Roast mode 🔥

Hyperactive US stock junkie pretending to be diversified with one lonely dividend blanket

Report created on Apr 7, 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

This thing is five funds in a trench coat all trying to be “US stocks but spicier.” You’ve basically got: broad US market, broad US mega-growth, niche chips, niche war machines, and a dividend comfort ETF, all at the same 20%. Equal weighting looks tidy on paper, but here it just hides the fact you’ve stacked flavors of the same cuisine. It’s like ordering five different burgers and calling it a balanced diet. The main issue: redundancy. You’re doubling up on similar large-cap US exposure while pretending the themey stuff (semis, defense) is diversification rather than just extra leverage to the same economy. Takeaway: structure-wise, it’s simple, but it’s not smart-simple.

Growth Info

Performance-wise, this portfolio has been surfing a serious tailwind. A $1,000 stake turning into $2,417 since late 2020 with a 17.57% CAGR is hot — comfortably beating both the US market (13.77%) and global market (11.87%). Max drawdown at -26.77% is only slightly worse than the US market’s -24.50%, so you took extra pain for the extra gain, but not absurdly so. Still, don’t get hypnotized by the backtest. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is just your average trip speed; it doesn’t promise the next road will be as smooth. Past data is yesterday’s weather — useful, but it absolutely does not care about your plans.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection basically runs 1,000 parallel universes for the next 15 years and asks, “How often does this blow up?” Median outcome of $2,800 from $1,000 with an 8% annualized return is solidly optimistic but no longer the 2020–2024 rocket ride. The range from about $1,000 to $7,260 reminds you that simulations are guesswork with math — not prophecy. They assume markets behave kind-of-like the past with some randomness sprinkled on top. So yes, odds of a positive result (73.3%) are in your favor, but you’re still playing a game where one ugly decade can leave you wondering why the backtest looked so charming.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, zero chill. There is no ballast, no seatbelt, no “let’s calm down” component. That’s fine for someone with decades ahead and a strong stomach, but let’s not pretend this is a grown-up balanced portfolio. When everything is equities, you’re fully hired by the stock market — you don’t get to clock out when volatility shows up. The upside: maximum long-term growth potential. The downside: when markets puke, you’re eating all of it. A general rule: if you’re going all-equity, you need either time, nerves, or both. If you have neither, this setup is less “strategy” and more “adrenaline hobby.”

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    40%
  • Industrials
    24%
  • Health Care
    7%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    6%
  • Financials
    4%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

Sector tilt: tech at 40% plus another big chunk of industrials mostly tied to aerospace and defense. That’s a very specific flavor of risk: “please may the future continue to run on chips and conflict.” Health care, staples, utilities, and other boring-but-useful areas are rounding errors here. This is not a balanced economic snapshot; it’s more like betting the cool kids’ table stays in charge forever. Sector risk means if the market decides chips are too expensive or defense budgets slow, your portfolio doesn’t just wobble — it limps. Takeaway: a portfolio this tilted is fine if you know it’s a bet, not a neutral stance.

Regions Info

  • North America
    97%
  • Europe Developed
    2%
  • Asia Developed
    1%

Geography-wise, this portfolio believes the world ends somewhere around the US border. With 97% in North America, you’ve essentially decided the rest of the planet is background scenery. Europe and developed Asia barely exist. That’s home bias on steroids. It works brilliantly when the US is crushing it, which it has been, but it’s a blind spot if leadership ever rotates elsewhere. Global diversification isn’t about patriotism; it’s about not having your entire net worth chained to one country’s policy mistakes, currency, and valuation bubble potential. You’re not diversified globally — you’re just extremely confident that the US stays the main character forever.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    51%
  • Mega-cap
    26%
  • Mid-cap
    21%
  • Small-cap
    2%

Market cap breakdown is very “index-plus”: about three-quarters in mega and large caps, a little seasoning of mid caps, and a token 2% in small caps. So you’ve basically outsourced your faith to the giants — the household names that already won. That’s stable-ish, but don’t confuse it with being edgy or contrarian. The small-cap slice is so tiny it’s cosmetic, like putting a parsley leaf on a burger and calling it a salad. Large and mega caps are fine, but they tend to move together, so in a big downturn they all go down in a neat, depressing line. Mid/small barely register enough to matter.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    4.85%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares Semiconductor ETF
  • GE Aerospace
    3.81%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF
  • Raytheon Technologies Corp
    3.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.84%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    2.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares Semiconductor ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.11%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • The Boeing Company
    1.78%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.60%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Micron Technology Inc
    1.47%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Semiconductor ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Top 10 total 25.87%

The look-through holdings scream “I love the same ten companies in different costumes.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet — the usual mega-cap celebrities — are all quietly double-counted via multiple ETFs. NVIDIA alone clocks in near 5%, and that’s just from top-10 slices, so the real overlap is fatter. This is the classic hidden concentration trap: you think you’ve spread your bets, but you’ve just built a fan club for the same mega names. Overlap isn’t evil, but when one chip stock fireworks display can shake half your portfolio, it stops being diversification and starts being groupthink with nicer branding.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 80%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 80%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 80%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
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-wise, the portfolio is shockingly normal. Everything — value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility — hovers around “neutral.” Factor exposure is like the ingredient label explaining *why* your portfolio behaves the way it does: tilts to cheap stocks (value), stable ones (low vol), trend-followers (momentum), etc. Here, you’ve basically ordered the “market combo meal.” No strong lean toward bargain hunting, safety, or trend-chasing. That’s either disciplined or accidental, but it does mean your returns are mostly driven by plain market and sector bets, not clever factor engineering. If you were trying to be fancy, you missed; if you wanted simple, you nailed it.

Risk contribution Info

  • iShares Semiconductor ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    33.6%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    21.6%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    16.8%
  • iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    16.1%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    11.9%

Risk contribution reveals who’s actually shaking the portfolio, not just who looks big on paper. Your semiconductor ETF is the loudest child: 20% weight, but a massive 33.6% of total risk. The NASDAQ 100 follows with 21.6% of risk, and the S&P 500 chips in 16.8%. Together, the top three positions drive over 72% of the drama. That’s a huge imbalance given they all swim in similar US large-cap waters. A 20% stake pulling 33% of risk is not “efficient”; it’s a spotlight hog. Trimming or reweighting high-volatility slices can keep one thematic bet from hijacking the whole ride when volatility spikes.

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 portfolio sits a solid 2.51 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its current risk level. Translation: for the amount of volatility you’re taking (19.16%), you’re leaving return on the table compared to what *the same holdings* could deliver if reweighted better. The Sharpe ratio (risk-adjusted return score) is 0.75, while the optimal mix hits 1.04 and even the minimum-variance version beats you at 0.85. That’s like running with ankle weights for no reason. The annoying part: you don’t need new products to improve this — just smarter weights. Same toys, better arrangement, less pain per unit of gain.

Dividends Info

  • iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF 0.50%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.50%
  • iShares Semiconductor ETF 0.50%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.24%

Dividend story: one ETF (the Schwab dividend fund) is doing all the income heavy lifting with a 3.5% yield, while everything else is basically a growth play paying pocket change. The total portfolio yield of 1.24% isn’t exactly “live off the land” territory. This is a growth-first setup cosplaying as partially income-conscious. If you need serious cash flow from investments, this isn’t it; if you’re reinvesting, that’s fine, but let’s be honest — the dividend ETF here is mostly a security blanket to make the lineup feel more “responsible” than it really is. The engine is still capital gains, not payouts.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF 0.40%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • iShares Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.20%

On costs, you actually behaved like a rational human. Total TER at 0.20% is decently low given you insisted on some niche, pricier themes like semis (0.35%) and defense (0.40%). The broad market and dividend funds help drag the average down with rock-bottom fees. It’s like paying economy prices while occasionally splurging on a fancy cocktail. Are there slightly cheaper ways to get similar exposures? Probably. But nothing here screams “you’re being robbed yearly.” Fees are one of the few things you can control, and you’ve at least avoided the classic mistake of donating half your future returns to marketing departments.

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