analysis uses 1,000 simulated paths based on historical volatility and returns to estimate future ranges of outcomes. Think of it as running many “what if” futures to see how often things end well or poorly, given past behavior. The results here are very optimistic: almost all simulations show positive returns, with a median outcome close to quintupling the portfolio and even the 5th percentile still above breakeven. That suggests a favorable risk/return profile, but it’s crucial to remember simulations rely on history and assumptions that may not hold in new regimes. Using these projections as a rough map rather than a promise, the key takeaway is that the current setup appears well-positioned for long‑term compounding under similar conditions.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    93%
  • Not classified
    4%
  • Cash
    2%

Asset‑class exposure is extremely equity‑heavy, with roughly 93% in stocks, a small slice in cash, and essentially no bonds. Relative to a typical cautious benchmark, this is more aggressive from a pure asset‑class standpoint, even though the holdings lean to low volatility and income. That matters because in deep equity bear markets, even defensive stocks can fall significantly, and the lack of bonds limits natural cushioning. The cash stake offers a tiny buffer but not a true stabilizer. For someone aligned with a cautious risk label, it can be helpful to consider whether introducing even a modest allocation to more stable assets fits the intended safety level, or whether income‑rich equities alone are sufficient given personal comfort with swings.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    17%
  • Financials
    13%
  • Industrials
    11%
  • Energy
    10%
  • Utilities
    10%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Consumer Staples
    9%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Telecommunications
    8%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%

Sector exposure is broad, covering most major areas, but clearly leans toward income‑friendly sectors like utilities, financials, energy, and defensive industries, with technology at the top. Compared with a standard broad equity benchmark, tech is somewhat lower and utilities, energy, and dividend‑oriented sectors are more prominent. This helps explain the portfolio’s relatively low drawdowns and strong yield, since these areas often pay higher dividends and can be more resilient in certain downturns. On the flip side, income-heavy sectors may lag during explosive growth or speculative phases led by high‑growth names. The current balance is well-aligned with a dividend and low‑volatility mindset; it’s worth occasionally checking that no single sector drifts to a level that would feel uncomfortable in a sector‑specific shock.

Regions Info

  • North America
    86%
  • Europe Developed
    10%
  • Japan
    1%
  • Asia Developed
    1%
  • Australasia
    1%

Geographically, the portfolio is strongly anchored in North America at around 86%, with modest exposure to developed Europe and tiny allocations to other regions. Compared with a global benchmark, this is a clear home‑country tilt toward the US, which has actually been beneficial over the last decade. This alignment with a US‑centric income strategy makes sense for a US‑based investor, especially when dividends and tax considerations come into play. The tradeoff is that outcomes become more tied to the US market’s fortunes, with less offsetting benefit from other regions if US stocks underperform for an extended stretch. Considering whether a slightly higher global allocation fits your comfort with diversification can be useful, but the current tilt is coherent and easy to understand.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    42%
  • Mega-cap
    24%
  • Mid-cap
    22%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

Market‑cap exposure is dominated by mega and large companies, with smaller allocations to mid‑caps and minimal small/micro‑cap exposure. Large and mega‑cap stocks are typically more stable, better researched, and more liquid, which fits nicely with a cautious, income‑driven style. They also tend to be the companies that can sustain consistent dividends and support option‑writing strategies. The downside is potentially less participation in periods when smaller companies lead the market. Overall, this profile is very much in line with conservative equity income practice and global norms. If you ever want a bit more growth potential, a controlled increase in mid‑cap exposure can add some dynamism without fully stepping into high‑volatility small‑cap territory.

True holdings Info

  • Microsoft Corp
    1.61%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund
    • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund
    • Reaves Utility IF
  • Apple Inc
    1.53%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Chevron Corp
    1.48%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Apple Inc
    1.34%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund
    • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund
    • Reaves Utility IF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.20%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund
    • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund
    • Reaves Utility IF
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    1.12%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund
    • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund
    • Reaves Utility IF
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
    1.01%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • PepsiCo Inc
    1.00%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Top 10 total 12.79%

The look‑through into underlying holdings shows familiar large names like Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, and Amazon appearing multiple times across different funds, but with modest overall exposure to each. Because only top‑10 ETF positions are used, true overlap is likely higher than reported. This overlap is important: owning the same stock through several funds can quietly concentrate risk, even if each position looks diversified on its own. Here, the largest single underlying exposures are still low single digits, which is comfortable. It’s useful to periodically review fund factsheets and top holdings beyond the top‑10 snapshot, just to confirm that concentration in a handful of mega‑cap names remains intentional and within your comfort zone.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Very high
Data availability: 33%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 15%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
No data
Data availability: 0%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Very high
Data availability: 82%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Very high
Data availability: 72%

Factor exposure shows strong tilts to low volatility, value, and yield, with solid momentum and modest size exposure. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” of investments—value means cheaper stocks, momentum means recent winners, low volatility means smoother price moves, and yield means higher income. This mix suggests the portfolio favors cheaper, steadier, and higher‑dividend names that have also had reasonable recent performance. In calm or income‑friendly markets, this combination can feel very comfortable, but it may lag when highly speculative growth dominates. Limited data on quality is a minor blind spot but the overall pattern matches an income and stability objective. Being aware that these tilts can underperform at times helps set expectations when markets temporarily favor very different styles.

Risk contribution Info

  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    21.0%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
    Weight: 12.00%
    13.5%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    Weight: 15.00%
    12.5%
  • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund
    Weight: 10.00%
    12.3%
  • Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF
    Weight: 12.00%
    10.5%
  • Top 5 risk contribution %

Risk contribution analysis highlights how much each holding adds to overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. Here, the largest broad dividend ETF contributes roughly in line with its size, while a couple of holdings, like the Nasdaq premium income ETF and the Gabelli fund, add slightly more risk than their weights suggest. The top three positions generate almost half the portfolio’s total risk, signaling moderate concentration but not extreme. This is normal for a focused but diversified set of funds. Periodic rebalancing—bringing positions back toward target weights—can help keep risk contributions aligned with intent, preventing one vehicle from quietly becoming the main driver of volatility or income just through market moves.

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.

Efficient Frontier analysis suggests the current mix is not fully “efficient” in risk‑versus‑return terms. The Efficient Frontier is a curve showing the best possible trade‑offs between risk (volatility) and expected return using only the existing building blocks. Here, a different blend of the same holdings could reach a higher expected return near 17% at roughly the same or slightly higher risk than now. Efficiency doesn’t judge diversification quality or income level directly; it just asks whether another combination of the same funds could give more return for each unit of risk. This is useful as a calibration tool: if income and comfort with risk are already on target, small allocation shifts, rather than big overhauls, might be all that’s needed.

Dividends Info

  • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund 8.20%
  • Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF 4.30%
  • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund 6.20%
  • iShares International Select Dividend ETF 4.60%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 8.30%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 10.70%
  • Franklin International Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF 4.60%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Reaves Utility IF 5.70%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 6.17%

This portfolio shines on income: the overall yield above 6% is high by equity standards, boosted by covered‑call strategies and higher‑yielding sectors. Dividends are cash payments from companies and funds, and here they form a major part of total return, not just a side benefit. High yield can be attractive for funding spending or reinvesting, but it sometimes comes with tradeoffs—capped upside from option selling, more exposure to mature industries, or sensitivity if payouts are cut in downturns. So far, historic performance suggests the balance between yield and growth has been favorable. Ongoing monitoring of payout sustainability, distribution policies, and whether income needs are being met without forcing excessive risk is key to keeping this strength intact.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund 0.59%
  • Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF 0.56%
  • Gabelli Dividend & Income Closed Fund 1.38%
  • iShares International Select Dividend ETF 0.51%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • Franklin International Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF 0.40%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Reaves Utility IF 2.23%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.64%

Total ongoing costs around 0.64% are quite reasonable for an active, income‑oriented mix combining ETFs and closed‑end funds. Some holdings are impressively cheap, especially the core dividend ETF, while a couple of active funds carry much higher expense ratios. Fees matter because they come off returns every year, like a constant headwind. Over decades, even a small difference in cost can meaningfully change the final outcome. Given the portfolio’s use of specialized option and active strategies, this overall cost level is very acceptable and supportive of long‑term performance. It’s still worth occasionally checking whether higher‑fee holdings are delivering enough unique value—through income, diversification, or downside behavior—to justify their place relative to lower‑cost alternatives.

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