High growth focused portfolio concentrated in technology and semiconductor leaders with strong historic performance
Report created on May 10, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 70.00% -
SM VanEck Semiconductor ETF
SMH - US92189F6768 30.00%
This portfolio is built from just two ETFs: a broad tech-heavy growth fund at 70% and a focused semiconductor fund at 30%. That means 100% in equities, with a strong tilt toward fast‑growing, innovation‑driven companies rather than a mix including bonds or defensive assets. Structurally, this is a concentrated, high‑octane growth setup rather than a broadly diversified “all‑weather” mix. The reported risk score of 5/7 and low diversification score reflect that emphasis. In practice, this kind of structure can move sharply both up and down, because the holdings are exposed to similar drivers like technology spending, chip cycles, interest rates, and sentiment toward growth companies.
Growth
Historically, this portfolio has delivered very strong results: $1,000 grew to about $12,333 over the period, implying a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 28.66%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing out the bumps. That comfortably outpaced both the US market (15.40%) and global market (12.78%). The trade‑off was a max drawdown of -39.32%, meaning at one point it was down nearly 40% from a peak before recovering. Recovery took over a year. This pattern—high long‑term growth with deep, sometimes lengthy drawdowns—is typical for concentrated, growth‑heavy portfolios.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses past volatility and returns to simulate many possible 15‑year futures, like running thousands of alternate timelines based on historical patterns. The median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,771, with a wide “likely range” from roughly $1,875 to $4,276. There are also extreme paths where outcomes are much lower or higher. The average simulated annual return of 8.26% is far below the backward‑looking CAGR, which highlights a key point: past outperformance, especially in a hot sector, doesn’t automatically continue. Simulations are still based on history, so they’re useful but never guarantees of what actually happens.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All assets here are in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. From an asset class angle, that means the portfolio is fully tied to equity market ups and downs, without a built‑in stabilizer. Traditional diversified portfolios often mix in bonds or cash‑like instruments to smooth volatility, because those can behave differently when stocks fall. Here, any risk reduction would need to come from how the equity positions behave relative to each other, not from mixing different asset classes. The 100% equity stance is consistent with the high growth, higher‑risk profile already reflected in the risk classification.
Sectors
- Technology 69%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Health Care 3%
- Industrials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector exposure is heavily skewed, with technology around 69% and another 11% in related areas like telecommunications. The rest is spread thinly across consumer, health care, industrials, utilities, and materials. Compared with broad market benchmarks that spread more evenly across sectors, this is a distinctly tech‑centric portfolio. Sector concentration matters because different parts of the economy respond differently to things like interest rate moves, regulation, or changes in consumer demand. Tech‑heavy portfolios can shine when innovation and digital spending are strong, but they can also be more sensitive when growth expectations cool or when higher rates pressure valuations.
Regions
- North America 94%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Europe Developed 3%
Geographically, about 94% of the portfolio sits in North America, with only small allocations to developed Asia and Europe. That’s a clear home‑country and US‑centric tilt compared with global market indices, where non‑US regions make up a much larger share of overall equity value. Geographic concentration means company fortunes are heavily linked to one main economic region, currency, and policy environment. Even though many of these firms operate globally, their listings, regulation, and investor base are concentrated. This alignment with the US market has helped during a period of US tech strength, but it also increases sensitivity to US‑specific shocks.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 54%
- Large-cap 37%
- Mid-cap 9%
The portfolio is dominated by mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, with 54% in mega‑caps and 37% in large‑caps, leaving only 9% in mid‑caps and effectively none in smaller firms. Large and mega‑caps tend to be more established, widely followed businesses, often with more stable access to capital and broad product lines. That can help reduce some firm‑specific risk versus a portfolio loaded with small caps. At the same time, it means less exposure to the very small, early‑stage companies that can be more volatile but sometimes offer explosive growth. Overall, the size mix is actually more mainstream than the sector and geographic tilts.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 10.76%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.97%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
AV Broadcom Inc 4.78%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 3.95%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.76%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
TS Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 3.04%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.73%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.52%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Top 10 total 42.48%
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, several big names appear prominently: NVIDIA (~11%), Apple, Broadcom, Micron, Microsoft, Amazon, TSMC, Alphabet (both share classes), and Tesla. Because both ETFs are tech‑oriented, there is meaningful overlap—some companies show up in multiple funds. This creates “hidden” concentration: even though there are two ETFs, a handful of mega‑cap growth and semiconductor names drive a large portion of underlying exposure. Overlap is likely understated since only top‑10 holdings are captured, but even this partial view shows a tight cluster of leading tech and chip companies anchoring the portfolio’s risk and return.
Factors
Factor exposure shows a very low tilt to value (15%) and low yield and low‑volatility scores. Factors are characteristics like value, momentum, or quality that research links to long‑term return patterns—think of them as the portfolio’s underlying “personality traits.” A very low value score means the holdings are predominantly priced as growth companies rather than bargain or turnaround plays. Low yield and low‑volatility exposures fit the same picture: this mix favors firms that reinvest instead of paying high dividends, and it doesn’t lean toward the most stable, slow‑moving stocks. Historically, growth‑tilted profiles can be powerful in strong markets but more sensitive when sentiment shifts.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 70.00% 62.3% -
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
Weight: 30.00% 37.8%
Risk contribution highlights how much each ETF drives overall ups and downs. Even though the broad tech ETF is 70% of the portfolio, it contributes about 62% of the risk, slightly less than its weight. The semiconductor ETF is 30% by weight but contributes nearly 38% of the risk, showing it’s the more volatile piece. A risk/weight ratio above 1.0 for semiconductors signals they punch above their size in terms of impact. With only two holdings, 100% of the risk is concentrated between them, so there isn’t much diversification cushion if both tech and chips move together during stress.
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 analysis shows the current mix is already on or very close to the frontier, meaning that given these two ETFs, the risk/return balance is quite efficient. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above the risk‑free rate, is 0.93 for the current portfolio versus 1.12 for the theoretical optimal and 0.96 for the minimum‑variance version. That suggests there are combinations of the same two funds that might offer higher risk‑adjusted returns or slightly lower volatility, but the existing allocation is not far off. In other words, within this narrow opportunity set, the structure is working efficiently.
Dividends
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.34%
Dividend yield for the portfolio is low at about 0.34%, with each ETF yielding under 0.5%. Dividends are cash payments from companies to shareholders, and in many broad equity portfolios they’re a meaningful part of long‑term total return. Here, income is clearly not the focus. The underlying companies are mostly growth‑oriented and often channel cash back into research, development, and expansion instead of paying high dividends. For an equity mix like this, most of the historical and expected value has come from price appreciation rather than regular cash payouts, which fits with the strong capital‑growth profile observed.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.24%
Total ongoing costs, measured by Total Expense Ratio (TER), are about 0.24% per year, combining 0.20% for the broad tech ETF and 0.35% for the semiconductor ETF. TER is like a small annual service fee built into the fund price. Over long periods, even modest fee differences can compound into noticeable amounts. In this case, the overall cost level is relatively low for specialized, growth‑oriented ETFs, which is a positive alignment with best practices. Keeping structural costs under control means more of any future return, whatever it turns out to be, stays in the portfolio 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