Growth focused equity portfolio with one high risk position driving most of the overall volatility
Report created on Apr 7, 2026Risk 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
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 29.00% -
RK Rocket Lab USA Inc.
RKLB - US7731211089 20.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 17.00% -
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc
BRK-B - US0846707026 12.00% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 12.00% -
SP Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
SPMO - US46138E3392 10.00%
This portfolio is a pure equity mix holding broad index ETFs alongside three individual stocks. Around half of the allocation sits in diversified index funds, while roughly the other half is concentrated in three names, with one smaller company taking a particularly large slice. That split between broad funds and single stocks matters because funds spread risk across many companies, whereas individual stocks can swing hard on company-specific news. The key takeaway is that the overall structure leans “core and satellite”: a sensible diversified core wrapped around a few high-conviction bets. The big question for an investor is whether that conviction piece is sized in a way that matches their comfort with sharp ups and downs.
Growth
Historically, this portfolio has been a return machine. From late 2020 to early 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,931, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 22.34%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. That easily beat both the US market at 13.32% and the global market at 10.99%. The trade-off: a deep max drawdown of about -38%, compared with roughly -25% for the benchmarks. Drawdown is the worst peak-to-bottom fall, which tells you how painful the ride can feel. So far, this mix has paid you for taking more risk, but that level of volatility is not for everyone.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which basically reruns thousands of alternate futures using patterns from historical returns and volatility. Think of it like rolling the dice 1,000 times to see a range of possible outcomes rather than one single forecast. For $1,000 over 15 years, the median outcome lands around $2,780, with a wide “likely” band from roughly $1,871 to $4,228. There’s also a real chance of ending near where you started or even below. Simulations are helpful for framing expectations, but they’re still built from past data and assumptions. Markets change, so these ranges are guides, not promises, and actual results can fall outside them.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Everything here is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or other asset classes. That all-equity stance is a classic growth approach: more upside potential over long periods, but much sharper swings month-to-month and year-to-year. In many broad benchmarks, you’d often see at least some allocation to bonds or cash to dampen volatility, especially as time horizons shorten. With 100% equity, the portfolio is heavily tied to the business cycle and investor sentiment. The main takeaway is that this setup fits someone who can stomach large drawdowns and doesn’t need short-term stability from this money. For anyone needing smoother returns, adding other asset classes would usually be the lever.
Sectors
- Technology 29%
- Industrials 27%
- Financials 20%
- Health Care 5%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Energy 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, this portfolio tilts meaningfully toward technology and industrials, with financials also playing a big role. That’s more concentrated than a typical broad global benchmark, where sectors tend to be more evenly spread. Heavier tech exposure can boost returns in periods of innovation, low interest rates, or strong earnings growth, but it also tends to amplify volatility when rates rise or sentiment sours on growth stories. The industrials tilt ties more of the outcome to economic cycles such as manufacturing activity, infrastructure, and transport demand. The rest of the sectors are present but relatively small. This setup is fine for a growth mindset, as long as the cyclical and tech-driven behavior is fully intentional.
Regions
- North America 84%
- Europe Developed 6%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Asia Emerging 2%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
Geographically, about 84% of the exposure is in North America, with only modest stakes in Europe, Japan, and other regions. That’s a clear home bias toward the US, which has beaten many markets in the last decade, but no one region leads forever. Global market indices usually allocate more to the US than anywhere else, yet still spread more across other developed and emerging economies than you see here. The benefit of this alignment is familiarity and access to world-class companies. The trade-off is that portfolio fortunes are highly tied to one economy, one political system, and primarily one currency. Over the ultra-long term, adding more non-US exposure can smooth out region-specific shocks.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 49%
- Large-cap 41%
- Mid-cap 9%
- Small-cap 1%
The market cap breakdown is dominated by mega-cap and large-cap stocks, together making up about 90% of the portfolio. Mid-caps and small-caps barely register. Larger companies tend to be more stable, better researched, and more liquid, but they may offer slower growth compared with smaller, earlier-stage names. The one big exception here is your sizeable position in a smaller, more speculative company, which stands out against this otherwise blue-chip tilt. In general, a large-cap-heavy mix behaves more like the major indices, with smaller surprises but fewer “lottery ticket” opportunities. The current structure is mostly large and established, with one very punchy outlier that changes the risk profile.
True holdings
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 3.05%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 1.93%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.45%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.38%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.10%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.01%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 0.70%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 56.51%
Looking through the ETFs into their top holdings, Microsoft and Berkshire show up both directly and inside funds, slightly increasing hidden concentration. For example, Microsoft totals about 13.4% when you add the direct position to its presence in the ETFs, and Berkshire creeps above 12% for the same reason. Top mega-cap tech names like NVIDIA, Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta all appear via ETFs, so there’s a subtle cluster around the large US growth leaders. Overlap is probably higher than reported because only ETF top-10s are included. The practical takeaway: even though you own multiple tickers, a decent chunk of your risk still rides on a relatively small group of big US companies.
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 is broadly neutral across the board. Value, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit close to market-like levels, meaning the portfolio isn’t strongly leaning into or away from these characteristics. Size shows a mild tilt away from smaller companies, consistent with the heavy mega- and large-cap focus. Factors are like the underlying traits that help explain why portfolios behave differently — for instance, value tilts can shine in recoveries, while momentum can do well in trending markets. Here, the lack of strong factor tilts is actually a positive: most of the unique behavior comes from a small number of stock-specific bets rather than an embedded style bias that might surprise you in certain environments.
Risk contribution
-
Rocket Lab USA Inc.
Weight: 20.00% 57.1% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 29.00% 16.5% -
Microsoft Corporation
Weight: 12.00% 8.2% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 17.00% 8.0% -
Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
Weight: 10.00% 5.9% - Top 5 risk contribution 95.8%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs. Rocket Lab is the standout: at 20% weight, it contributes a huge 57% of total risk, almost three times its share by size. That’s like one loud instrument overwhelming the orchestra. Meanwhile, the broad ETFs and mega-caps contribute less risk than their weights might suggest. The top three holdings in weight account for over 80% of total risk, so the experience of owning this portfolio is dominated by a few names, especially Rocket Lab. If that feels too extreme, adjusting position sizes is usually the cleanest way to bring risk contributions closer to what feels comfortable.
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 compares your current mix to the best possible combinations of these same holdings. The current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.85, which measures return per unit of risk, while the optimal mix pushes that up to 1.12 with slightly lower volatility. Being about 2.7 percentage points below the frontier at the same risk level means you’re not getting the most efficient trade-off with the current weights. Importantly, the analysis says you could improve this just by reweighting what you already own, not by adding new products. So the building blocks are strong; it’s more about fine-tuning how much you allocate to each one, especially the high-risk satellite position.
Dividends
- Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.90%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.90%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.04%
The overall dividend yield is around 1.04%, which is relatively low and clearly not the main driver of returns here. The total international ETF offers the highest yield in the mix, while the US index ETF and momentum ETF sit around 1%, and Microsoft adds a modest payout. A portfolio with this profile is geared more toward price appreciation than steady income. That’s perfectly fine for growth-focused investors who don’t need regular cash flow today. The key is to be clear on expectations: income-oriented strategies typically lean on higher-yield holdings, whereas this one uses dividends as a minor bonus on top of a primarily capital-gains-driven approach.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.13%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.03%
Costs are a real bright spot. The total expense ratio (TER) for the ETF sleeve comes out at a very low 0.03%, which is excellent. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, and even small percentage differences compound heavily over long periods. Here, you’ve chosen some of the most cost-efficient building blocks available, especially for the broad market ETFs. That means more of the portfolio’s gross return stays in your pocket. Keeping fees this low is strongly aligned with best practice and sets a solid foundation for long-term compounding. With costs already dialed in so well, the bigger levers for improvement lie in risk and diversification, not in squeezing expenses further.
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