High octane stock heroes with a gold side quest and a serious future reality check
Report created on Aug 16, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
SC Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 35.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 30.00% -
CO Costco Wholesale Corp
COST - US22160K1051 10.00% -
GL SPDR® Gold Shares
GLD - US78463V1070 10.00% -
TS Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
TSM - US8740391003 10.00% -
LT Lantronix Inc
LTRX - US5165482036 5.00%
This portfolio looks like someone mashed “US growth fund,” “world fund,” and three pet stocks together then threw in a gold brick for vibes. Over three quarters of the risk is effectively riding on one US growth ETF plus two single names, so the “broadly diversified” label is generous at best. The structure screams stock‑picking ego layered on top of vanilla ETFs, which is how you end up diversified on paper but concentrated where it actually matters. The 10% gold chunk is the oddball wildcard: it doesn’t fit the growth theme and doesn’t talk to the rest of the portfolio, it just quietly squats there. Overall, this is more “barbell of convictions and indices” than clean, intentional design.
Growth
Historically, this thing absolutely cooked: 19% CAGR since 2016 versus 15.3% for the US market and 12.6% globally. Turning $1,000 into $5,660 is elite-level bragging rights. But the ride wasn’t free: a -34% drawdown, pretty much matching the benchmarks’ worst pain, and it took 15 months just to crawl back to the prior peak. That’s the cost of chasing growth — higher highs, but the same sickening stomach drop on the way down. Also, 90% of returns came from just 48 days, which means missing a handful of good days turns hero performance into something very average very fast. Past data is more highlight reel than rulebook.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation takes that glorious history, adds some realism, and basically says, “Calm down.” Instead of 19% a year, the median simulated outcome over 15 years is closer to 7.4% — turning $1,000 into about $2,584. Monte Carlo is just running thousands of what‑if market paths based on volatility and return assumptions, then showing the spread. The possible outcomes range from “barely beat cash” to “nice win,” with a 5–95% band of $962 to $6,566. Translation: history says superhero, probability says solid but mortal. It’s a reminder that backtests are the Instagram filter version of reality, and the future will not be that smooth or that kind forever.
Asset classes
- Stocks 90%
- Other 10%
Asset class breakdown is basically: stocks, stocks, more stocks, and a gold side order. With 90% in equities and 10% in “other” (gold), this is unapologetically chasing growth with almost zero built‑in dampening mechanism. No bonds, no cash buffer, no defensive ballast; when markets swing, this thing is fully strapped into the roller coaster. The gold slice tries to cosplay as a hedge, but at 10% it’s more like a mood stabilizer than actual risk control. Heavy equity portfolios can absolutely pay off, but they also expect the investor to sit quietly through the drama. Structurally, this is closer to an all‑in bet than a balanced setup, whatever the risk score might pretend.
Sectors
- Technology 38%
- Consumer Staples 12%
- Financials 9%
- Industrials 7%
- Consumer Discretionary 6%
- Telecommunications 6%
- Health Care 5%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Energy 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector-wise, this portfolio clearly worships the tech-and-growth altar: 38% in technology and another big chunk in economically sensitive areas, with the more boring, defensive stuff shoved into tiny allocations. It’s like building a band out of lead guitarists and hype men, then throwing a single bass player in the corner and hoping nobody notices. Consumer staples and health care exist, but they’re supporting characters, not the plot. That kind of tilt works wonders when innovation is in fashion, but it makes the portfolio very mood-dependent on growth sentiment and risk appetite. Compared to more balanced indexes, this is a lot less “economy” and a lot more “Silicon Valley plus friends.”
Regions
- North America 52%
- Asia Emerging 14%
- Europe Developed 11%
- Asia Developed 6%
- Japan 5%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, this is reasonably global but still very “US on home screen, rest of world in a folder.” About 52% sits in North America, with the rest scattered across emerging Asia, Europe, and other regions through the international ETF and TSMC. To be fair, that’s actually more international than many US-centric portfolios, which basically never leave their own zipcode. Here, the non‑US slice is big enough to matter but not big enough to define the behavior, so the portfolio will still largely move in sync with US sentiment. The global exposure helps, but it’s more seasoning than core cuisine, and the US remains the main character in this story.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 54%
- Large-cap 19%
- No data 10%
- Mid-cap 10%
- Small-cap 7%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
On market cap, this is very much a “big kids’ table” setup: 54% mega-cap and another 19% large-cap. Mid and small caps together barely scrape 17%, with a little “no data” mystery bucket on top. That means the portfolio is leaning heavily on companies so big they practically are the market. It’s safe in a popularity-contest kind of way, but also means a lot of the upside potential is tied to names that already won. Small caps aren’t absent, just under-represented, so the overall behavior will echo the big indices more than a true all‑cap mix. This isn’t nimble; it’s a cargo ship with a few speedboats tied to it.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 3.79%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
AA Apple Inc. 3.12%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.56%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.79%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.41%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.29%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1.27%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 40.23%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
The look-through holdings show the usual suspects running the show: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom — the standard growth mega‑cap Avengers assembled via ETFs. On top of that, Costco and TSMC show up again as direct positions, while TSMC also sneaks in indirectly through funds. That double-dipping means hidden concentration: you’re not just betting 10% on TSMC; you’ve quietly layered extra exposure via ETFs. Coverage is only 47.2% because we’re only seeing ETF top 10s, so overlap is almost certainly higher under the hood. So while it looks diversified across tickers, the real story is a handful of big names quietly hogging the driver’s seat.
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-wise, the portfolio is suspiciously normal for something this growth-tilted. Value, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility — everything sits basically around neutral, meaning it behaves a lot like the broader market factor mix despite the louder tech themes. Size is mildly tilted away from smaller companies, which fits the mega-cap dominance. Factor exposure is like checking the ingredient list, and here it’s mostly, “Yep, standard market recipe with a bit of extra large‑cap seasoning.” Nothing screams “hyper‑speculative” or “deep value masochist.” Honestly, this profile is almost too clean for how spicy the holdings look, which probably reflects how mega‑cap growth has taken over the benchmarks themselves.
Risk contribution
-
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 35.00% 40.2% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 30.00% 25.9% -
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Weight: 10.00% 15.1% -
Lantronix Inc
Weight: 5.00% 9.3% -
Costco Wholesale Corp
Weight: 10.00% 7.1% - Top 5 risk contribution 97.6%
Risk contribution makes the power dynamics clear: the Schwab US large‑cap growth ETF plus TSMC plus Lantronix together shoulder over 80% of total portfolio risk. That 35% growth ETF is doing 40% of the risk lifting, TSMC’s 10% weight is punching up to 15% of risk, and Lantronix at 5% contributes more than 9%. Lantronix especially is a tiny seat at the table with a very loud voice. Costco, even at 10%, is relatively chill at only 7% of risk. This is the classic case where headline weights massively understate who’s actually shaking the portfolio day‑to‑day. On paper it’s six holdings; in volatility terms, it’s basically three and some background noise.
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 efficient frontier, this portfolio is leaving a surprising amount of free lunch on the table. At 17.5% volatility, it’s earning an 18.8% expected return with a Sharpe of 0.84. But using just the existing ingredients, a different mix could theoretically get about 22.7% return with *less* risk and a Sharpe of 1.34. That’s a big gap — 5.4 percentage points below the frontier at the current risk level is like running a sports car in first gear on the highway. Even the minimum-variance version beats the current one on risk-adjusted terms. Same holdings, better arrangement; the inefficiency here isn’t what’s owned, it’s how loudly each piece is turned up.
Dividends
- Costco Wholesale Corp 0.60%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 0.70%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.50%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.02%
Dividends here are basically a rounding error. A portfolio yield of about 1.0% is what you get when you stuff the mix with growth names that promise future expansion instead of current cash. Vanguard’s international fund is doing most of the income work at 2.5%, while the US growth fund and individual stocks spit out token amounts. This isn’t inherently bad — it just means returns are almost entirely dependent on price appreciation, not steady checks showing up along the way. For anyone hoping this mix quietly pays you to exist, it doesn’t; this is more “hold on and hope the line goes up over time” than “collect cash while you wait.”
Ongoing product costs
- SPDR® Gold Shares 0.40%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.07%
Costs are probably the one area where this portfolio isn’t sabotaging itself. A total expense ratio around 0.07% is impressively low, helped by dirt‑cheap core ETFs. Even the gold ETF, at 0.40%, is expensive relative to the others but not outrageous for that niche. This is very much “economy pricing with business class ambitions,” and for once that’s a compliment. Fees are the one variable you actually control, and here they’re clearly not the villain. If performance ever disappoints, it won’t be because of hidden cost drag; it’ll be entirely due to the risk choices, concentration, and style tilts baked into the mix.
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