Roast mode 🔥

Half tech fan half dividend grandpa fully convinced America is the only country that matters

Report created on Apr 7, 2026

Risk 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

Structurally this thing looks like a committee meeting that never ended: S&P 500, NASDAQ 100, a dividend ETF, two old-school active mutual funds, plus random oversized Apple and a pity stake in Microsoft. It’s like you couldn’t decide between “simple indexer,” “dividend enjoyer,” and “fund brochure victim,” so you chose all three. The result is 100% stocks, very U.S.-centric, with real risk concentrated in just a few overlapping positions. A cleaner setup using fewer overlapping funds could give you the same exposure with less clutter. Right now it’s not a portfolio so much as a scrapbook of ideas you once liked.

Growth Info

Performance since 2020 is… annoyingly decent. Turning $1,000 into $1,993 with a 13.48% CAGR is nothing to be ashamed of. CAGR is just your “average speed” over the trip, smoothing the crazy bits. You barely lagged the U.S. market and comfortably beat the global one, with a max drawdown of -23.68% that’s right in line with a full-equity ride. But remember: past data is yesterday’s weather — useful, not prophetic. The takeaway: the portfolio behaved like a fairly vanilla U.S. equity mix; the extra complexity didn’t buy you obvious outperformance, just slightly different packaging.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection basically runs thousands of “what if” futures to see how this mix might behave over 15 years. Median outcome of $2,763 from $1,000 sounds nice, but the range from $956 to $7,534 is the real story: anything from “barely broke even” to “I accidentally did great.” Simulations assume the future sort of rhymes with the past — which is optimistic at best. Think of it as a weather forecast, not a prophecy. The main message: all-equity “balanced” portfolios like this can be rewarding, but you absolutely earn those returns by sitting through some nasty stretches.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. Calling this “Balanced” is generous — it’s like calling hot sauce “mild” because it’s not actually on fire. There’s no bonds, no cash buffer, no diversifying ballast. When stocks zig, your whole life zigs. That’s fine if the time horizon is long and the stomach is strong, but don’t pretend this behaves like a typical balanced mix. A real balanced setup usually has something that doesn’t crash in sync with equities. Here, the only defense is “just don’t look at the account during bear markets.” Not exactly sophisticated risk management.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    40%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Financials
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    8%
  • Consumer Staples
    8%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    6%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    2%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector breakdown screams “Tech with supporting actors.” Technology at 40% is a full-blown personality trait, not a tilt. Everything else — health care, financials, staples, industrials — just exists so the statement looks less embarrassing. This is classic “I love growth but I also pretend to care about stability” energy. Heavy tech means you’re betting hard on innovation and a handful of mega-firms staying on top. When that works, life is great. When it doesn’t, everything falls together because the rest is too small to matter. If you’re fine riding that rollercoaster, at least admit you bought the front row seat.

Regions Info

  • North America
    94%
  • Europe Developed
    4%
  • Asia Developed
    1%
  • Japan
    1%

Geography: 94% North America. The rest of the world got invited but clearly to the kids’ table. This is textbook home bias — investing almost entirely where you live because it feels familiar. The problem is that global markets don’t care where your address is. A shock to the U.S. economy hits almost your entire portfolio at once. You’re basically saying, “If America goes down, I go down with it,” which is patriotic but not especially clever from a risk-angle. A more global mix tends to smooth the ride; this one just doubles down on one economic story.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    45%
  • Large-cap
    39%
  • Mid-cap
    14%
  • Small-cap
    1%

Market cap mix is mega/large-cap royalty: 45% mega-cap, 39% large-cap, and everything smaller shoved into the corner. You’re clearly not here for scrappy underdogs; you want the giants with their own PR departments. That’s fine, but it means your fate is tightly tied to a small group of huge companies that already dominate the headlines (and indexes). When large caps shine, this looks smart. When small and mids take the lead, you’ll just watch from the sidelines pretending it’s part of the plan. This is “blue-chip or bust” investing, with very little genuine exposure to the up-and-coming crowd.

True holdings Info

  • Apple Inc
    14.46%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 11.60%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 2.56%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.60%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.15%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.13%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.12%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    1.08%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Chevron Corp
    0.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Top 10 total 30.52%

Look-through is where the hidden overlap party gets exposed. Apple at 14.46% total exposure is basically your co-pilot, whether you meant it or not. You own it directly at 11.60%, then sneak it in again via ETFs. Microsoft’s doing a smaller but similar stunt. Then the usual mega-cap suspects — NVIDIA, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — show up through the index funds. This isn’t diversification; it’s a fan club. Overlap is like ordering the “variety platter” and discovering it’s just the same chicken cooked four ways. Trimming the direct single stocks would simplify things dramatically.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 100%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%

Factor-wise, this setup is surprisingly reasonable with one standout: a mild tilt toward quality at 62%. Factors are the hidden ingredients — value, size, momentum, etc. — that explain why portfolios act the way they do. Here, quality tilt means you accidentally built a bias toward profitable, stable, sensible companies instead of pure lottery tickets. Everything else is basically neutral, which is weirdly grown-up for a portfolio that’s otherwise tech-heavy and U.S.-obsessed. The upside: it should hold up a bit better in rough patches than a pure hype-chasing mix. The downside: you’re paying for complexity without a strong, deliberate factor story.

Risk contribution Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 23.20%
    23.3%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Weight: 17.40%
    22.1%
  • Apple Inc
    Weight: 11.60%
    16.0%
  • WASHINGTON MUTUAL INVESTORS FUND CLASS A
    Weight: 16.24%
    13.3%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 17.40%
    12.5%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 87.1%

Risk contribution exposes who’s actually driving the drama. That top three — S&P 500 ETF, NASDAQ 100 ETF, and Apple — is 52.2% of your weight but 61.38% of total risk. Apple alone: 11.6% weight, 15.99% of the risk. That’s a lot of emotional leverage tied to one company. Risk contribution is like figuring out who in a group project is causing all the chaos; it’s usually not proportional to their official “share.” If cuts ever need to happen, this is where the trimming discussion starts. Otherwise you’re just letting a couple positions yank the whole portfolio around.

Redundant positions Info

  • WASHINGTON MUTUAL INVESTORS FUND CLASS A
    Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    High correlation

The correlated-assets note is hilariously on the nose: your Washington Mutual fund moves almost identically to your S&P 500 ETF. So you’re basically paying extra to own the same behavior twice. Correlation just measures how similarly things move — 1.0 means “we do everything together,” 0 means “we barely know each other.” Highly correlated holdings can still have a place, but they do nothing for diversification. Here, it’s like buying two different brands of vanilla ice cream and insisting it’s variety. If the S&P falls, Washington Mutual is likely holding its hand on the way down.

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, annoyingly, this portfolio is actually efficient. The current mix sits right on or near the efficient frontier, which is the curve showing the best return you can get for each level of risk using these exact ingredients. Sharpe ratio of 0.63 isn’t stellar compared to the 0.9 of the optimal portfolio, but the frontier says you’re not doing anything wildly dumb with weights. Reweighting could squeeze out better risk-adjusted returns, but you’re not miles off. So yes, it’s messy, home-biased, and overlapped — but structurally, it’s not a clown car. More like a well-tuned car with way too many stickers.

Dividends Info

  • Apple Inc 0.40%
  • WASHINGTON MUTUAL INVESTORS FUND CLASS A 10.40%
  • CAPITAL WORLD GROWTH & INCOME FUND CLASS A 10.60%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 3.94%

Dividend yield at 3.94% looks pretty tasty at first glance… until you notice the two mutual funds allegedly yielding 10%+. That’s not yield, that’s “this data point is almost certainly distorted by distributions and past payouts.” Dividends aren’t free money; they’re just your own cash being handed back in a different wrapper, usually with a tax bill stapled on. The dividend ETF adds some legit income tilt, but the overall vibe is “I like income but also growth but also whatever this 10% number is.” Sensible takeaway: chase total return first, treat yield numbers with a bit of suspicion.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • WASHINGTON MUTUAL INVESTORS FUND CLASS A 0.55%
  • CAPITAL WORLD GROWTH & INCOME FUND CLASS A 0.73%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.22%

Costs are the part you probably don’t look at, which is a shame because that’s where quiet damage happens. The overall TER at 0.22% is actually solid — the index ETFs are dirt cheap. Then the two active mutual funds stroll in charging 0.55% and 0.73% like it’s still 2005. That’s “I met this fund in a glossy brochure” energy. Over decades, those extra fees compound against you like a slow leak. You’re basically running a low-cost core with two expensive ornaments stuck on the front. The portfolio would be cleaner and cheaper without the nostalgia pieces.

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