Concentrated growth tilted equity portfolio with low costs and strong historic but high risk performance
Report created on Apr 10, 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
-
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 60.07% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 26.65% -
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc
AMD - US0079031078 9.18% -
GO Alphabet Inc Class A
GOOGL - US02079K3059 2.16% -
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA - US67066G1040 1.32% -
XO Exxon Mobil Corp
XOM - US30231G1022 0.62%
The portfolio is almost a textbook equity setup, with 100% in stocks and ETFs. Around 60% sits in a broad US total-market ETF, about 27% in a broad international ETF, and roughly 13% in individual stocks. Those single-stock bets are heavily tilted to big-name growth and chip companies, plus a small energy position. This structure means the “engine” is broad global equity exposure, while the satellites are high-octane growth names. That mix can meaningfully boost returns but also raises bumpiness. A general takeaway: the core is sensibly diversified, but the satellites add a clear growth-and-volatility kicker that pushes this toward the aggressive end of the spectrum.
Growth
Historically, performance has been exceptionally strong: a $1,000 investment grew to about $13,605, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 29.9%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip, smoothing out ups and downs to show how fast wealth grew. This easily beat both the US market (about 14.6% CAGR) and the global market (around 12.1%). The flip side is a very deep maximum drawdown of roughly -55%, compared with about -34% for the benchmarks. That’s a big emotional and financial test. Past performance can’t guarantee future results, but it shows this setup has historically traded much higher upside for much sharper downside.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation projects a range of possible 15‑year outcomes by remixing historical return and volatility patterns thousands of times. Think of it as running the portfolio’s past behavior through a weather simulator to see many plausible futures, not a single prediction. The median outcome grows $1,000 to around $2,744, with a wide “likely” band from about $1,826 to $4,105 and more extreme cases stretching beyond $7,000 or barely above $1,000. The average simulated annual return is a solid 8.1%. Still, simulations lean heavily on past data and assumptions, so real-world results can land outside these bands, especially if markets behave differently from the historical sample.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset-class exposure is simple: 100% in equities and 0% in bonds, cash-like assets, or alternatives. That all-stock stance lines up with an aggressive risk profile and maximizes long-term growth potential, since stocks historically beat safer assets over long horizons. The trade-off is bigger short-term swings and deeper drawdowns, especially during recessions or market panics. A setup like this works best when the time horizon is long and there’s flexibility to ride out multi-year downturns without needing to sell. For anyone needing more stability or near-term withdrawals, mixing in some lower-volatility assets is usually how people soften the ride.
Sectors
- Technology 33%
- Financials 13%
- Industrials 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, the portfolio leans heavily into technology, at about one-third of total exposure, with meaningful allocations to financials, industrials, telecom, consumer sectors, and health care. This tech tilt comes from both the broad ETFs and the concentrated chip and growth stocks on top. Tech-heavy portfolios tend to shine when innovation and growth are rewarded, but they can be hit hard when interest rates rise or when sentiment flips against high-growth names. The rest of the sectors are reasonably represented, which helps diversify economic drivers. Overall, the sector mix is broadly in line with modern equity benchmarks, just with a noticeable extra tilt toward tech-driven growth, which amplifies volatility.
Regions
- North America 75%
- Europe Developed 10%
- Japan 4%
- Asia Developed 4%
- Asia Emerging 4%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is strongly anchored in North America at about 75%, with the rest spread across developed and emerging markets in Europe, Asia, and other regions. That North America overweight is common for US-based investors and has been rewarded in recent years because US markets outperformed many others. Compared with global market weights, though, this does mean returns are heavily tied to one economy, one policy regime, and one currency. The global slice outside North America is still meaningful and helps diversify country and currency risk. Overall, it’s a US-heavy but globally aware setup, which is a reasonable alignment with broad equity standards.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 50%
- Large-cap 26%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 5%
- Micro-cap 1%
The market-cap breakdown shows a clear bias toward larger companies: about 50% mega-cap, 26% large-cap, and the rest in mid, small, and micro-caps. This looks quite similar to standard total-market indices, which naturally weight giants more because they’re worth more in the market. Big companies often bring more stability and better liquidity, while smaller firms can add growth potential and idiosyncratic risk. The small and micro slices are modest, so they add some spice without dominating behavior. Overall, this size exposure is comfortably market-like, which is a good sign for diversification and reduces the risk of being overly tied to thinly traded, highly volatile small names.
True holdings
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 3.54%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.65%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.83%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.37%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.30%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.28%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.03%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 31.02%
Looking through the ETFs, the largest underlying exposures include AMD, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and other mega-cap growth names. A key point is overlap: NVIDIA and Alphabet appear both as direct holdings and inside the ETFs. This creates “hidden” concentration where a company’s total exposure is much bigger than the direct position suggests. Because only ETF top-10 holdings are captured, this overlap is probably understated. Over time, such clustering around a handful of big growth names can magnify both gains and losses. A practical takeaway: when direct stocks echo what’s already in your index funds, diversification benefits drop, even if the headline number of holdings looks large.
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 exposures across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit in a neutral, market-like range. Factor exposure is basically how much the portfolio leans into certain characteristics that research has linked to returns, like buying cheap (value) or stable (low volatility) companies. Being close to 50% on each factor means no strong tilt toward or away from any of these styles. That’s effectively what broad market-cap-weighted indices are designed to do. The upside is that the portfolio isn’t making concentrated factor bets, so it’s less likely to be whipsawed by style rotations. The trade-off is less potential to outperform purely from smart-factor tilting alone.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 60.07% 54.3% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 26.65% 20.7% -
Advanced Micro Devices Inc
Weight: 9.18% 19.9% -
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 1.32% 2.4% -
Alphabet Inc Class A
Weight: 2.16% 2.3% - Top 5 risk contribution 99.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from its weight. Here, the US total-market ETF, international ETF, and AMD together make up roughly 95% of total risk. AMD is especially punchy: about 9% of the portfolio but almost 20% of the risk, with a risk/weight ratio above 2. That’s like one loud instrument dominating the orchestra. NVIDIA and Alphabet also punch above their weights, though to a lesser degree. This pattern is normal when you add concentrated growth stocks on top of diversified funds, but it’s worth knowing that AMD in particular is a major driver of the ride.
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 1.86 percentage points at its risk level. The efficient frontier represents the best expected return available for each risk level using just these holdings, with different weightings. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above the risk-free rate, is 0.76 for the current mix versus 1.35 for the optimal allocation. That suggests the same ingredients could be combined more efficiently without adding new assets. The minimum-variance version would lower risk but also expected return. Overall, the portfolio is decent but not fully optimized; some reweighting could improve the trade-off.
Dividends
- Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
- Exxon Mobil Corp 2.60%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.43%
The total dividend yield sits around 1.43%, with the international ETF and Exxon providing most of the income, while the growth names contribute little or nothing. Dividend yield is the cash payout you receive each year relative to the portfolio’s value, a bit like rent on your capital. This level is modest but perfectly consistent with a growth-oriented, tech-tilted equity mix. It suggests the focus is on price appreciation rather than income. For someone prioritizing cash flow today, such a yield might feel light, but for long-term accumulation, reinvesting these smaller dividends can still meaningfully boost compounding over time.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.03%
Costs are a real bright spot. The total expense ratio (TER) for the ETF portion is about 0.03%, which is extremely low and firmly in best-practice territory. TER is the annual fee charged by a fund, taken out of assets behind the scenes, similar to a tiny management toll. Keeping fees this low means more of each year’s return stays in the investor’s pocket instead of going to fund providers. Over decades, even small fee differences compound into meaningful dollar amounts. This cost structure is impressively efficient and fully aligned with evidence that low-cost investing supports better long-term outcomes.
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