Roast mode 🔥

A growth portfolio with a secret NVIDIA crush pretending to be diversified and sensible

Report created on Dec 23, 2025

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

1/5
Single-Focused
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This setup looks like someone started building a solid core and then rage-clicked NVIDIA until the screen felt dangerous enough. You’ve got five positions, but two of them (SCHD and Contrafund) hog over half the portfolio, with NVIDIA sitting there at ~18% like the favorite child who also drag races on weekends. For something labeled “growth,” there’s a weird mix of dividend tilt plus one hypergrowth stock plus a sprinkle of gold for vibes. That’s not broad diversification; that’s mood swings. A cleaner structure would separate “core” holdings from “spicy” ones and cap any single stock or active fund so it can’t hijack the whole story.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing has ripped. A 23.9% CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate — your average speed on a long road trip) is nuts. Turn $10k into around $60k-ish over 10 years and you feel like a genius. But then you see the -39% max drawdown and remember markets don’t care about your self-esteem. Losing nearly 40% at one point means this is not a “check once a year and chill” ride. Also, that performance is heavily juiced by a monster tech run and NVIDIA’s rocket ship phase. Past data is yesterday’s weather: helpful to pack an umbrella, stupid to assume it’ll never storm again.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo results look like a motivational poster for risk-takers: even the 5th percentile ends way up, and the median is “retire-and-flex” level. Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of saying, “We run tons of what-if scenarios and see how ugly it might get.” But all of this is built on the same assumption that the future acts vaguely like the recent past, which is adorable but optimistic for tech-heavy portfolios. The key takeaway: the upside is big, but so is the uncertainty. This setup deserves regular check-ins, guardrails on single-stock weight, and a backup plan for when markets stop handing out participation trophies.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    85%
  • Other
    15%
  • Cash
    1%

Asset class mix: 85% stocks, 15% “other” (aka gold), 0% bonds. This is basically “stocks and emotional support metal.” For a growth profile, being heavily in stocks is normal, but 0% in bonds or defensive assets means when stocks puke, there’s nowhere to hide except that gold slice. Gold at ~14% is actually a pretty chunky hedge, but it won’t save you from a full equity meltdown; it just makes the fall slightly less dramatic. A more balanced approach would keep stocks as the star but add a small, boring buffer somewhere so a bad year doesn’t feel like an existential crisis.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    33%
  • Telecommunications
    10%
  • Financials
    9%
  • Health Care
    8%
  • Consumer Staples
    6%
  • Energy
    6%
  • Industrials
    5%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    4%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    3%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%

Sector-wise, you’re clearly in a committed relationship with tech: about one-third in Technology and then more sneaky exposure via growthy funds. The rest is a scattered supporting cast: financials, healthcare, energy, a bit of defensives — but everything after tech looks like “yeah, I guess we should own some of that too.” Compared to a broad index, this leans pretty hard into growth and innovation themes, which is great in up cycles and brutal when the market remembers valuations exist. Dialing back the tech dominance and making sure other sectors have real weight, not token representation, would make crashes less “all my stuff is on fire at once.”

Regions Info

  • North America
    85%
  • Europe Developed
    1%

Geographically, this is very “America first, world who?” with ~85% in North America and almost nothing meaningful elsewhere. It’s basically betting that U.S. companies will always be the main characters of global capitalism. That’s worked wonderfully the last decade, but it’s still a big home bias. If the U.S. hits a rough patch while other regions do better, this portfolio just shrugs and sinks with the ship. Adding some genuinely international exposure — not just the tiny rounding-error 1% — would spread political, currency, and economic risk instead of assuming the S&P is the only show in town.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    42%
  • Large-cap
    26%
  • Mid-cap
    13%
  • Small-cap
    3%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

Market cap tilt screams “I love the big kids.” With over 40% in megacaps and another 26% in big caps, this is a fan club for the usual giants, plus one superstar single stock. Mid, small, and micro caps are almost an afterthought. That means you’re heavily tied to how the big-name corporations do, which can be fine but also a bit lazy from a growth perspective. Smaller caps tend to be more volatile but can add diversification and long-term punch. A saner version of this setup would let small and mids have a slightly bigger seat at the table without turning the whole thing into a small-cap roller coaster.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Fidelity Contrafund
    High correlation

Correlation-wise, you’ve basically doubled up on the same flavor with QQQ and Contrafund being highly in sync. Correlation is just “do these things move together or not,” and these two clearly text each other before every market move. Holding multiple things that all scream at the same time in a crash isn’t diversification; it’s just noise with extra steps. If two holdings behave almost the same, one of them isn’t really pulling its weight in reducing risk. Cleaning out overlapping positions and focusing on stuff that actually zig when others zag would earn you real diversification instead of this copy-paste exposure.

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.

Risk versus return here is “go big, hope not to go home.” The portfolio is clearly taking real swings — growth label, high historical return, fat drawdowns — but the optimization hint says you’re not even on the most efficient part of the curve. Efficient Frontier is just the nerdy way of saying: for a given level of risk, there’s a smarter way to mix stuff to get more potential return. Right now, you’re paying for volatility that isn’t fully rewarded. By cutting duplicate tech-ish exposure and balancing your mix a bit, you could keep the thrill level similar while nudging expected return higher and smoothing the ride slightly.

Dividends Info

  • Fidelity Contrafund 10.40%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.80%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 3.90%

The yield picture is kind of hilarious. SCHD at ~3.8% makes sense, VTI and QQQ throw a little pocket change, and then Contrafund allegedly at 10.4% looks like a data glitch or one-off distribution event. A 3.9% overall yield for a growth-tilted, tech-heavy setup is unusually high, like it’s trying to cosplay as an income portfolio on weekends. Dividends are nice, but chasing yield in growth funds often means misunderstanding what’s going on under the hood. Better to treat dividends as a bonus, not the main goal here, and make sure any high yield isn’t coming from weird, unsustainable payouts or accidental timing.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Fidelity Contrafund 0.63%
  • SPDR Gold Mini Shares 0.10%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.21%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio didn’t trip over its own shoelaces. A total expense ratio around 0.21% is actually solid, considering Contrafund is sitting there at 0.63% like the pricey guest at an otherwise cheap party. The ETFs are doing the heavy lifting with low fees — you clearly managed to click the low-cost options at least four times. Still, paying up for active management only makes sense if it’s truly adding something you can’t get from simpler, cheaper exposure. Trimming redundant or expensive stuff and favoring broad, low-cost holdings could free more of your return from fee gravity.

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