Roast mode 🔥

Go big or blow up trying a semiconductor joyride disguised as a diversified portfolio

Report created on Apr 12, 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

The portfolio composition is basically “tech plus even more tech with a side of biotech daredevil.” Almost 60% of the money rides broad US growth via S&P 500 and QQQ, then you floor it with a quarter in semis and another near 10% in a 3x leveraged semiconductor toy. Toss in a single high-risk cancer stock at 11% and call it a day. This isn’t diversification; it’s a theme park. Structurally, everything depends on one story: US growth and chips continuing to crush it. Takeaway: as a core-plus-satellite setup, this is more like core-plus-rocket-engine, with no real brakes or backup plan.

Growth Info

Historically, the portfolio looks like a genius… who hasn’t been punched in the face often enough yet. A CAGR near 29% vs ~18% for both US and global markets is absurdly strong. But that -33.5% max drawdown should slap some humility into it, especially when the market’s drawdown was almost half that. Also, 90% of returns came from just 11 days — that’s lottery ticket behavior, not steady compounding. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful, but it won’t warn you about the hurricane that hasn’t formed yet. Enjoy the outperformance, but don’t pretend it’s permanent or painless.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation basically asks, “What happens if we replay the future 1,000 times?” It tosses your portfolio’s volatility and return into a blender and spits out a range of outcomes. Median result: $1,000 grows to about $2,744 in 15 years — decent but nowhere near your recent 29% joyride. Also, 1 in 4 scenarios lands below ~$1,757, and 1 in 20 basically goes nowhere. Forward sims are like test-driving with a video game physics engine: instructive, but reality can be weirder. Translation: the future looks okay on average, but the ride could be stomach-churningly uneven.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. That’s not an allocation; that’s a personality trait. There is zero ballast from bonds, cash, or anything remotely defensive. When markets are happy, this setup rips. When they’re not, it sulks aggressively. Being all-equities isn’t automatically wrong, especially for long horizons, but it does mean your entire net worth reacts directly to equity mood swings. No shock absorbers, no airbags — just you and the windshield. Takeaway: if this is part of a bigger picture that includes safer assets elsewhere, fine; if this is “the whole plan,” the risk dial is taped to max.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    58%
  • Health Care
    15%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    6%
  • Financials
    4%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Industrials
    3%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector breakdown: tech owns the place at 58%, with health care at 15% mostly thanks to one spicy oncology name. Everything else is background noise. This is less a portfolio and more a love letter to one sector plus a single science experiment. Sector concentration means your fate is tied to one economic story: if tech sentiment cools or regulation bites, everything feels it at once. A more rounded mix might be boring, but it usually bleeds less when one theme falls out of fashion. Here, you’ve basically decided diversification is for people who don’t believe in semiconductors.

Regions Info

  • North America
    93%
  • Asia Developed
    4%
  • Europe Developed
    3%

Geographically, this thing is peak “America or bust,” with 93% in North America and a token sprinkle in developed Asia and Europe. That’s home bias on steroids. Sure, US markets have crushed it lately, but the rest of the world does occasionally exist and, inconveniently, represents a big chunk of global GDP and market cap. If US policy, regulation, or tech leadership stumbles, this setup doesn’t really have a Plan B. The current design assumes the US keeps being the cool kid forever. History says leadership rotates eventually, even if it takes longer than anyone expects.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    38%
  • Large-cap
    34%
  • Mid-cap
    22%

Market cap exposure actually looks fairly normal: 38% mega-cap, 34% large-cap, 22% mid-cap. So, on the surface, it’s not a tiny-speculative-stocks-only casino. The twist is that these larger names are mostly clustered in the same growth-heavy corner of the market. It’s like having a balanced guest list where everyone is still from the same company. Mid-caps add a bit of punch, but they’re not saving you if the big growth narrative breaks. The takeaway: the size mix is sensible, but the story behind those sizes is still very one-dimensional — big, fast, and fragile.

True holdings Info

  • CG Oncology, Inc. Common stock
    10.96%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    9.51%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    4.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Apple Inc
    3.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
    3.06%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.71%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.15%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.74%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Intel Corporation
    1.70%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
  • Micron Technology Inc
    1.64%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
  • Top 10 total 41.22%

The look-through holdings scream “I love the same ten names everyone else does, just louder.” NVIDIA, Broadcom, Apple, TSMC, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Intel, Micron — it’s the usual celebrity roster, just held through three separate ETFs. That means less diversification than it looks: if NVIDIA sneezes, your account catches pneumonia. And remember, this only covers ETF top-10s, so the overlap is probably even worse under the hood. Hidden concentration is like putting all your valuables in one suitcase — feels organized until the airline loses it. The key message: different tickers, same underlying party guests.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 89%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%

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 is basically: “To the moon, but make it spicy.” High momentum tilt (71%) means you’re chasing what’s been winning — great in uptrends, brutal when trends snap. Low value (22%) says you want none of that “cheap and boring” nonsense. Yield is low, low volatility is low — you’re not here for steady or defensive; you want fireworks. Factors are like hidden flavors; this one is loaded with sugar and caffeine, zero fiber. Leaning into momentum while shunning stability is fine if you’re emotionally prepared to ride both sides of the roller coaster, not just the climb.

Risk contribution Info

  • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares
    Weight: 9.56%
    31.8%
  • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    Weight: 26.82%
    29.2%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Weight: 23.30%
    14.1%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 29.36%
    13.0%
  • CG Oncology, Inc. Common stock
    Weight: 10.96%
    11.9%

Risk contribution reveals who’s actually driving the drama, and your 3x semi ETF is the unhinged main character. At under 10% weight, it generates almost 32% of total portfolio risk — that’s absurd. VanEck Semis at ~27% weight adds another 29% of risk. Top three positions throw off over 75% of the volatility. This setup is like giving the most impulsive person in the group the car keys and a Red Bull. Rebalancing or shrinking the risk hogs doesn’t mean killing returns; it just stops one holding from deciding whether your account has a good or catastrophic year.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    High correlation
  • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares
    VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    High correlation

Correlation-wise, you’ve doubled down in the most literal way. QQQ and the S&P 500 basically move together, so owning both is mostly you paying twice to go to the same party. Even worse, the semiconductor ETF and the 3x semiconductor ETF move almost identically, except one is always yelling. In a crash, these don’t hedge each other — they all fall in formation. Correlation is just “do these things freak out at the same time?” and here the answer is yes, aggressively. Different ticker symbols are not diversification if everything panics in the same direction on the same days.

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 vs. return chart, your portfolio sits noticeably below the efficient frontier — about 5 percentage points off at its current risk level. Translation: you’re taking 32% volatility and getting a Sharpe of 0.98, while a better mix of the *same holdings* could boost that to 1.23 with higher expected returns. The minimum variance version even gives you lower risk and a higher Sharpe than what you’ve got now. So the ingredients are fine, but the recipe is chaotic. You’re basically paying for a sports car and then driving it with one flat tire and the parking brake half on.

Dividends Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.30%
  • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares 0.10%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.53%

Dividend yield at around 0.53% is basically a polite shrug. This portfolio clearly didn’t show up for income; it showed up for capital gains and drama. That’s fine if the plan is long-term growth and you’re not depending on this for spending cash. But it does mean you’re almost entirely reliant on price appreciation, not getting paid while you wait. Think of dividends as rent your stocks pay you; here, the tenants are mostly just crashing on your couch for free, promising they’ll make it up to you “once the next bull market hits.” Maybe they will.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
  • Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares 0.76%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.22%

Costs are the one area where this thing isn’t totally wild. A blended TER around 0.22% is fine — not dirt cheap, but not offensive. The core ETFs (S&P 500, QQQ) are reasonably priced; the 3x semi fund at 0.76% is steep, but that’s the entry fee for playing with financial explosives. Fees are like friction — small each year, huge over decades. At least you didn’t manage to overpay for the boring pieces. Still, if you insist on running a high-risk setup, every extra bit of cost is just more performance you’re voluntarily lighting on fire.

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