Confident overachiever portfolio that still manages to trip over its own diversification shoelaces
Report created on Apr 11, 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
-
AV Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
AVUV - US0250728773 15.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 15.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 15.00% -
FC Fidelity Contrafund
FCNTX - US3160711095 12.50% -
FS Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
FSKAX - US3159116934 12.50% -
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 12.50% -
SC Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 12.50% -
FS Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio
FSELX - US3163908631 5.00%
Structurally this thing is eight flavors of “mostly US stocks” pretending to be a grand strategy. You’ve got a total US market fund, an S&P 500 clone, a large-cap growth ETF, a giant dividend ETF, plus a big active growth fund, all stomping around the same sandbox. Then you bolt on small-cap value, international, and a semiconductor rocket at the end like decoration. It’s basically three different ways to own the same big US names, with a couple of spicy side bets. The takeaway: you’re diversified in logo count, not in underlying exposure. Cleaning up redundancy alone could make this look way more intentional and less “ETF hoarder.”
Growth
Performance-wise, the portfolio has been flexing pretty hard: $1,000 turning into $2,761 with a 16.87% CAGR. That beats both the US market and global market by a meaningful margin, with only slightly worse drawdown than the benchmarks during COVID (-34.75% vs ~-33%). CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is basically your “average speed” over the whole ride, and this ride has been fast. But past data is yesterday’s weather: it tells you what worked in a decade where US growth and semis were gods. The takeaway: enjoy the win, but don’t assume the market will keep handing out extra credit for the same bets.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection is the buzzkill friend at the party. It runs 1,000 random alternate histories to see where $1,000 might land in 15 years, and the “most likely” outcome is $2,665 — way less heroic than your backward-looking 16.87% CAGR suggests. There’s a 71.7% chance you end up ahead, but also a non-trivial chance you end up roughly flat in real terms after inflation and taxes. The spread from $975 to $7,596 shows just how wide the possible paths are. Takeaway: the future math says “solid but not guaranteed fireworks,” which is exactly what you should expect from a growth-heavy stock pile.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
- Other 1%
Asset class breakdown: 99% stocks, 1% “other,” basically zero chill. This is not a portfolio; this is an opinion about the world: “equities forever, everything else is for cowards.” For a growth profile that can be fine, but it means when stocks sneeze, this thing gets pneumonia. No bonds, no meaningful diversifiers, just pure equity beta all the time. That explains both the great historical returns and the -34.75% faceplant in early 2020. The takeaway: this setup assumes long time horizon and strong stomach; anyone expecting smooth sailing is in the wrong movie.
Sectors
- Technology 27%
- Financials 14%
- Industrials 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Energy 7%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Consumer Discretionary 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, you’re running a tech-tilted popularity contest with a bonus chip bet on semiconductors. Technology at 27% is the largest slice, and then you add a dedicated semiconductor fund on top, just to be extra. Financials, industrials, healthcare, energy, and consumer names show up respectably, so it’s not a one-trick pony, but the pony is definitely wearing a chip-helmet. The risk is obvious: when the tech/semis love affair cools, your performance can go from genius to “why is everything red” very quickly. Takeaway: if you load up on the same economic engine, expect your portfolio mood to follow that engine’s boom-and-bust cycle.
Regions
- North America 84%
- Europe Developed 6%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Japan 2%
- Asia Emerging 2%
- Australasia 1%
- Latin America 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
Geographically, this is “USA with a side salad.” North America at 84% dominates, with the rest of the planet getting table scraps: low single digits to Europe, Japan, developed/EM Asia, Latin America, Africa/Middle East. It’s the classic home bias: investing like the rest of the world is just background scenery. That worked beautifully in a decade when US dominance was the main show, but it leaves you exposed if leadership rotates elsewhere. The takeaway: this isn’t truly global — it’s America-first with a guilt-trip allocation to everywhere else.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 35%
- Large-cap 31%
- Mid-cap 14%
- Small-cap 10%
- Micro-cap 7%
Market cap mix is actually one of the more sensible parts: 35% mega-cap, 31% large, then a decent spread into mid (14%), small (10%), and even micro (7%). That’s like someone wanted a broad mix, then still couldn’t resist throwing in extra small-cap value for spice. The result is a mild tilt toward the very large and the very small, with not much crime in the middle. The risk: smaller caps add volatility and can lag for painfully long stretches. The payoff: they can also be growth engines when their cycle is in favor. Overall, this is one of your more balanced decisions.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 1.46%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 1.29%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 0.94%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 0.70%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
CV Chevron Corp 0.66%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
CO ConocoPhillips 0.64%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
MR Merck & Company Inc 0.62%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
KO The Coca-Cola Company 0.61%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
TX Texas Instruments Incorporated 0.61%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
UN UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 0.60%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 8.14%
The look-through holdings scream “I love mega-cap US winners and I will own them in every wrapper possible.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, big energy names, healthcare staples — all showing up via multiple funds despite only using ETF top-10s. And that coverage is just 16.3% of the portfolio, so the true overlap is almost certainly higher. This is how people end up thinking they own a broad mix, when in reality they’re just paying several different fund managers to pile into the same celebrities. The takeaway: if the same handful of names appear everywhere, you’re not diversified, you’re just buying the same story with extra steps.
Factors
Factor exposure is hilariously normal for a portfolio that looks this noisy on the surface. Value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit in the “neutral” zone — basically market-like. Factor exposure is like the ingredient label for your returns, and here it’s saying “mostly standard recipe, nothing weird added.” So despite the extra small-cap value, semis, growth, and dividends, the net effect cancels out into something pretty middle-of-the-road. Takeaway: this setup isn’t secretly some extreme factor science experiment; it should behave broadly like the overall equity market, just with a US and tech-ish lean.
Risk contribution
-
Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
Weight: 15.00% 17.9% -
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 12.50% 13.6% -
Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
Weight: 12.50% 12.3% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 15.00% 12.2% -
Fidelity Contrafund
Weight: 12.50% 12.1% - Top 5 risk contribution 68.2%
Risk contribution reveals who’s actually rocking the boat, and your small-cap value fund is definitely splashing: 15% weight but almost 18% of total risk. That’s more than its fair share of drama. The large-cap growth ETF and total market fund also pull slightly more than their weight, while international is oddly chill — 15% weight but only ~12% of risk. Risk contribution is basically asking, “Who’s shaking this thing when the ride gets bumpy?” The takeaway: trimming the loudest risk hogs (small-cap value and aggressive growth sleeves) would calm things down far more than their weights alone suggest.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationFidelity ContrafundSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
High correlationFidelity 500 Index FundFidelity Total Market Index Fund
Your high-correlation pairs are like buying two nearly identical hoodies in different colors and calling it variety. Fidelity Contrafund and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth move almost the same, as do Fidelity Total Market and Fidelity 500. Correlation just means they dance to the same music, so when one zigs, the other usually zigs too. That’s fine if you truly love that style, but it destroys the illusion of diversification. You’re layering redundant vehicles over the same core exposures. The takeaway: holding both of each pair is mostly psychological comfort, not actual risk spreading.
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, your portfolio sits 2.34 percentage points below the efficient frontier, which is finance-speak for “you’re not getting paid as much as you could for the risk you’re taking.” The Sharpe ratio of 0.65 trails both the maximum Sharpe portfolio (0.98) and even the minimum variance one (0.67). The efficient frontier says: with the exact same ingredients, just different portions, you could get a smoother or more rewarding ride. Takeaway: this isn’t a disaster, but it is leaving performance on the table — like ordering a great meal and then eating it with boxing gloves on.
Dividends
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.30%
- Fidelity Contrafund 4.70%
- Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio 6.90%
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 1.00%
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.90%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 2.34%
Yield at 2.34% is a middle-ground “I like income but I also like growth” vibe. The dedicated dividend ETF helps, but then you go and pair it with growth-heavy funds yielding almost nothing, and a semiconductor fund that looks more like a speculative rocket than an income play. Weirdest bit: the listed yields for some funds look oddly high versus what they usually pay, so take them as rough signals, not gospel. Dividends can smooth the ride emotionally, but here they’re more of a side quest than the main storyline. Takeaway: this is a growth portfolio that happens to throw off some cash, not an income machine.
Ongoing product costs
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
- Fidelity Contrafund 0.74%
- Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio 0.62%
- Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.02%
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.19%
Cost-wise, you’re at a blended TER of 0.19%, which is impressively reasonable given you insisted on sprinkling in pricey active funds. The index pieces are dirt cheap — 0.02–0.06% — while Contrafund (0.74%) and the semiconductor fund (0.62%) show up like the friends who never pay for gas. That those two don’t completely wreck your cost structure is a small miracle of weighting. Still, you’re paying active-level fees mostly to own the same mega-cap darlings already in your indexes. Takeaway: costs are under control, but you’re not exactly squeezing maximum value out of every expensive fund.
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