Concentrated US equity mix pairing growth leaders with dividend tilt and efficient risk profile
Report created on May 31, 2024Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 35.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 35.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 30.00%
The portfolio holds three US-focused equity ETFs with no bonds or cash, so it’s a pure stock allocation. Roughly two-thirds is split between broad-market large‑cap exposure and a tech‑heavy growth index, while the remaining third focuses on dividend‑paying companies. This structure blends capital growth potential with some income and slightly lower volatility from the dividend slice. Because everything sits in equities, the ride will still be bumpy at times, but the mix of growth and dividend styles adds some internal balance. For a balanced‑risk label, the absence of bonds is notable, so comfort with equity ups and downs is important.
Growth
From late 2020 to now, $1,000 grew to about $1,950, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.07%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out the bumps along the way. This result basically matched the US market (13.11%) and clearly beat the global market (11.17%), which is a strong outcome. The max drawdown of about -24.8% was similar to the US benchmark, showing you’ve been taking equity‑like risk, not unusually high risk. The fact that returns are benchmark‑like is reassuring: the portfolio has behaved much like a mainstream, high‑quality US equity mix.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All assets are in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. That’s fine for long‑term growth, but it does mean portfolio value will move with equity markets, especially during sharp selloffs. Most “balanced” mixes usually include a meaningful bond portion to soften drawdowns and provide dry powder for rebalancing. Here, the smoothing role instead comes from the more defensive dividend ETF, which contributes less risk than its weight. For someone wanting equity‑driven growth and who can mentally handle large swings, this all‑stock mix can work, but it’s not geared toward capital preservation over the short term.
Sectors
- Technology 34%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Health Care 11%
- Consumer Staples 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Financials 7%
- Industrials 7%
- Energy 6%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is heavily tilted toward technology at 34%, with meaningful allocations to telecom, health care, and consumer areas, and smaller slices in financials, industrials, and energy. This lines up closely with modern US equity benchmarks, which are also tech‑heavy, so you’re broadly in line with how the market itself looks. Tech and communication‑oriented exposure tends to do well in growth and innovation cycles but can be more sensitive when interest rates rise or when investors rotate into more defensive areas. The presence of sectors like consumer staples, health care, and energy adds some ballast, helping cushion sector‑specific swings.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely tilted to North America, at about 99%, with only a token slice elsewhere. This matches the US benchmark closely and leans into the strength of US corporations and the dollar. The flip side is that it offers very little diversification across different economic cycles, currencies, or policy regimes outside North America. When the US leads, this kind of concentration is a tailwind; when the US lags other regions, it can become a headwind. Some investors are comfortable with this home‑bias because it’s transparent, but it’s worth being aware of the trade‑off.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 46%
- Mega-cap 35%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 1%
The allocation is dominated by large and mega‑cap stocks, together making up about 81%, with modest mid‑cap and minimal small‑cap exposure. That’s very similar to broad US benchmarks, which are also heavily skewed to big companies. Larger firms tend to be more stable, more profitable, and more widely followed, which can reduce idiosyncratic risk compared with a small‑cap tilt. The downside is less exposure to the higher‑risk, higher‑potential growth that smaller companies sometimes deliver. Overall, this is a classic, blue‑chip‑centered profile that favors consistency and liquidity over aggressive bets on smaller, more volatile names.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.55%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.91%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.73%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.80%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.31%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.09%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.00%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.00%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.97%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
CV Chevron Corp 1.36%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 28.73%
Looking through the ETFs, there’s meaningful overlap in the biggest US mega‑caps: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, and Broadcom all show up at notable combined weights. Hidden overlap means you might think you’re diversified across many funds, but the same giants are driving a big part of returns. That creates concentration in a handful of very influential companies and in similar business models. This is not inherently bad—these names have been strong performers—but it does tie your fortunes closely to how a few mega‑caps behave. It’s useful to know this is an intentional tilt rather than an accident.
Factors
Factor exposure—the portfolio’s tilt toward traits like value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility—is almost perfectly “neutral” across the board. Factor investing looks at these traits as underlying drivers of return, similar to ingredients in a recipe. Sitting near 50% on each factor means your portfolio behaves very much like the broad market rather than leaning heavily into any style. That’s actually a strength: it avoids big bets on one particular theme, like ultra‑cheap stocks or high‑yield names. You’re getting a well‑balanced, market‑like exposure where overall equity risk is the main driver, not factor timing.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 35.00% 43.9% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 35.00% 34.5% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 30.00% 21.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF adds to overall volatility, which can differ from simple weight. Here, the Nasdaq 100 ETF is 35% of the portfolio but contributes about 44% of risk, so it’s the main volatility engine. The S&P 500 ETF contributes risk roughly in line with its weight, while the dividend ETF contributes less risk than its 30% allocation. This is a healthy structure: one growth‑heavy sleeve for upside, one core sleeve, and one stabilizing dividend sleeve. If the ride ever feels too rough, nudging a bit from the Nasdaq ETF into the dividend ETF would likely smooth things.
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 mix sits right on or very close to the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier represents the best possible trade‑off between risk and expected return using only your existing holdings in different weights. Your Sharpe ratio—a measure of return per unit of risk—is 0.71, while both the optimal and minimum‑variance mixes score around 0.83 with slightly lower volatility. The differences are modest, suggesting the current allocation is already quite efficient. Any fine‑tuning would be about marginally lowering risk at similar return by leaning a bit more into the dividend and core S&P 500 sleeves.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 2.60%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.38%
The blended yield of about 1.38% reflects a mix of low‑yield growth exposure and a higher‑yield dividend ETF. The Nasdaq 100 piece yields only about 0.5%, emphasizing reinvested growth instead of cash payouts, while the Schwab dividend ETF’s 2.6% adds a more meaningful income stream. For investors who like some cashflow but still prioritize growth, this middle‑of‑the‑road yield is sensible. Reinvesting those dividends can quietly boost long‑term compounding. Just keep in mind that dividend yields can change over time as prices move and companies update their payout policies, so today’s yield isn’t a guaranteed future income level.
Ongoing product costs
- 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) 0.08%
Costs are impressively low, with a total expense ratio (TER) around 0.08%. TER is the ongoing annual fee charged by the funds, taken out of returns behind the scenes. For context, many active funds still charge 0.75%–1% or more, which can meaningfully erode long‑term performance. Keeping fees this lean is a real structural advantage: more of the portfolio’s gross return stays in your pocket every year. Over decades, even small fee differences compound into large dollar amounts. From a cost perspective, this setup is excellent and strongly supports better risk‑adjusted results without needing to do anything more complicated.
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