Highly concentrated tech growth portfolio with strong past returns and meaningful single stock exposure
Report created on May 4, 2024Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 53.60% -
ME Meta Platforms Inc.
META - US30303M1027 27.10% -
LD Leidos Holdings Inc
LDOS - US5253271028 5.60% -
SN Synopsys Inc
SNPS - US8716071076 4.70% -
TS Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
TSM - US8740391003 4.60% -
CR Crowdstrike Holdings Inc
CRWD - US22788C1053 4.40%
The portfolio is extremely focused: over half in a single tech-heavy ETF and nearly a third in one individual company, with the rest in four additional growth-oriented stocks. This creates a tight cluster of holdings rather than a broad mix. Structure matters because it shapes how the portfolio reacts to news, interest rates, and market swings. When a few positions dominate, their fortunes largely decide overall results. The main takeaway is that this setup behaves more like a concentrated growth stock basket than a diversified core portfolio, so it fits best as an aggressive growth sleeve rather than a stand‑alone all‑weather allocation.
Growth
Historically, performance has been outstanding: $1,000 grew to about $3,537, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 20.5%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing ups and downs. This clearly beat both a broad US market and a global market index by a wide margin. The tradeoff is a max drawdown around -44%, meaning at one point the portfolio was almost half off its peak. That level of decline can be emotionally tough. The evidence shows strong reward for higher risk so far, but it’s crucial to remember past returns, especially from tech-led years, don’t guarantee future results.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All holdings are in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. A 100% equity allocation maximizes exposure to company growth and stock market upside, which fits a growth-oriented mindset. However, it also removes the natural shock absorbers that safer assets can provide during downturns. Historically, mixed portfolios with some defensive assets experience smaller drawdowns and smoother ride, at the cost of lower long‑term expected returns. Here, the takeaway is clear: this structure is built for maximum equity growth potential, but anyone using a setup like this would typically pair it with separate safer assets if they need stability or near‑term liquidity.
Sectors
- Technology 47%
- Telecommunications 36%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Health Care 3%
- Industrials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector exposure is heavily tilted toward technology and communication‑related businesses, together making up more than four‑fifths of the portfolio. That’s far above broad market norms, where no single sector usually dominates to this degree. Smaller slices in consumer areas, health care, industrials, and other sectors help a bit but don’t change the story: this is a tech-and-digital‑platform dominated mix. Such portfolios often shine when innovation and growth narratives are in favor but can be very sensitive to interest rates, regulation, and shifts in investor sentiment away from “growth at any price.” This concentrated sector bet is a key driver of both the strong history and potential future volatility.
Regions
- North America 94%
- Asia Emerging 5%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is overwhelmingly tied to North America, with only small exposure to Asia and Europe. That means results depend heavily on the fortunes of US-based companies and the US economic and policy environment. Many large US firms are globally diversified in their revenues, which softens this somewhat, but stock performance still tends to move with the home market. Common global benchmarks often split more evenly between US and non‑US regions, so this represents a deliberate tilt rather than a neutral stance. The benefit is aligning with a market that has led in recent years; the risk is less cushion if US equities experience a long period of underperformance.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 61%
- Large-cap 33%
- Mid-cap 6%
Market capitalization exposure skews strongly toward mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, with only a small mid‑cap slice and essentially no small caps. Large and mega companies often have more stable businesses, deeper liquidity, and more analyst coverage, which can reduce some stock‑specific risk. At the same time, skipping smaller companies means missing an area that historically has offered higher, though bumpier, return potential. The mix here lines up fairly well with typical growth indices that emphasize big, dominant platforms and chipmakers. For someone seeking aggressive growth, relying on the innovative giants rather than riskier small firms can be a reasonable way to take equity risk without venturing too far into very illiquid territory.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.59%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
-
AA Apple Inc 3.97%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.43%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.04%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Top 10 total 64.40%
Looking through the ETF into its top holdings shows that several mega-cap names sit on top of already concentrated direct positions. Meta appears both as a large single stock and inside the ETF, pushing total exposure to roughly 29%, which is a classic example of hidden overlap. Other giants like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Tesla show up only via the ETF but still form a meaningful chunk. Overlap matters because it quietly magnifies exposure to specific companies and themes, even when they are held through different “wrappers.” The takeaway: risk is more concentrated in a handful of big tech names than the simple weight list suggests.
Factors
Factor exposure shows a very low score on value and low exposure to yield, which is notable. Factor investing looks at traits like “cheap vs. expensive” (value) or “steady dividend payer” (yield) that research links to long‑run returns. A very low value score means the holdings lean toward higher‑priced, growth-oriented companies rather than bargains based on earnings or assets. Low yield signals little emphasis on income-generating stocks. This mix usually benefits when investors are excited about growth and willing to pay up, but it can struggle when markets rotate toward cheaper, more defensive names. Anyone comfortable with this tilt should recognize it’s a bet on growth style continuing to lead.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 53.60% 46.0% -
Meta Platforms Inc.
Weight: 27.10% 37.2% -
Crowdstrike Holdings Inc
Weight: 4.40% 5.3% -
Synopsys Inc
Weight: 4.70% 4.9% -
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Weight: 4.60% 4.3% - Top 5 risk contribution 97.6%
Risk contribution reveals how much each position actually drives portfolio ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. Here, the top three holdings account for almost 90% of total risk, even though they are a bit less than that in weight. Meta especially stands out: around 27% of the portfolio yet over 37% of the risk, showing it punches above its size. That’s like one loud instrument dominating an orchestra. When a single stock has that profile, its earnings reports, regulatory headlines, and sentiment swings can heavily sway the entire portfolio. Adjusting position sizes is the main lever if someone wants to dial how much any one name can move the needle.
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, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.8 compared to 1.15 for the optimal mix using the same holdings. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of volatility, like miles per gallon for risk. Being about 8 percentage points below the frontier at this risk level means the same set of securities could be combined differently to target either higher expected return for the same risk or similar return with less volatility. That’s encouraging, because it suggests room for improvement through reweighting rather than needing new products. Even small shifts away from the most dominant positions could move this closer to the efficient frontier.
Dividends
- Leidos Holdings Inc 0.80%
- Meta Platforms Inc. 0.40%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 0.70%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.45%
Dividend yield across the portfolio is modest, around 0.45%, with most names either paying small dividends or being more focused on reinvesting cash into growth. Yield is simply the annual dividends divided by current price, like rental income from a property. Low yield is typical for high-growth, tech‑heavy collections where companies prioritize expansion, buybacks, or R&D over large cash payouts. The implication is that total return will mainly come from price movement, not steady income. For someone more interested in long‑term capital appreciation than cash flow, this alignment is actually quite sensible, but it makes the portfolio less suitable for funding near‑term spending needs.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%
Costs are impressively low, with the main ETF charging a 0.20% total expense ratio (TER) and the blended TER across the portfolio at roughly 0.11%. TER is the annual fee taken by funds to cover management and operations. Low costs matter because they quietly improve net returns year after year; money not spent on fees stays invested and compounds. This fee profile lines up well with best practices and common benchmark levels, which is a real strength here. Even though individual stocks have no ongoing management fee, using a low‑cost ETF for broad exposure keeps the overall structure efficient from a cost perspective.
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