Gold anchored income seeking portfolio with efficient risk balance and concentrated risk drivers
Report created on Apr 4, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
IA iShares Gold Trust
IAU - US4642852044 33.00% -
SP State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
SPYM - US78464A8541 33.00% -
QD Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
QDVO 17.00% -
IA NEOS Gold High Income ETF
IAUI 17.00%
The portfolio is split across four ETFs, with roughly one‑third in a broad US equity fund, one‑third in a gold ETF, and the rest in two high‑income strategies. That mix blends growth, income, and a sizable precious‑metal exposure. Structurally, this is fairly simple, which makes it easier to understand how the moving parts work together. The main thing to note is how big the gold slice is relative to typical balanced portfolios. With only about ten months of data, it’s hard to say if this balance will hold up over a full market cycle, but the structure clearly leans on gold as a core risk and return driver.
Growth
Over the short 10‑month window, $1,000 grew to about $1,227, implying a 28.44% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is like average speed on a road trip: it smooths the bumps into one yearly number. This return beat both the US and global equity benchmarks by a wide margin, but it came with a slightly deeper max drawdown at -12.88% versus around -9% for the benchmarks. Only nine days made up 90% of gains, showing returns were very lumpy. With less than a year of history, this strong outperformance could be mostly noise, so it’s risky to assume similar results going forward.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses the portfolio’s short return history to simulate 1,000 possible 15‑year paths, randomly shuffling and re‑mixing past ups and downs. It suggests a median outcome of about $1,710 from $1,000, but also a wide possible range from roughly $862 to $3,608. Monte Carlo is like running thousands of “what if” market scenarios based on historical patterns. Here, the average simulated annual return is 4.21%, with only 43.5% of simulations ending positive, which is surprisingly low for a growth‑oriented mix. Because this is all based on just ten months of data, these projections should be treated as a loose stress‑test, not a reliable roadmap.
Asset classes
- No data 50%
- Other 33%
- Stocks 17%
The asset‑class breakdown shows 17% clearly in stocks, 33% in “Other,” and 50% with no available classification. That missing data mostly reflects limited transparency from some holdings, not a flaw in the portfolio itself. Still, it means the apparent equity share is understated and the true mix is fuzzier than ideal. For diversification analysis, this limits how precisely one can judge the balance between growth assets and stabilizers. With such a short track record and partial look‑through data, any strong claim about how “balanced” the asset‑class mix really is would be overstated; it’s safer to view this as broadly diversified but somewhat opaque.
Sectors
- Technology 8%
- Telecommunications 3%
- Consumer Discretionary 2%
- Health Care 1%
- Consumer Staples 1%
- Financials 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
On the visible equity side, there’s a clear lean toward technology, which makes up about 8%, with smaller slices in telecom, consumer discretionary, health care, staples, and financials. That pattern looks broadly similar to major US equity benchmarks, where tech and communication names dominate the top holdings. Tech‑heavy exposure can boost returns when innovation and growth stocks are in favor, but it can also amplify drawdowns when interest rates rise or sentiment swings away from high‑growth names. Since this is only based on top‑10 ETF positions and less than a year of history, it’s best seen as a snapshot, not a fixed long‑term sector profile.
Regions
- North America 17%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographic data shows about 17% explicitly in North America, mainly via the US equity ETF, while the rest is either non‑equity or not classified. In practice, the visible stock exposure aligns with a US‑centric approach, which is common for investors based in the USA and typically matches major global benchmarks where the US dominates market weight. The benefit is access to deep, liquid markets and many leading global companies. The trade‑off is that, once hidden exposures are included, overall results may still be heavily tied to the US economy and dollar movements, though the large gold component can add a different kind of diversification.
Market capitalization
- No data 33%
- Mega-cap 11%
- Large-cap 4%
- Mid-cap 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
By market capitalization, the look‑through data shows most identified equities in mega‑ and large‑cap names, with 11% mega‑cap, 4% large‑cap, and a small 1% mid‑cap slice; 33% has no market‑cap data. Mega‑caps tend to be more stable and widely followed, which can reduce idiosyncratic risk compared with smaller companies, though they still move with broader market moods. This pattern is very much in line with typical index‑based investing that mirrors major benchmarks. Given the limited history and partial coverage, it’s fair to say the equity portion is anchored in big, established companies rather than more speculative small‑cap bets.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.25%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 3.79%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
AA Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF 3.30%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Gold High Income ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.01%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.39%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.07%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.50%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.49%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.29%
Part of fund(s):- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.81%
Part of fund(s):- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
- Top 10 total 23.91%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, exposure is tilted toward a handful of mega‑cap US names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta. Several appear across multiple funds, which quietly increases concentration even though each ETF looks diversified on its own. For example, NVIDIA and Apple together already account for over 8% of look‑through exposure in just the small slice that’s visible. Because only ETF top‑10 positions are used, true overlap is likely higher than shown. The takeaway: headline diversification across four ETFs still hides a meaningful reliance on a small cluster of big tech and growth leaders.
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 exposure shows a very low tilt to Size (meaning a strong lean toward larger companies) and high tilts to Momentum and Low Volatility. Factors are like investing “ingredients” — characteristics such as recent performance (momentum) or price stability (low vol) that research links to returns. A high momentum tilt can do well when trends persist, but it may suffer in sharp reversals. High low‑vol exposure often cushions downside in choppy markets but can lag in aggressive rallies. With value appearing low, the portfolio seems more growth‑oriented than bargain‑focused. Given the short data window, these tilts could shift over time, but right now it behaves more like a quality‑growth, trend‑following mix with a big‑cap bias.
Risk contribution
-
iShares Gold Trust
Weight: 33.00% 56.5% -
NEOS Gold High Income ETF
Weight: 17.00% 21.7% -
State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
Weight: 33.00% 14.5% -
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
Weight: 17.00% 7.3%
Risk contribution shows that the gold ETF, at 33% weight, is responsible for a striking 56.5% of total portfolio volatility, giving it a risk‑to‑weight ratio of 1.71. In other words, gold is the loudest instrument in this orchestra. The NEOS gold income ETF adds another 21.74% of risk from a 17% weight, so gold‑related assets together dominate overall ups and downs. Meanwhile, the broad S&P 500 ETF and the growth & income ETF contribute far less risk than their weights suggest. When a single theme drives most volatility, returns can swing heavily with that asset’s cycles. Regular check‑ins on position sizing can help keep risk aligned with comfort levels, especially as more long‑term data comes in.
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 on or very close to the efficient frontier, meaning that for its level of volatility, it’s delivering near‑optimal expected return using the existing holdings. The Sharpe ratio of 1.53 — which measures return per unit of risk above the risk‑free rate — is solid and not far below the 1.77 of the mathematically “optimal” mix. The minimum‑variance version would cut risk but also reduce expected returns. Since the current allocation is already very efficient, any future tweaks would be more about adjusting comfort with volatility or gold exposure than fixing a structural problem. Just remember this efficiency is judged on less than a year of data, so it may look different over longer periods.
Dividends
- Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF 11.10%
- NEOS Gold High Income ETF 10.00%
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 3.95%
Two holdings have very high stated yields: about 11.1% for the growth & income ETF and 10% for the gold high‑income ETF, while the S&P 500 ETF yields a more modest 1.1%. Overall, the portfolio yield of roughly 3.95% is quite solid for a balanced risk profile. Dividends and income distributions can smooth returns and provide cash flow without needing to sell holdings. The flip side is that unusually high yields sometimes come with more complex strategies or higher underlying risk. Because the data window is so short, it’s unclear how stable these payout levels are over full market cycles, so it’s wise to view current yields as potentially variable, not guaranteed.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Gold Trust 0.25%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%
The disclosed ongoing charge for the gold ETF is 0.25%, and the blended portfolio expense (Total TER) is an impressively low 0.08%. TER, or Total Expense Ratio, is the annual fee charged by funds, taken directly out of performance. Low costs are one of the few things investors can control and they compound in your favor over time, like a small but persistent tailwind. Being near or below typical index‑fund pricing is a strong positive: it means more of the portfolio’s gross return ends up in your pocket. Especially given the relatively complex underlying exposures, keeping fees this lean is a real structural strength.
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