Mostly just the S&P 500 with a couple of snacks taped on for decoration
Report created on Apr 24, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 72.10% -
CA Caseys General Stores Inc
CASY - US1475281036 7.56% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 6.68% -
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 5.42% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 5.14% -
UT Utz Brands Inc
UTZ - US9180901012 3.10%
This “portfolio” is basically 72% S&P 500 with a handful of side quests: two snack stocks, one dividend ETF, some QQQ, and a token international slice. It looks less like a designed strategy and more like the result of clicking “buy” whenever something felt familiar. The structure screams core-and-random-satellites, not core-and-satellites. The S&P position is so dominant that everything else is mostly there for emotional comfort. In practice, this behaves like a slightly spicier S&P fund with optional flavor text. The main takeaway: lots of tickers, very little genuine diversification. It’s a busy-looking way to do something pretty simple.
Growth
Historically, this thing absolutely ripped: turning $1,000 into $3,144 with a 16.82% CAGR. CAGR is just your average yearly speed over the whole trip, potholes and all. You beat the US market by 0.86% a year and the global market by 3.39% — not bad for an index-clone with extras. Max drawdown of -32.38% in early 2020 was basically market-level pain though, so no magic downside protection here. And 90% of returns came from just 28 days, meaning performance was heavily driven by a tiny set of “don’t blink” moments. Past data is yesterday’s weather: helpful, but not a guarantee the next storm behaves the same.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection is the financial version of running this portfolio through a thousand alternate universes to see what happens. Median outcome of $2,778 in 15 years basically says “temper those backward-looking 17% dreams to more boring single digits.” A likely middle band of $1,831–$4,146 shows plenty can still go right or wrong without being extreme. The 5–95% range ($1,012–$7,738) reminds that “almost flat” and “fantastic” are both on the menu. Average simulated return of 8.22% is far less heroic than the historical record. Translation: the last decade’s party is not the baseline setting forever.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
You’ve gone 100% stocks, no chaser. No bonds, no cash sleeve, no anything-that-isn’t-equity. It’s the financial equivalent of an all-energy-drink diet: works great until volatility hits and suddenly everything shakes. Being all in on one asset class means every market swing goes straight through the portfolio with no airbag. That can be fun in bull markets and very educational in bear markets. There’s zero built-in cushion here, so risk really is what the equity market feels like, not softened or offset by anything else. This is not asset allocation; it’s a single bet dressed up with multiple tickers.
Sectors
- Technology 29%
- Consumer Discretionary 16%
- Financials 11%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Consumer Staples 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Energy 4%
- Utilities 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, it’s a familiar story: tech at 29% runs the show, with consumer discretionary and financials tagging along. The rest are basically supporting characters. Telecom, staples, and health care show up, but nothing is truly shaping behavior the way tech does. This kind of tilt means the portfolio is highly exposed to growthy, sentiment-driven swings rather than slow-and-steady grind. If tech sneezes, the whole thing catches a cold. The more defensive sectors are present but not really in charge, so they won’t save the day when high-flyers come down. Sector diversification is technically there, but the power balance is very lopsided.
Regions
- North America 93%
- Europe Developed 3%
- Japan 1%
- Asia Emerging 1%
- Asia Developed 1%
Geographically, this is “USA all the way” with 93% in North America and a token sprinkle elsewhere just to avoid looking rude. Europe, Japan, and the rest of Asia are each stuck in the low single digits — basically rounding errors. This isn’t global diversification; it’s a US portfolio with a consolation prize for the rest of the world. When the US leads, that bias looks brilliant. When the US lags, there’s nowhere to hide because the small foreign slice can’t move the needle. It’s a portfolio with a passport that technically exists but almost never leaves home.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 41%
- Mega-cap 39%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 4%
Market cap exposure is heavily tilted toward the giants: 39% mega-cap and 41% large-cap. Mid-caps get a modest 16%, and small-caps are a 4% rounding error. This is a “buy the biggest names and hope they keep carrying the index” strategy whether intentional or not. That can feel safe because the companies are famous, but it also makes the portfolio very hostage to the fate of the same few mega-stars everyone else owns. Smaller companies don’t get much say in the outcome here. The portfolio’s personality is basically “whatever the big end of the market decides to do today.”
True holdings
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.95%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.20%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.85%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.89%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.35%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.08%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.91%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.81%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 36.69%
Look-through holdings show the true puppet masters: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, Meta — the usual mega-cap celebrity cast. Casey’s and Utz at least add something actually different, but they’re small seasoning on the massive index stew. Overlap is clearly high: those same big tech names appear inside multiple ETFs, meaning you’re double- and triple-dipping without realizing it. And remember, this is only based on ETF top-10s, so the real duplication is probably higher. The portfolio pretends to be a mix of funds and stocks, but under the hood it’s basically a fan letter to a dozen giant 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-wise, this is almost suspiciously “normal.” Value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit basically neutral, hovering around 50%. Factor exposure is like checking the ingredient list for what really drives performance; here, it’s just “market stew.” No strong tilt toward value or growth, no big bet on high yield, no leaning into tiny companies, no super low-vol safety blanket. This portfolio behaves like a broad market tracker with a few quirks rather than a deliberate factor play. Ironically, for a portfolio that looks a bit chaotic at the holding level, the factor profile is the one part that’s actually pretty sane.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 72.10% 75.5% -
Caseys General Stores Inc
Weight: 7.56% 6.6% -
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 5.42% 6.4% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 6.68% 5.7% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 5.14% 4.4% - Top 5 risk contribution 98.6%
Risk contribution shows who’s really shaking the boat, and surprise: the S&P 500 ETF is doing 75.49% of the work at 72.10% weight. That’s almost a one-to-one translation from size to risk — it dominates everything. QQQ is just 5.42% by weight but contributes 6.44% of risk, meaning it punches above its weight. The two single stocks and other ETFs barely matter in comparison. Risk contribution is basically the spotlight on who’s actually driving volatility, and here it’s a one- or two-actor show. The rest of the cast is hanging around for moral support and style points, not risk impact.
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 vs. return chart, this portfolio is 3.27 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its current risk. The efficient frontier is simply the “best you could do with these same ingredients” line — maximum return for each level of risk. A Sharpe ratio of 0.7 versus 1.11 for the optimal mix basically says you’re leaving a chunk of risk-adjusted performance on the table by how the weights are set, not by what’s owned. The max-Sharpe version even has higher expected return (25.83%) for only modestly more volatility. This isn’t a bad ingredient list; it’s just an inefficient recipe.
Dividends
- Caseys General Stores Inc 0.30%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Utz Brands Inc 3.30%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.30%
Dividend yield at 1.30% is underwhelming for something that includes a dedicated dividend ETF and a couple of higher-yield stocks. It’s like building a “snack cupboard” and realizing most of it is rice cakes. The dividend ETF and Utz help, but they’re small compared to the massive S&P 500 and QQQ weights, which are not exactly income powerhouses. Dividends can be a nice, steady drizzle of returns, but here they’re more like occasional droplets. This portfolio is clearly growth- and price-movement driven; income is a side effect, not a meaningful feature, despite what a glance at the tickers might suggest.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio looks like it actually read a book first. A total TER of 0.04% is impressively low — basically couch-cushion money. The S&P at 0.03% and the Schwab dividend ETF at 0.06% keep the overall drag tiny, even with QQQ at 0.20% trying to feel expensive. Fees are under control; you must have clicked the right ETFs on purpose or got very lucky. At least you’re not paying luxury prices for a very standard set of index exposures. Whatever else this portfolio is, it’s not a fee disaster.
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