Growth focused US equity portfolio using options income and leverage for higher yield and returns

Report created on Mar 18, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This is a concentrated US stock portfolio built entirely with equity ETFs, plus a small cash buffer. Around half the money sits in broad S&P 500 exposure, layered with growth and value tilts, while a sizable slice goes into high‑income option‑based ETFs. A meaningful 14% allocation to a leveraged S&P 500 fund adds extra punch. Structurally, this is a growth‑oriented setup with an income twist rather than a traditional balanced mix. That matters because returns and risks will mostly track the US stock market, amplified by leverage and options strategies. Anyone using a structure like this should be comfortable with stock‑market style swings and treat it as a long‑term growth engine, not a low‑volatility core holding.

Growth Info

Historically, the portfolio shows a very strong compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19.73%, meaning the money grew roughly 20% per year on average. That’s far above long‑run numbers for broad US or global stock benchmarks, which is impressive but likely helped by a favorable recent period for US growth and tech. The max drawdown of about −24% is actually moderate for such a return profile, suggesting gains have come without an extreme worst‑case drop so far. Only 10 days made up 90% of total returns, a reminder that missing a few big up days can massively hurt outcomes. Past performance is no guarantee, though, and such high CAGRs are hard to sustain indefinitely, especially with leverage involved.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo analysis runs 1,000 simulated future paths based on historical return and volatility patterns, a bit like replaying the past with random shuffles. It shows a very wide range of outcomes: at the 5th percentile, the value grows to about 153.5% of today, while the median ballooning to around 1,019% and higher percentiles even more. The average simulated annual return of 21.81% is extremely high, reflecting the leveraged and equity‑heavy profile. But simulations lean heavily on past data, which might not repeat, especially if markets or interest rates shift. The main lesson is that this setup has huge upside potential but also a broad uncertainty band, so results could be much lower than the optimistic median in a rougher future market environment.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    94%
  • Cash
    6%

Asset‑class exposure is very straightforward: about 94% in stocks, 6% in cash, and effectively nothing in bonds or alternatives. That stock‑heavy mix aligns with a clear growth profile and fits a “Profile_Growth” risk classification. The upside is strong participation when equities rally; the downside is limited cushioning when stocks sell off, since there are no bonds or defensive alternatives to soften the blow. Compared to more traditional balanced portfolios that might hold 30–40% in bonds, this is aggressively tilted to equity risk. The small cash slice offers only minimal protection. Anyone using a similar structure might consider how they’d feel in a multi‑year bear market and whether additional defensive assets elsewhere in their overall finances help balance this risk.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    36%
  • Telecommunications
    12%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    11%
  • Financials
    10%
  • Health Care
    8%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Energy
    3%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector exposure is clearly tilted: technology leads at 36%, followed by communication services at 12% and consumer cyclicals at 11%. Financials, healthcare, and industrials offer decent secondary exposure, while areas like energy, utilities, materials, and real estate sit in the low single digits. This tech‑and‑growth lean has been very rewarding in the past decade, especially during low‑rate, innovation‑driven periods, and the sector mix broadly resembles major US large‑cap benchmarks but with a bit more tech emphasis. The trade‑off is higher sensitivity to interest rates, regulation, and sentiment around big tech and digital platforms. In an environment where value, defensives, or commodity‑linked sectors lead, this kind of sector tilt could lag broader, more evenly spread equity allocations.

Regions Info

  • North America
    99%
  • Europe Developed
    1%

Geographically, the portfolio is almost pure North America, with about 99% in that region and only a token allocation to developed Europe. There is effectively no exposure to emerging markets or other developed regions like Japan or the broader Asia‑Pacific. This setup is very much in line with a US‑centric approach and somewhat resembles many domestic investors’ “home bias,” where they heavily favor their local market. That focus has been beneficial over the last decade, given US outperformance. However, global equity benchmarks usually spread more across other regions, so there’s missed diversification if non‑US markets go through a strong cycle. A strong US tilt is fine if intentional, but it does mean portfolio outcomes hinge largely on the health of the American economy and markets.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    44%
  • Large-cap
    30%
  • Mid-cap
    14%
  • Small-cap
    3%
  • Micro-cap
    3%

By market capitalization, the portfolio leans heavily into mega and large caps, with about 44% in mega‑caps and 30% in big caps. Mid‑caps sit around 14%, while small and micro caps are each about 3%, meaning truly smaller companies play only a minor role. This structure closely mirrors major US indexes, which are also dominated by the largest companies. The benefit is exposure to highly liquid, globally dominant businesses, which can provide stability and scalability. The trade‑off is less participation in smaller, potentially faster‑growing but more volatile firms. For many investors, this large‑cap tilt is perfectly fine and aligns with mainstream benchmarks, but it does mean the portfolio’s behavior will closely track the fortunes of a relatively limited group of giant companies.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    7.44%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Apple Inc
    5.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.99%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    3.27%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    3.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    2.62%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    2.53%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    2.47%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    1.80%
    Part of fund(s):
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
  • Berkshire Hathaway Inc
    1.35%
    Part of fund(s):
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
    • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
  • Top 10 total 35.22%

Looking through the ETFs, the top underlying exposures are dominated by large US tech and tech‑adjacent names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, and Meta. NVIDIA alone shows up at more than 7% through ETF overlap, with several others in the 3–6% range. Because many funds track similar indexes, the same mega‑cap companies appear repeatedly, creating hidden concentration even though everything is wrapped in different tickers. Only ETF top‑10s are captured here, so the true overlap is probably higher. The key takeaway: this is essentially a leveraged, option‑overlaid bet on the biggest US growth names, so portfolio behavior will be heavily tied to how those specific giants perform over time.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 20%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 45%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
No data
Data availability: 0%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Very high
Data availability: 36%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 82%

Factor exposure shows strong tilts toward yield, low volatility, and value, with moderate size and momentum signals. Factors are like the underlying “ingredients” that drive how portfolios behave, such as focusing on cheap stocks (value), stable ones (low volatility), or high‑dividend payers (yield). Here, the high yield exposure comes mostly from options‑based income ETFs, while low volatility suggests a lean toward steadier names, and value adds some exposure to cheaper stocks via dedicated value funds. Momentum is also reasonably strong, which fits with the tech and growth emphasis. Average signal coverage is only about 47%, so the picture isn’t perfect. In general, combining multiple factors can smooth returns over time, though overlapping signals may still leave the portfolio sensitive to broad market moves.

Risk contribution Info

  • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    Weight: 14.00%
    32.7%
  • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 30.00%
    23.6%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    Weight: 18.00%
    15.0%
  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    Weight: 18.00%
    11.9%
  • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
    Weight: 10.00%
    9.8%
  • Top 5 risk contribution %

Risk contribution reveals that the leveraged S&P 500 fund, at 14% of assets, contributes a hefty 32.71% of total portfolio risk, more than double its weight. That high risk‑to‑weight ratio shows leverage is a major driver of ups and downs. In contrast, the 30% core S&P 500 ETF contributes about 23.56% of risk, and the two NEOS high‑income funds together add around 27% of risk. Overall, the top three holdings drive over 71% of volatility. Risk contribution is like asking which instruments in an orchestra are actually making the most noise, not just how many players there are. If a more balanced risk profile is desired, trimming or reweighting the leveraged position would be the most powerful single lever to calm overall volatility while still staying equity‑focused.

Redundant positions Info

  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
    ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
    iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
    High correlation

Correlation measures how investments move in relation to each other, and here the main holdings are all highly correlated. The S&P 500 core ETF, leveraged S&P 500, NEOS income ETFs, and S&P 500 growth fund largely track the same underlying index or closely related large‑cap growth segments. When correlations run near 1, assets tend to rise and fall together, reducing the benefits of diversification. That’s why having multiple funds does not necessarily mean risk is truly spread out. Instead, this behaves much like one concentrated US large‑cap growth position, plus leverage and options overlays. The analysis even flags that removing overlapping, highly correlated assets could simplify the setup without sacrificing much diversification, while making the risk profile easier to understand and manage.

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 would likely sit below the efficient frontier because of overlapping exposure and the outsized impact of the leveraged S&P 500 position. The efficient frontier represents the best possible expected return for each level of risk using only the existing holdings with different weights. If the portfolio is below that curve, adjusting weights alone could improve the Sharpe ratio, which measures return earned per unit of volatility. The analysis already suggests simplifying highly correlated positions and reconsidering leverage. Reweighting toward a mix closer to the “optimal” portfolio point, or a same‑risk but higher‑Sharpe allocation, could keep the growth profile while smoothing swings. The good news is that efficiency gains may be achievable without adding any new funds, just by fine‑tuning what’s already there.

Dividends Info

  • iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF 1.60%
  • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF 0.40%
  • iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF 1.60%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 14.30%
  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF 12.00%
  • ProShares UltraPro S&P500 0.90%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 5.42%

The overall dividend yield is a punchy 5.42%, driven mainly by the NEOS high‑income ETFs, which show very high stated yields (above 12–14%) thanks to options premiums, not just traditional dividends. The more conventional index and factor ETFs yield around 0.4–1.6%, which is typical for broad US equities. High yield can be attractive for investors seeking cash flow, but it’s important to recognize that option‑based income often trades some upside potential or adds path‑dependent risks in exchange for regular payouts. For long‑term growth, reinvesting a portion of that income can amplify compounding. For those living off distributions, a yield at this level can support withdrawals, but it should be weighed against the underlying equity and strategy risks.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF 0.18%
  • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF 0.18%
  • iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF 0.19%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • ProShares UltraPro S&P500 0.92%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.42%

The average total expense ratio (TER) sits around 0.42%, which is quite reasonable given the mix includes specialized options‑based income funds and a leveraged ETF. The core index products are very cheap, at 0.03–0.19%, in line with best‑in‑class passive funds and strongly supportive of long‑term performance. The higher‑fee NEOS and leveraged funds charge 0.68–0.92%, reflecting their more complex strategies. Costs act like a slow leak in a tire: small differences compound over many years. Here, the cost level is acceptable for the level of customization and income, and certainly not excessive. That said, if future tweaks reduce reliance on higher‑fee specialty products, the blended TER could drift even lower, further boosting long‑run net returns.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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