Tech worship with Microsoft hero worship and three ETFs all buying the same ten stocks
Report created on Apr 6, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
SC Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 40.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 40.00% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 15.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 5.00%
This “portfolio” is basically three overlapping index funds in a trench coat plus a giant Microsoft shrine. Two funds are broad-ish, one is tech-heavy, and then you went “nah, still not enough Microsoft” and slapped 15% directly on top. On paper it looks like four holdings; in reality it’s one bet: big US growth, especially the usual mega-cap darlings. It’s simple, but also kind of lazy-simple, like ordering three versions of the same burger. Takeaway: this is not diversified; it’s a single theme with costume changes. Anyone pretending this is a balanced setup is just re-labeling concentration as “conviction.”
Growth
The track record is good but not “genius investor” good. Turning $1,000 into $1,969 with a 13.23% CAGR is solid, but the US market still edged it with 13.77%. You took more pain than the benchmark too: -30% max drawdown versus about -24.5% for the US market. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is basically your average speed over the trip; drawdown is how bad the worst pothole hurt. You underperformed the home market while taking a nastier hit on the way down — not a flex. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful, but it doesn’t make you a climate scientist.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation is the “what if the future is chaotic” test. It runs 1,000 alternate timelines, shuffling returns around to see how things might play out. Median outcome: $1,000 becomes about $2,755 after 15 years. Nice. But the possible range runs from roughly breaking even at $983 (p5) to $8,127 (p95). Translation: most futures are fine, some are great, and a few are disappointingly meh. The annualized 8.35% across simulations is decent, but way lower than the backward-looking 13%+ CAGR. That gap is the market quietly saying “don’t expect the last few years on repeat.”
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. No bonds, no cash buffer, no diversifiers, just pure equity rollercoaster. That lines up with a “growth” label, but it also means when markets decide to throw a tantrum, there is nowhere to hide. In classroom terms, this is like turning in a group project where every member is the same person. It’ll look brilliant on good days and tragic on bad ones. Takeaway: being 100% in stocks can make sense for long horizons and strong stomachs, but it’s not “aggressive-lite” — it’s just aggressive.
Sectors
- Technology 49%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Health Care 8%
- Financials 8%
- Industrials 6%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Energy 2%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, this is a tech-and-friends party. Roughly 49% in Technology plus another chunky slice in Telecommunications is basically saying “I want the part of the market that moves fast and crashes hard.” The rest — consumer, health, financials, etc. — are just background characters. This isn’t a broad sector spread; it’s a bet that high-growth, high-expectation names keep delivering miracle quarters. That works until sentiment flips, regulation bites, or growth expectations finally come back to earth. Takeaway: if one big growth-heavy sector dominates, the portfolio’s mood will follow that sector’s mood, dramatically.
Regions
- North America 100%
Geography: 100% North America. The rest of the world could vanish and this portfolio would barely notice. That’s fine if the goal is “bet entirely on the US system forever,” but it’s not remotely global. Given how much of world economic activity happens outside one continent, this is like eating only food from one restaurant because you like the menu. It can work, but it is a conscious blind spot. Takeaway: home bias is normal, but all-in on one region means you’re assuming its future will outshine everything else indefinitely. Bold, if nothing else.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 61%
- Large-cap 25%
- Mid-cap 13%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap breakdown screams “I only shop in the mega aisle.” Around 61% mega-cap and 25% large-cap means this thing is chained to the fate of the biggest, most crowded trades in the world. Mid and small caps together barely exist at 14%. That’s fine if the goal is stability of business quality, but it also means you’re missing many earlier-stage growth stories and diversification benefits. This is index-core on steroids: not just the market, but the giant end of the market. Takeaway: if the mega-cap growth engine ever stalls, there’s not much else here to pick up the slack.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 8.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 7.13%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.85%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 3.28%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.80%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.65%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.54%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.41%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
LL Eli Lilly and Company 1.16%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Top 10 total 54.17%
The look-through is where the comedy hits. Microsoft at 20.28% total is not a position, it’s a personality trait. Then there’s the usual crew: NVIDIA, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — basically the NASDAQ 100 poster wall glued into your account three times. Since we only see ETF top-10s, real overlap is definitely worse than advertised. This is hidden concentration 101: you think you own different stuff, but you just keep re-buying the same class of celebrities. Takeaway: once a single company crosses 15–20% total exposure, it stops being “diversification” and starts being “please don’t mess this up, Satya.”
Factors
Factor-wise, you’ve basically ghosted value, size, and yield. Low value exposure (31%) and low size (35%) means almost no tilt toward cheap or smaller companies — it’s the expensive, popular, big-kid table. Yield at 38% says dividends are an afterthought at best. Momentum, quality, and low volatility are around neutral, so there’s no sophisticated factor story here; it’s just “growth-ish and pricey.” Factor exposure is like the ingredient label: you’ve ended up with premium, low-yield, large, growth names without clearly leaning into risk control or bargain hunting. Takeaway: this mix will likely shine in growth booms and look rough when froth gets drained.
Risk contribution
-
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 40.00% 44.7% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 32.7% -
Microsoft Corporation
Weight: 15.00% 17.1% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 5.00% 5.5%
Risk contribution reveals who’s actually driving the drama. Your top three holdings (Schwab Growth, S&P 500, Microsoft) add up to about 94% of total portfolio risk. So even though one of those is an individual stock at 15%, it’s contributing over 17% of risk. That’s a lot of eggs in very few baskets. Risk contribution is basically: “who shakes the portfolio the most when things move?” Here, a couple of ETFs and one stock own the emotional rollercoaster. Takeaway: trimming or reweighting those top risk hogs would change the ride far more than adding some tiny new position on the side.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationInvesco NASDAQ 100 ETFSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
You’ve got a correlation problem disguised as “different ETFs.” The Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF move almost identically. That’s not diversification; that’s buying two copies of the same movie and calling it a film collection. When assets are highly correlated, they tend to go up and down together, especially in stress periods. That’s fun on the way up when everything rips at once, less fun when they all fall in a neat synchronized line. Takeaway: if two holdings dance in perfect step, you’re basically just doubling that same bet.
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 efficient frontier, this thing is surprisingly competent. The portfolio sits right on or very near the frontier, meaning for the mix of stuff you’ve chosen, the risk/return tradeoff is actually efficient. Sharpe ratio at 0.54 isn’t stunning, but the “optimal” and minimum variance portfolios both have Sharpe 0.8 with slightly lower risk and similar returns, using the same ingredients. Efficient frontier is basically the “best possible combos” curve; you’re close enough that there isn’t some obvious free lunch hiding. Takeaway: the main issue isn’t bad weighting math — it’s that the chosen building blocks themselves are all variations on the same theme.
Dividends
- Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.80%
Total yield at 0.80% is “we pay dividends because we’re legally required to, not because we care.” The lineup is stuffed with growth names that prefer reinvesting cash over paying it out, which is fine if the goal is capital appreciation and you don’t need income. But anyone hoping to live off this yield would be subsisting on financial instant noodles. Dividends aren’t everything, but they do help cushion volatility and provide some return even when prices move sideways. Here, they’re background noise. Takeaway: this setup suits a growth focus, not an income theme; expecting both is wishful thinking.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%
Costs are where you accidentally did something impressively sensible. A total TER around 0.04% is extremely low — that’s “I read at least one Bogle quote” energy. You’ve avoided the classic rookie mistake of paying fancy-fund prices for generic index exposure. That said, low fees don’t magically fix concentration or correlation issues; they just mean you’re riding the rollercoaster cheaply. Think of it as buying a discount ticket to the same volatile theme park — same rides, just fewer dollars shaved off by the gate. Takeaway: nice job on costs, now bring that same discipline to actual diversification.
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