High income US stock portfolio with strong technology tilt and relatively efficient risk profile
Report created on Jun 25, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
QQQI - US78433H6751 90.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 10.00%
This portfolio is built from just two ETFs, with about 90% in a Nasdaq 100 high‑income fund and 10% in a broad US dividend equity ETF. So the core is a concentrated, options‑based income strategy on large US growth names, lightly balanced by a lower‑yield but more traditional dividend fund. Having only two holdings makes the structure very simple to understand and track, but also means limited diversification because both funds sit in the same broad asset bucket and country. In practice, most of the portfolio’s behaviour will be driven by the high‑income Nasdaq ETF, while the Schwab dividend fund plays a smaller supporting role.
Growth
From January 2024 to late June 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $1,534, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 19.6%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing out ups and downs. Over this window the return slightly trailed both the US market and a global market index, but the gap was small versus the US benchmark. The deepest historical drop, or max drawdown, was about -19%, roughly in line with the US market but worse than the global index. This shows the portfolio has delivered strong growth with equity‑like swings, very similar in risk to a broad US stock exposure.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which means the computer replays many random paths based on past return and volatility patterns to see a range of possible futures. Over 15 years, the median path turns $1,000 into around $2,799, with a wide possible band from roughly $973 to $7,562. The average annualized return across simulations is about 8.2%, notably lower than the short recent historical CAGR. This highlights a key point: simulations are not promises, just statistical “what‑ifs” built from limited history. They show that outcomes cluster around growth, but also that flat or negative paths remain very possible.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio sits in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash substitutes, or alternative assets. Asset classes are broad buckets like equities, fixed income, and real assets, each reacting differently to economic and rate changes. A 100% stock allocation typically means higher expected long‑term growth but more pronounced swings during market stress, since there is no stabilizing bond or cash sleeve. This pure‑equity structure makes the risk classification of “balanced” more about the type of stocks and income strategy than about mixing different asset classes. Short‑term portfolio value will therefore closely track equity market moods.
Sectors
- Technology 55%
- Telecommunications 13%
- Consumer Discretionary 11%
- Consumer Staples 8%
- Health Care 5%
- Industrials 3%
- Energy 2%
- Financials 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector exposure is heavily tilted toward technology at about 55%, with additional weight in telecommunications and consumer‑oriented areas, and much smaller slices in defensives like utilities, staples, and health care. Compared with broad equity benchmarks, this is a tech‑heavy, growth‑oriented profile, consistent with the Nasdaq 100‑driven core. Sector concentration matters because different industries respond differently to interest rates, regulation, and economic cycles. A portfolio leaning this hard into tech and related areas can benefit strongly when innovation and growth are in favor, but may feel sharper pullbacks when those segments fall out of market leadership or face policy headwinds.
Regions
- North America 98%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, about 98% of the portfolio sits in North America, with only a tiny slice in developed Europe and essentially nothing elsewhere. Geography affects exposure to different currencies, political systems, and growth drivers. Global equity indices usually have sizeable allocations across North America, Europe, and Asia, so this portfolio is more regionally concentrated than the global market. That concentration has historically helped when US stocks outperform the rest of the world, but it also ties outcomes closely to one economy, one policy regime, and largely one currency. Diversification benefits across regions are therefore quite limited here.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 49%
- Large-cap 39%
- Mid-cap 12%
By market capitalization, roughly half the portfolio is in mega‑cap stocks, about 39% in large‑caps, and 12% in mid‑caps, with virtually no small‑cap exposure. Market cap refers to a company’s total market value and tends to influence stability and growth potential: mega‑caps often have more stable earnings and liquidity, while smaller companies can be more volatile but higher‑beta. This profile is therefore tilted to the very largest businesses, which is aligned with major US indices and provides a relatively sturdy core. The trade‑off is less participation in the sometimes faster‑moving small‑cap segment, keeping risk more anchored in big, established names.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 7.54%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 6.53%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.53%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 4.40%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.91%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.37%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 3.10%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.98%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.87%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.83%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Top 10 total 42.04%
Looking through ETF top holdings, a few familiar large tech and growth names dominate the visible layer: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Micron, Amazon, AMD, Alphabet, Tesla, and Broadcom all appear with meaningful combined weights. Because several of these names show up via the same high‑income Nasdaq ETF, overlap is naturally high, creating hidden concentration in a small cluster of companies. Look‑through coverage is only about 46%, so total concentration is likely higher than shown. This means portfolio fortunes are closely linked to how this handful of big tech and growth stocks performs, even though they are only held indirectly through ETFs.
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 very high tilts to value and low volatility, with a very low tilt to size. Factors are characteristics like value (cheaper relative to fundamentals) or low volatility (historically smoother price moves) that research has linked to long‑term return patterns. A strong value tilt suggests the holdings, on balance, are priced more conservatively versus earnings or cash flows than the broad market. The maximum low‑volatility reading implies the portfolio’s stocks, or the way they’re packaged, have tended to move less wildly than the market. Very low size exposure means a clear focus on larger companies, not smaller, more volatile ones.
Risk contribution
-
NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
Weight: 90.00% 95.5% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 10.00% 4.5%
Risk contribution metrics highlight that the Nasdaq 100 high‑income ETF, at 90% of the weight, drives about 95.5% of total portfolio risk. Risk contribution measures how much each position adds to overall ups and downs; it can differ from simple weight if one asset is much more volatile. Here, the high‑income ETF’s risk share is slightly higher than its size, while the Schwab dividend ETF contributes less than half as much risk as its 10% weight. This shows that, in practice, almost all of the portfolio’s volatility and performance experience comes from one holding, despite technically being a two‑fund mix.
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 shows the current portfolio sits on or very near the frontier, meaning the mix of these two ETFs is already a pretty efficient balance of risk and return given the available ingredients. The Sharpe ratio, which compares excess return to volatility, is about 0.93 for the current allocation, while a mathematically optimal mix reaches 1.17 with slightly lower return but also lower risk. A minimum‑variance combination offers even lower volatility and a Sharpe over 1.0. This suggests that, although the holdings set is concentrated, their relative weights are not obviously wasteful from a risk/return standpoint.
Dividends
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 15.00%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.30%
- Weighted yield (per year) 13.83%
Income is a defining feature here: the total indicated yield is roughly 13.8%, driven mainly by the Nasdaq 100 high‑income ETF’s very high 15% yield, with the Schwab dividend ETF adding a more modest 3.3%. Dividend yield measures cash payouts as a percentage of price, and high yields can significantly influence total return by providing regular distributions in addition to price changes. However, unusually high yields often come from option strategies or capital‑return mechanisms rather than just traditional dividends, and may fluctuate over time. In this portfolio, distributions are likely to be a major part of the overall investment experience.
Ongoing product costs
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.62%
The blended ongoing cost, or TER, is about 0.62% per year, with the high‑income ETF at 0.68% and the Schwab dividend ETF at a very low 0.06%. TER (Total Expense Ratio) is the annual fee charged by a fund, quietly subtracted from performance. Over long periods, even small fee differences compound, but here the weighted cost is moderate, not extreme. It’s higher than the cheapest plain index trackers, reflecting the more complex income strategy in the main ETF, but partially offset by the ultra‑low‑cost Schwab fund. Overall, costs are reasonable for a specialized, high‑income equity approach.
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