Concentrated industrial and healthcare stock picks alongside low cost broad US index funds
Report created on May 19, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
CW Curtiss-Wright Corporation
CW - US2315611010 40.06% -
BA Bayer AG
BAYZF 29.51% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 17.57% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 10.04% -
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 2.82%
This portfolio is highly concentrated, with just two individual stocks making up almost 70% of the total value. Curtiss-Wright is roughly 40% and Bayer about 30%, while the remaining 30% is spread across three broad US equity ETFs covering the S&P 500, NASDAQ 100, and the total US market. That mix combines focused company-specific bets with diversified market exposure. Concentration like this means portfolio results are likely to be driven far more by the two single stocks than by the index funds. The overall structure aligns with a growth‑oriented approach, but the relatively low number of holdings naturally reduces diversification compared with a fully fund‑based portfolio.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio has delivered very strong growth, turning $1,000 into about $4,055 over roughly five and a half years. Its compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 32.19% is far ahead of both the US market at 18.12% and the global market at 15.62%. CAGR is like the average yearly “speed” over the whole journey. Max drawdown, the worst peak‑to‑trough fall, was -23.77%, similar to the benchmarks’ largest drops. That means the portfolio achieved higher returns without much deeper declines over this period. However, this window includes a favorable backdrop for some holdings, and past performance doesn’t guarantee those conditions will repeat in the future.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses many randomized simulations based on historical behavior to explore possible future outcomes. Starting from $1,000, the median result after 15 years is around $2,666, with a wide “likely range” from about $1,713 to $4,181. The broader “possible range” stretches from roughly $954 to $7,359, highlighting just how uncertain long‑term equity returns can be. The average annualized return across all simulations is 7.84%, noticeably lower than recent historical results, which is typical when projections build in variability. Monte Carlo doesn’t predict any single path; it just shows a distribution of scenarios, reminding us that even strong historical performers can experience long flat or negative periods.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio is invested in stocks, with no bonds, cash funds, or alternative assets included in the breakdown. A 100% equity allocation is consistent with a growth‑oriented profile and offers strong potential for long‑term capital appreciation, but it also means the portfolio will fully participate in equity market volatility. Compared with more mixed stock‑bond blends, this structure tends to see larger swings during market corrections and recoveries. From a diversification standpoint, different asset classes often behave differently in stress periods, so an all‑equity mix relies entirely on differences within the stock universe rather than across asset types. This aligns with the documented risk score of 5/7 and moderate diversification rating.
Sectors
- Industrials 42%
- Health Care 32%
- Technology 13%
- Telecommunications 4%
- Consumer Discretionary 3%
- Financials 2%
- Consumer Staples 2%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
Sector exposure is dominated by industrials at 42% and healthcare at 32%, largely driven by the two big single-stock positions. Technology is the next largest at 13%, with the remaining sectors each in the low single digits. This creates a very distinct sector profile compared with common broad benchmarks, which are usually more spread across technology, financials, consumer areas, and others. Sector concentration matters because industry trends, regulation, or economic conditions can hit some areas much harder than others. Here, portfolio behavior will be especially sensitive to developments affecting industrial and healthcare companies. The technology allocation mostly comes through diversified ETFs, providing some balance but not offsetting the two main sector tilts.
Regions
- North America 70%
- Europe Developed 30%
Geographically, about 70% of the portfolio is in North America and 30% in developed Europe. That lines up reasonably well with global equity benchmarks that are typically US‑heavy, though this portfolio has a more explicit split given the direct Bayer exposure. Geographic diversification matters because different economies, currencies, and policy environments create varied return patterns over time. A 70/30 mix like this means results will lean toward North American market and dollar movements, but European developments also play a meaningful role. This alignment with broad global patterns is generally helpful, as it avoids being overly reliant on a single region, even though the number of underlying securities remains small.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 80%
- Mega-cap 15%
- Mid-cap 5%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans heavily toward large and mega‑cap companies, with 95% split between those two categories and only 5% in mid‑caps. Large and mega‑caps are typically more established businesses with deeper liquidity and broader analyst coverage, which can help with pricing efficiency and trading costs. A heavy tilt here usually means behavior closer to mainstream indices and less exposure to the sometimes higher volatility and higher growth potential of smaller firms. This structure lines up well with many benchmark allocations and helps keep the portfolio’s risk profile in line with larger companies rather than concentrating in less mature parts of the market.
True holdings
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.50%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 2.01%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.31%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.11%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 0.98%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.93%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.71%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 80.62%
Looking through the ETFs, the top underlying exposures show meaningful positions in major US technology names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, and Tesla, though each is individually small relative to the whole portfolio. Curtiss-Wright and Bayer together still dominate, with 69.57% held directly and no additional exposure via funds. Overlap between ETFs in these big tech names is visible, but because only top‑10 holdings are used, total overlap is likely understated. The main takeaway is that most diversification benefits come from the index funds, while risk and return are still heavily shaped by the two direct stock positions, which act as concentrated bets on specific companies and sectors.
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 a very high tilt toward momentum at 85% and a high tilt toward low volatility at 62%, while other factors are near neutral or slightly away. Factors are like “personality traits” of a portfolio that research has linked to returns over time. A strong momentum tilt means holdings have recently been strong performers; these portfolios can do well in trending markets but may experience sharper setbacks when trends reverse. The high low‑volatility exposure suggests a bias toward stocks that historically moved less than the market, which can cushion some drawdowns. Together, this pattern points to a blend of recent winners and relatively stable names, a combination that has historically supported smoother growth but can still see pronounced swings.
Risk contribution
-
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
Weight: 40.06% 46.6% -
Bayer AG
Weight: 29.51% 34.1% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 17.57% 10.6% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 10.04% 6.9% -
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 2.82% 1.8%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs. Curtiss-Wright, at about 40% weight, contributes almost 47% of portfolio risk, while Bayer, at roughly 30%, adds about 34% of risk. Their risk/weight ratios are both 1.16, indicating they are slightly more volatile than their sizes alone would suggest. The three ETFs together, despite making up about 30% of the portfolio, contribute only around 19% of total risk. Overall, the top three holdings drive over 91% of portfolio volatility. This illustrates how large single‑stock positions can dominate risk, even when diversified funds are present alongside them. Position sizing here clearly concentrates both potential gains and potential losses.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF SharesVanguard S&P 500 ETF
Asset correlation describes how often investments move in the same direction at the same time. In this portfolio, the S&P 500 ETF and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF are identified as almost perfectly correlated, which makes sense because both track very broad US equity universes with similar compositions. When assets are highly correlated, holding both doesn’t add much extra diversification compared with holding just one, though there can still be slight differences in coverage and index methodology. Within the broader portfolio, all positions are equities, so correlations are generally expected to be higher than, say, mixing stocks with bonds. That’s consistent with the moderate diversification score, as many holdings will tend to rise and fall together in major market moves.
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 chart compares risk and return using only the existing holdings with different weights. Here, the current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 1.03, measuring return per unit of risk after accounting for a 4% risk‑free rate. The optimal mix of the same holdings shows a higher Sharpe of 1.47 with higher return and risk, while the minimum variance mix offers lower risk and a Sharpe of 0.92. The current allocation sits about 4.85 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its risk level, meaning there are alternative weightings of these same positions that could have delivered better risk‑adjusted returns historically. Importantly, this analysis doesn’t assume adding new investments, just redistributing among the current ones.
Dividends
- Curtiss-Wright Corporation 0.10%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.00%
- Bayer AG 0.30%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.37%
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is low at around 0.37%, with individual holdings ranging from roughly 0.10% to 1.00%. Yield is the yearly cash payout as a percentage of investment value, and it can be an important component of total return for income‑focused strategies. Here, most of the expected return has historically come from price appreciation rather than regular cash distributions. That’s consistent with a growth‑oriented, equity‑only portfolio featuring both concentrated stocks and broad market ETFs. While dividends can help smooth the ride in volatile markets, a low-yield profile like this keeps the focus firmly on long‑term capital gains rather than immediate income.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%
Costs are impressively low, with a total estimated expense ratio (TER) of about 0.02% driven by the ultra‑low fees on the Vanguard ETFs and a modest 0.15% fee on the NASDAQ 100 ETF. TER is the annual fee charged by funds as a percentage of assets and comes out of returns automatically. Because most of the portfolio’s weight is in individual stocks, which don’t carry ongoing fund fees, overall costs stay minimal. Low costs are a notable strength: even small percentage savings compound meaningfully over long periods. This cost structure supports better long‑term performance by letting more of the portfolio’s gross return stay in the investor’s hands rather than going to fund providers.
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