High income dividend focused portfolio with strong value tilt and moderate concentration in US large caps
Report created on Aug 19, 2026Risk profile
3/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 60.00% -
GP Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
GPIQ - US38149W6306 10.00% -
QQ NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
QQQI - US78433H6751 10.00% -
SC Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF
SCHY - US8085246721 10.00% -
SP SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
SPYI - US78433H3030 10.00%
This portfolio is built entirely from five equity ETFs, with a clear tilt toward dividend and option-income strategies. The core is a US dividend equity ETF at 60%, surrounded by three option-based “high income” funds and a 10% slice in international dividend stocks. Structurally, that means all positions are stock-based rather than bonds or cash. A single holding driving more than half the portfolio is a notable form of concentration. This kind of structure can simplify management and makes the main return drivers very clear: US dividend equities and option-premium strategies. At the same time, relying heavily on one core fund and one specific style can mean the portfolio’s fate is tightly linked to how that approach performs over time.
Growth
Over the measured period, $1,000 grew to about $1,495, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.19%. CAGR is like your average “speed” over the journey, smoothing out the bumps. The portfolio lagged both the US and global equity benchmarks by just over 4 percentage points per year. In exchange, it experienced a slightly smaller maximum drawdown of -14.75%, compared with deeper drops for the benchmarks. Drawdown measures the worst peak-to-trough fall, which many investors feel more than long-term averages. Needing only 21 days to generate 90% of returns shows results were concentrated in a small number of strong days, a common feature of equity-heavy portfolios.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses many randomised paths based on historical behaviour to estimate a range of possible 15‑year outcomes. Think of it as re-playing history 1,000 different ways, shuffling the order of good and bad years. The median result of $2,738 suggests roughly an 8.08% annualised return across simulations, but the spread is wide: from about $973 at the pessimistic end (p5) to $7,736 at the optimistic end (p95). This highlights that even with the same portfolio, outcomes can differ a lot depending on sequence of returns. The 76% chance of ending with more than the starting $1,000 is encouraging, but it still leaves room for less favourable long-term paths.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio sits in one asset class: stocks. That makes it straightforward to understand—returns mainly come from company earnings, dividends, and changes in equity valuations. Compared with a blended mix that might include bonds or cash, a 100% equity allocation usually offers higher long-run growth potential but also more sensitivity to market swings. Within equities, the focus on dividend and option-income strategies can soften volatility relative to growth-heavy stock portfolios, but it does not remove equity risk. This single-asset-class structure means diversification benefits rely entirely on differences between types of stocks and regions, rather than on mixing fundamentally different asset classes.
Sectors
- Technology 23%
- Health Care 15%
- Consumer Staples 15%
- Energy 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Financials 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Industrials 8%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is fairly balanced across several areas, with technology at 23% and health care and consumer staples each at 15%. Energy, telecoms, financials, and consumer discretionary all sit in the high single to low double digits, while industrials are similar and utilities and materials are small. This spread is more diversified than a tech-dominated growth portfolio and closer to broad-market sector patterns, which helps reduce reliance on any single economic theme. For example, consumer staples and health care often hold up better in slowdowns, while tech and consumer discretionary can benefit more in strong growth periods. This alignment with broad sector weights is a strong indicator of healthy diversification.
Regions
- North America 90%
- Europe Developed 7%
- Australasia 1%
- Asia Emerging 1%
Geographically, about 90% of the exposure is in North America, with modest allocations to developed Europe (7%) and tiny slices in Australasia and emerging Asia. This is a clear US-heavy tilt compared with global equity indices, where the US is large but not this dominant. A strong home-region concentration often feels comfortable and has been rewarding in recent years when US markets outperformed many others. However, it also ties most of the portfolio’s fortunes to one economy, one policy environment, and largely one currency. The smaller non-US allocations do add some diversification, but the overall risk and return profile is still mainly driven by North American markets.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 54%
- Mid-cap 21%
- Mega-cap 21%
- Small-cap 3%
- Micro-cap 1%
By market capitalisation, the portfolio leans heavily toward larger companies: 54% in large caps and 21% in mega caps, with mid caps at 21% and only small slivers in small and micro caps. Market cap simply measures the size of a company, like its price tag on the stock market. This orientation toward bigger firms tends to mean more established businesses, often with steadier earnings and, in this case, dividend histories. It also explains why the “size” factor exposure shows as very low—there’s little tilt toward smaller companies. This kind of large-cap focus can moderate volatility compared with a small-cap-heavy portfolio, while still offering broad exposure to economic growth.
True holdings
-
AB Abbott Laboratories 2.86%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
AM Amgen Inc 2.77%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
MR Merck & Company Inc 2.65%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
KO The Coca-Cola Company 2.49%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.48%
Part of fund(s):- Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
-
HD The Home Depot Inc 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
UN UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 2.37%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
CV Chevron Corp 2.34%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
VZ Verizon Communications Inc 2.32%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
PG Procter & Gamble Company 2.31%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 25.02%
The look-through data, even though it only covers ETF top-10 holdings, already shows recurring names like Abbott, Amgen, Merck, Coca-Cola, NVIDIA, Home Depot, and UnitedHealth. Each of these sits around 2–3% of total exposure, built up entirely through ETFs. When the same company appears in multiple funds, “hidden” concentration builds up faster than it seems from the top-level ETF weights. Because only top‑10 holdings are captured, actual overlap is likely higher than reported. This means that while the portfolio uses several ETFs, a portion of the risk is still driven by a relatively small group of large, dividend-oriented and quality-tilted companies that sit in the core fund and the overlaying income funds.
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 data highlights very strong tilts toward value and low volatility, plus a high tilt toward yield, and a very low tilt toward the size factor. Factors are like investment “personality traits”—value favours cheaper stocks, low volatility favours steadier price behaviour, and yield focuses on higher dividends. A very high low-volatility score suggests the portfolio is built to be smoother than a typical equity market mix during choppy periods. The high value and yield exposure fits with the dividend and option-income focus, which tends to favour established, cash-generative companies. The very low size factor score simply reflects the dominance of larger firms, meaning smaller, more explosive stocks play only a minor role here.
Risk contribution
-
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 60.00% 61.7% -
Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
Weight: 10.00% 11.3% -
NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
Weight: 10.00% 10.8% -
SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF
Weight: 10.00% 9.4% -
Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 10.00% 6.9%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The core US dividend ETF at 60% weight contributes about 61.72% of total risk, very much in line with its size. The two Nasdaq‑linked income ETFs, each at 10%, collectively contribute roughly 22% of portfolio risk, slightly more than their combined weight, reflecting higher volatility from growth-oriented underlying indexes. The international dividend ETF, although 10% of capital, accounts for only 6.87% of risk, suggesting it’s relatively calmer and diversifying. Overall, the top three holdings drive around 84% of total risk, so changes in those funds will largely determine the portfolio’s day‑to‑day experience.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationGoldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETFNEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
The correlation data flags that the two Nasdaq‑100 income ETFs move almost identically. Correlation measures how often two investments move together, on a scale from -1 (perfect opposite) to +1 (perfect tandem). Highly correlated assets can feel like “more of the same” when markets move, because they respond similarly to news and macro events. In this case, the overlapping Nasdaq focus and similar option-income strategies explain the close relationship. While this can provide consistent exposure to that specific style, it also means that the diversification benefit between these two positions is limited. During tech- or Nasdaq-specific swings, both are likely to move in the same direction at roughly the same time.
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.
The efficient frontier analysis compares the current portfolio to the best possible mixes of the same holdings in terms of risk and return. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above a risk-free rate, is 1.07 for the current mix. The optimal and minimum-variance portfolios have noticeably higher Sharpe ratios (1.45 and 1.42), which suggests more efficient combinations exist using just these five ETFs. The current allocation sits about 1.51 percentage points below the frontier at its risk level. In plain terms, the same ingredients could be blended differently to either lower risk for similar returns or boost expected returns for similar risk, purely through reweighting rather than adding new funds.
Dividends
- Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF 10.00%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 13.80%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.00%
- Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF 11.70%
- Weighted yield (per year) 5.69%
The blended dividend yield of the portfolio, at about 5.69%, is meaningfully higher than typical broad equity markets. Much of this comes from the three option-based income funds, with headline yields around 10–14%, while the core US and international dividend ETFs sit nearer 3–3.4%. Yield represents the cash income distributed as a percentage of the investment value, which can be appealing for those who like seeing regular payouts. High yields, though, usually come with trade-offs: option-income strategies often cap some upside in strong markets, converting part of potential capital growth into current income. Over time, total return is a mix of both income received and changes in the portfolio’s market value.
Ongoing product costs
- Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF 0.29%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF 0.14%
- SHP ETF Trust - NEOS S&P 500 High Income ETF 0.68%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.22%
The portfolio’s total expense ratio (TER) averages about 0.22%, which is quite low overall, especially considering three holdings are active-style, option-income ETFs with higher individual fees around 0.68%. The very low-cost Schwab US dividend ETF at 0.06% and the reasonably priced international dividend ETF at 0.14% help keep the blended cost down. TER is the annual management fee charged by the funds, quietly deducted from returns like a small ongoing service charge. Lower costs leave more of the underlying investments’ performance in the investor’s hands, and over long periods even differences of a few tenths of a percent can compound significantly. Here, the cost structure is a clear strength of the portfolio.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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