Tech obsessed US homebody portfolio pretending small value and dividends make it diversified
Report created on May 21, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 50.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 20.00% -
AV Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
AVUV - US0250728773 15.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 15.00%
This portfolio is four ETFs in a trench coat trying to look diversified. Half is a plain S&P 500 core, then 20% piles into a concentrated growth index that heavily overlaps it, with the remaining 30% split between small value and a dividend fund as a sort of guilt offering to “balance.” It looks tidy on paper, but real decision-making power lives in a handful of mega US names steering the whole ship. Structurally, it’s basically “US large growth with accessories.” The so‑called balanced risk label is generous; this is an equity rocket with a couple of stabilizers taped on, not a carefully engineered mix of different risk engines.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio has done what you’d expect from a US large‑cap and tech‑tilted mix in a good era for both: it smoked its benchmarks by a bit. A 16.57% CAGR turning $1,000 into $2,349 beats both the US and global markets, which is nice, but hardly shocking when you’re overexposed to the winners of the last cycle. Max drawdown of -23.55% is equity‑standard pain, and the 15‑month recovery shows that when this thing gets punched, it doesn’t bounce straight back. Also, 90% of the gains coming from just 29 days is a reminder that timing this would’ve been a disaster; the ride only worked if you stayed strapped in. Past data is helpful, but it’s still yesterday’s weather.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation basically says, “Yeah, this could go great… or not.” A median outcome of $2,756 over 15 years from $1,000 is fine but nowhere near the historical joyride. Monte Carlo just takes past volatility and returns, randomizes the path a thousand times, and shows how weird the future might be. The range runs from roughly staying flat after inflation to feeling like a genius at nearly $8,000. About three‑quarters of simulations end positive, meaning one in four scenarios leaves you questioning life choices. The message: this is a true equity roller coaster where outcomes cluster around “pretty good,” with long tails on both the “ouch” and “wow” ends.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class “diversification” here is simple: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. This isn’t a portfolio; it’s an opinion that equities are the only asset that deserves a seat at the table. No cash buffer, no bonds, no real assets — just one asset class doing all the heavy lifting. That’s like building a house out of only glass because you like sunlight. When stocks are in fashion, this looks smart and efficient. When they aren’t, every part of the portfolio sulks at the same time. The risk classification calling this “balanced” is doing some heavy euphemistic lifting; it’s balanced the way four different hot sauces are “balanced cuisine.”
Sectors
- Technology 33%
- Financials 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 11%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Health Care 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Consumer Staples 7%
- Energy 7%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, tech clearly has the aux cord: about a third of the portfolio lives there, and that’s before counting tech‑ish names hiding in other labels. Financials, consumer discretionary, and telecom get decent slices, but they’re backup singers. Real estate and utilities might as well be decorative footnotes. Compared with a broad market index, this setup leans toward innovation, growth, and “story stocks” rather than boring, cash‑cow stability. Fun when rates fall and optimism runs high; less fun when regulation, higher rates, or sentiment mood swings show up. The sector mix basically says the portfolio would rather ride volatility in shiny areas than own reliable, dull parts of the economy.
Regions
- North America 99%
Geographically, this portfolio is 99% North America — so basically “USA and a rounding error.” It’s an incredibly loud vote of confidence in one country’s market while quietly ignoring most of the planet. No meaningful exposure to other major economies, currencies, or different economic cycles. This is less “global investing” and more “I saw the world on Netflix and that’s enough.” When the US leads, it looks brilliant; when it lags, there’s no backup plan. The whole risk story is chained to one region’s politics, regulation, currency, and corporate culture, which is convenient to understand but hilariously narrow for something pretending to be a complete portfolio.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 35%
- Mega-cap 34%
- Mid-cap 15%
- Small-cap 9%
- Micro-cap 7%
Market cap exposure is trying to be cute and “barbelled” but mostly just screams, “I really like big stocks but felt guilty about it.” About 69% is mega and large caps — the household names — with a noticeable but smaller tilt into mid, small, and even micro caps courtesy of that small value ETF. So yes, there’s some spice, but the main flavor is still giant, well‑known companies dominating index weightings. In stress, big and small can both fall together, just with different levels of drama. The current mix gives you blue‑chip stability optics while quietly adding a bit of small‑cap chaos in the background.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.79%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.65%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.44%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.58%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.28%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.15%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.59%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.09%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TX Texas Instruments Incorporated 0.91%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 27.51%
Look‑through holdings reveal the real boss level: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (twice), Tesla, Meta, and Broadcom. Those names alone eat a chunky slice of the portfolio via multiple ETFs. You’re not just betting on US stocks; you’re specifically overfeeding a very narrow group of mega‑cap darlings, reinforced via both S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 exposure. That top‑10 overlap is only based on ETF top‑10s, so the true duplication is probably worse. The result is fake diversification: four tickers on your statement, but a ton of hidden concentration in the usual suspects. When those names sneeze, the whole portfolio catches a cold.
Factors
Factor profile is surprisingly vanilla for something that looks bold elsewhere. Value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all come in basically neutral — i.e., this behaves like a generic broad market clone once you average everything out. Factor exposure is like checking what spices were actually used; here, it turns out you just got “normal market seasoning” with no strong tilt to cheap stocks, trendy winners, high‑quality balance sheets, or sleepy low‑vol names. The attempted small‑cap value and dividend angles mostly get diluted by the huge core and growth sleeves. For better or worse, the factor story is: nothing special, just riding the overall equity tide.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 50.00% 48.2% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 20.00% 23.8% -
Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
Weight: 15.00% 17.2% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 15.00% 10.8%
Risk contribution exposes who’s really driving the drama. The S&P 500 ETF is half the weight and roughly half the risk, which is fair. But the NASDAQ 100 at 20% weight delivering nearly 24% of risk is definitely punching above its weight class, and the small cap value ETF is doing a similar overachieving act. Meanwhile, the dividend fund is that quiet 15% position contributing only about 11% of risk, basically a seatbelt in a sports car. In total, the top three positions generate almost 90% of portfolio volatility. This isn’t four co‑equal partners; it’s one dominant core plus two chaos buttons and one mild stabilizer.
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 chart actually gives this portfolio a reluctant nod. With a Sharpe ratio of 0.76 and sitting on or near the frontier, it’s using its four ingredients reasonably well for the chosen risk level. The Sharpe ratio, think “return per unit of stress,” isn’t maxed out, but it’s not embarrassingly low either. There’s a higher‑Sharpe mix of the same funds that could squeeze more return or less risk, but you’re not miles off in la‑la land. Translation: within the self‑imposed cage of “only these four ETFs,” the allocation is more rational than the rest of the design would suggest. Someone either got lucky or did some math.
Dividends
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.30%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.30%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.27%
For something that devotes 15% to a dividend ETF, the total yield limps in at about 1.27%. That’s barely more than the S&P 500 on its own, which makes the “dividend equity” slice feel more like branding than a portfolio‑level income engine. The NASDAQ 100’s 0.4% yield drags the average down hard, since it’s packed with companies that prefer buybacks or growth spending over handing out cash. Dividend investing is supposed to be the “get paid while you wait” strategy; here, waiting doesn’t pay much. The dividend ETF is basically trying to pour a shot of income into a pitcher of growth soda.
Ongoing product costs
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.09%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio isn’t trying to be dramatic. A blended TER of 0.09% is impressively low; that’s couch‑change pricing for full‑market exposure and a couple of tilts. The priciest piece is the small cap value fund at 0.25%, which is still reasonable for the niche. Everyone else is cheap enough that you’d need a magnifying glass to see the drag. Fees are under control — you must have clicked the right tickers by accident. The amusing part is that you’re paying very little money to build an intentionally concentrated, US‑heavy, factor‑neutral stock roller coaster. At least the thrill ride isn’t also overpriced.
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