This portfolio has only about 1.1 years of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.

Strongly tech focused growth portfolio using option income with unusually high recent returns

Report created on Apr 25, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is compact, with seven holdings and heavy use of equity ETFs. About two‑thirds sits in two funds: a semiconductor option‑income ETF and a broad US equity ETF, with another sizable slice in a second semiconductor option‑income fund. The rest is spread across a single industrial stock, a global equity ETF, an oil covered‑call ETN, and a small biotech position. This structure combines broad market exposure with targeted thematic and income strategies. Because the holdings are concentrated and use options and covered‑call approaches, the portfolio’s behavior can differ meaningfully from plain index funds. With just over a year of data, it’s too early to say this mix defines a stable pattern, but the current setup clearly leans toward focused growth plus enhanced income.

Growth Info

Over the short 1.1‑year window, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,098, implying a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly 103%. CAGR is like average speed on a road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. This far exceeds the US and global equity benchmarks, which grew around 32–33% annually over the same period. The portfolio’s max drawdown, or worst peak‑to‑trough fall, was about –10%, only slightly deeper than the benchmarks. However, such explosive returns over a brief, favorable stretch—driven largely by option‑income semiconductor exposure—should be treated cautiously. Short runs can look extraordinary, but they don’t reliably indicate how the portfolio will behave over full market cycles.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses the recent return and volatility data to simulate 1,000 different 15‑year paths for a $1,000 investment. Think of it as rolling dice many times based on past behavior to see a range of possible futures. The median outcome is about $2,801, with a wide “likely” band from roughly $1,814 to $4,012, and more extreme paths stretching from about $1,076 to $6,566. The average projected annual return across simulations is around 7.7%. Because the underlying data history is only about a year—and unusually strong—these numbers probably overstate what’s sustainable long term. They’re best read as a rough illustration of uncertainty rather than a forecast.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    96%
  • No data
    4%

Almost the entire portfolio, about 96%, is in equities, with a small slice marked as “no data.” Asset class refers to broad categories like stocks, bonds, or cash; here the profile is clearly equity‑heavy. That typically means more sensitivity to market ups and downs and less built‑in cushioning from defensive assets. Compared with many diversified multi‑asset mixes, this allocation tilts strongly toward growth potential rather than stability. The covered‑call and option‑income components don’t change the asset class label—they’re still equity‑linked—but they can alter how returns show up, often trading some upside for current income. With only a short history so far, it’s too early to judge how consistently this equity‑dominant structure will behave in different market conditions.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    59%
  • Industrials
    12%
  • Financials
    5%
  • Health Care
    5%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    4%
  • Telecommunications
    4%
  • Consumer Staples
    2%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector data shows a strong tilt toward technology at about 59%, with the rest spread across industrials, financials, health care, consumer areas, telecom, energy, and smaller slices in materials, utilities, and real estate. In many broad global benchmarks, technology is important but not usually this dominant, so this portfolio leans clearly toward tech‑driven themes. Sector concentration matters because different parts of the economy react differently to interest rates, innovation cycles, and regulation. A tech‑heavy profile may benefit when growth and innovation are rewarded, but can see sharper moves when sentiment turns or rates rise. The diversified smaller allocations to other sectors help, but do not offset tech’s central role in driving overall behavior.

Regions Info

  • North America
    80%
  • Asia Developed
    7%
  • Europe Developed
    6%
  • Japan
    1%
  • Asia Emerging
    1%

Geographically, about 80% of exposure is in North America, with smaller stakes in developed Asia, developed Europe, Japan, and emerging Asia. This means the portfolio is anchored in one region’s economic and currency environment, more concentrated than many global benchmarks that allocate more evenly across the world. Geographic diversification can help smooth out local shocks—such as policy changes or regional slowdowns—because different economies often move on their own timelines. Here, the tilt toward North America aligns with where many large tech and industrial leaders are based, reinforcing the portfolio’s thematic focus. Over just one year of data, this home‑region emphasis has coincided with strong performance, but that relationship may not hold in every future period.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    44%
  • Mega-cap
    31%
  • Mid-cap
    14%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

By market capitalization, the portfolio is dominated by larger companies: mega‑caps at around 31% and large‑caps about 44%, with mid‑caps, small‑caps, and a small micro‑cap slice making up the rest. Market cap simply measures a company’s size on the stock market. Larger firms often bring more stable business models and better liquidity, while smaller ones can be more volatile but sometimes more agile. This mix leans toward the stability of bigger names while still keeping some exposure to mid and smaller companies, including more speculative holdings. That balance can help avoid over‑reliance on tiny, high‑risk positions, but it still leaves the portfolio geared toward equities that can move meaningfully when markets reprice growth or risk.

True holdings Info

  • Vertiv Holdings Co
    7.97%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    6.03%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    4.18%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd
    2.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • Lam Research Corp
    2.59%
    Part of fund(s):
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • ASML Holding N.V.
    2.36%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.15%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares
    2.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • KLA Corporation
    2.12%
    Part of fund(s):
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • Intel Corporation
    1.99%
    Part of fund(s):
    • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
  • Top 10 total 34.30%

Looking through to the underlying holdings of the ETFs, the top exposures include Vertiv (held directly), Nvidia, Broadcom, Marvell, Lam Research, ASML, Apple, Arm, KLA, and Intel. Vertiv’s presence is entirely from the direct stock position, while the others appear via ETFs, which means some companies show up more than once across different funds. This kind of overlap can create hidden concentration: the portfolio might look diversified by fund count, but several holdings are ultimately tied to a relatively small group of major semiconductor and tech names. Coverage is partial since only top‑10 ETF holdings are used, so actual overlap could be higher than shown, especially in concentrated thematic and option‑income products.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 9%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 95%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Very high
Data availability: 9%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 9%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 99%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
High
Data availability: 52%

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 a very high tilt toward momentum and a very low tilt toward size. Momentum means the portfolio is heavily exposed to stocks that have done well recently and are continuing to trend; historically, these can perform strongly in sustained rallies but can be hit hard when trends reverse suddenly. Size being very low indicates a tilt away from smaller companies and toward larger ones, which often reduces some of the idiosyncratic risk associated with tiny firms. Quality and low‑volatility exposures are both on the higher side, suggesting some preference for financially stronger and relatively steadier names. Given the short data history and strong recent run, the momentum tilt in particular may be capturing a favorable but potentially temporary phase.

Risk contribution Info

  • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    Weight: 32.75%
    40.8%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 32.30%
    20.3%
  • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
    Weight: 14.40%
    18.0%
  • Vertiv Holdings Co
    Weight: 7.97%
    15.1%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 6.09%
    3.3%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 97.5%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. The main semiconductor option‑income ETF is about one‑third of the portfolio but contributes over 40% of the risk. The second semiconductor option‑income ETF and Vertiv together add another large slice, so the top three positions contribute roughly 79% of total risk. Meanwhile, the broad US and international index ETFs have lower risk contributions relative to their weights, acting more like stabilizers. This pattern means day‑to‑day and month‑to‑month results are dominated by a handful of concentrated, more volatile exposures, even though they aren’t the entire portfolio by dollar amount.

Redundant positions Info

  • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
    YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF
    High correlation

Correlation looks at how holdings move relative to each other. A value close to 1 means two assets usually move in the same direction at the same time. Here, the two YieldMax semiconductor option‑income ETFs are flagged as moving almost identically. That likely reflects similar underlying exposures and option strategies. When such highly correlated holdings are both significant in size, they don’t provide much diversification from one another: if one is rising or falling, the other is likely doing something similar. Over only about a year of data, correlations can be noisy, but strong relationships like this are still informative. They highlight where the portfolio effectively doubles down on a specific behavior rather than spreading risk.

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 risk‑return chart, or efficient frontier, compares the current mix with all other combinations of the same holdings. The Sharpe ratio—return per unit of risk above a risk‑free rate—is about 2.51 for the current portfolio, while the optimal mix reaches about 3.48, and the minimum‑variance version sits lower at 2.06. The current point lies roughly 20 percentage points below the frontier at its risk level, meaning the same ingredients could be rebalanced to offer higher modeled return for similar risk, or similar return at lower risk. Because this analysis is based on just over a year of unusually strong data, the numbers may be overstating efficiency gaps, but they still suggest that the present weights are not mathematically “most efficient.”

Dividends Info

  • Credit Suisse X-Links Crude Oil Shares Covered Call ETN 21.50%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vertiv Holdings Co 0.10%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
  • YieldMax Target 12 Semiconductor Option Income ETF 8.30%
  • YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF 32.50%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 13.50%

The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is high, around 13.5%, driven mainly by the two YieldMax option‑income ETFs and the crude oil covered‑call ETN, which show very elevated distribution yields. Dividend yield measures annual cash payouts relative to price. Option‑income and covered‑call strategies often convert potential future price swings into current cash flow by selling options, so high yields here partly reflect that structure rather than traditional corporate dividends. The broad US and international index ETFs provide more modest, typical equity yields, while some individual stocks pay very little. With only a short observation window, it’s not clear how stable these high payouts will be over time, especially if market volatility or option pricing changes.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Credit Suisse X-Links Crude Oil Shares Covered Call ETN 0.85%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%

The portfolio’s total expense ratio (TER) is low overall at about 0.06%, thanks to large allocations to very inexpensive Vanguard index ETFs at 0.03% and 0.05%. One holding—the crude oil covered‑call ETN—has a higher TER of 0.85%, but it’s a relatively small weight. TER captures annual fund management fees; lower costs leave more of any gross return in the investor’s pocket, which can compound meaningfully over long periods. From a cost perspective, this mix is impressively efficient and compares favorably to many actively managed portfolios. It’s worth remembering that option‑income strategies may also have trading‑related frictions not captured in TER, but the headline ongoing fees here form a strong foundation.

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