This portfolio has only about 1.4 years of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.

High income option selling growth portfolio with concentrated tech and crypto risk exposure

Report created on Mar 24, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

The portfolio is heavily tilted toward one core holding: a Nasdaq 100 high-income ETF at 70%, paired with a 15% allocation to a Bitcoin high-income product and three 5% satellite ETFs. That mix creates a focused, equity-driven structure with a significant options-overlay income component. Structurally, this is more of a “concentrated barbell”: a dominant large-cap growth sleeve plus a high-risk crypto income piece, with smaller allocations to U.S. large caps, small caps, and international dividends. In practice, such concentration can amplify both upside and downside. A useful next step is clarifying whether this concentration is intentional for income and growth, or whether a more balanced mix across different strategies would better fit long-term goals.

Growth Info

Historically, a hypothetical $1,000 grew to $1,178, with a 13.32% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out all the bumps. This slightly outpaced the U.S. market and was roughly in line with the global market, despite a fairly sharp -19.63% max drawdown, similar to the benchmarks. The fact that just four days generated 90% of returns shows how “spiky” the payoff profile has been. That’s typical for strategies tied to growth stocks and options income. While this early track record is encouraging, the period is short, so it shouldn’t be treated as a reliable guide to what will happen over a full market cycle.

Projection Info

The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which takes the portfolio’s past daily ups and downs and randomly shuffles them thousands of times to create many possible 10‑year paths. Think of it as running 1,000 alternate futures based on how the portfolio has behaved so far. The median outcome suggests roughly a fourfold gain, with 967 of 1,000 paths ending positive and an average simulated annual return of about 15%. However, the model only has a short history to work with, less than two years, which makes these numbers fragile. Market regimes, option income strategies, and crypto behavior can change quickly, so these projections are rough scenarios, not predictions.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    83%
  • Crypto
    15%
  • Cash
    1%
  • Other
    1%

By asset class, the portfolio is 83% stocks, 15% crypto, and a small 1% slice each in cash and “other.” That 83% equity level is consistent with a growth-oriented posture, but the 15% crypto allocation notably raises overall risk compared with more traditional stock–bond mixes. Crypto behaves very differently from stocks and can swing much more, which may add both diversification and sharp drawdowns. The modest cash component provides only a tiny buffer. For someone seeking smoother returns, adding more stabilizing assets like high-quality bonds or cash equivalents would typically reduce volatility, though it could also lower expected returns and income.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    38%
  • Crypto
    15%
  • Telecommunications
    13%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    10%
  • Consumer Staples
    6%
  • Health Care
    5%
  • Industrials
    4%
  • Financials
    3%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Energy
    2%

Sector exposure is dominated by technology at 38%, with crypto counted separately at 15%. Communication services (13%), consumer cyclicals (10%), and consumer defensive (6%) follow, with the rest spread thinly across healthcare, industrials, financials, materials, utilities, and energy. Compared to broad market norms, this tilt is clearly growth and tech heavy. Tech and communication names can be very sensitive to interest rates and investor sentiment: they often outperform during optimism and underperform when rates rise or growth fears set in. The positive side is strong participation in innovation-led gains; the tradeoff is potentially sharper drawdowns when markets rotate toward more defensive or value-oriented areas.

Regions Info

  • North America
    80%
  • Europe Developed
    3%
  • Latin America
    1%
  • Asia Emerging
    1%

Geographically, about 80% of exposure is in North America, with only small allocations to developed Europe and tiny slices of Latin America and emerging Asia. That home-country bias is very common for U.S.-based investors and has been rewarding in the last decade as U.S. markets, especially large-cap tech, have led. However, it does mean the portfolio is highly dependent on one region’s economic and policy conditions. Under-exposure to other developed and emerging markets may miss periods when non-U.S. regions outperform. A more global balance can sometimes smooth returns over time because different economies and markets peak and trough at different moments.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    43%
  • Large-cap
    27%
  • Mid-cap
    10%
  • Small-cap
    2%
  • Micro-cap
    2%

By market cap, there is a strong tilt toward the largest companies: 43% in mega caps and 27% in big caps, with only modest allocations to mid (10%), small (2%), and micro (2%). This is consistent with the heavy Nasdaq 100 and S&P exposure, which are dominated by huge global franchises. Large caps tend to be more stable and liquid than smaller companies, which can reduce idiosyncratic risk but increases “index crowding” risk—everyone owns the same names. Limited small‑ and mid‑cap exposure may reduce participation in more nimble, earlier-stage growth stories, but it also avoids some of the higher volatility those segments can bring.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    6.44%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Apple Inc
    5.50%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    3.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    2.75%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    2.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Communication Services Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    2.62%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Communication Services Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    2.42%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Communication Services Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Walmart Inc. Common Stock
    2.34%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    2.24%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
  • Top 10 total 34.60%

Looking through the ETFs, the biggest underlying names are the usual mega-cap growth leaders: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, Alphabet, Meta, Walmart, and Broadcom. Many appear in multiple funds, creating hidden concentration even though the portfolio looks diversified at the fund level. Overlap is probably understated because only top-10 ETF positions are captured. This kind of “index in disguise” effect means the portfolio’s fortunes are tightly linked to a handful of very large companies. That can be beneficial when these names are winning but can hurt if leadership rotates. Periodically checking whether this concentration still matches your conviction in these giants can help keep risk aligned with comfort.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
No data
Data availability: 0%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
No data
Data availability: 0%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
No data
Data availability: 0%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Very high
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Very high
Data availability: 5%

Factor exposure shows very strong tilts to yield and low volatility, with a meaningful dose of momentum. Factors are like the underlying “traits” that drive returns—such as cheap vs. expensive (value), big vs. small (size), or strong recent performance (momentum). Here, the yield tilt is clear: income-focused ETFs and option-writing strategies aim for high cash payouts. The low-volatility signal is strong but based on limited coverage, so it may not fully capture the crypto and growth components. The momentum tilt reflects the dominance of mega-cap winners. This combination can work nicely in steady or trending markets, but income and momentum strategies can suffer during sharp reversals or volatility spikes.

Risk contribution Info

  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    Weight: 70.00%
    65.2%
  • NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF
    Weight: 15.00%
    23.3%
  • NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    4.1%
  • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    3.9%
  • Amplify International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    3.5%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding actually drives the portfolio’s overall volatility, which can differ from its weight. The main Nasdaq 100 high-income ETF is 70% of the portfolio and contributes about 65% of the risk, pretty proportional. The Bitcoin high-income ETF is more striking: it’s only 15% by weight but accounts for over 23% of total risk, with a risk‑to‑weight ratio of 1.55. The three 5% satellite ETFs each contribute less risk than their weights, which is reassuring. With the top three holdings generating more than 92% of total risk, any adjustments to those positions would have an outsized impact on overall portfolio behavior.

Redundant positions Info

  • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    High correlation

Correlation describes how assets move together: a value of 1 means they move almost in lockstep, while 0 means they’re independent. The main Nasdaq 100 income ETF and the S&P 500 income ETF are highly correlated, which makes sense given their overlapping large-cap U.S. equity bases and similar option strategies. High correlation can limit diversification benefits—if two holdings drop at the same time, owning both doesn’t cushion the blow much. On the flip side, the presence of crypto and international dividend strategies may provide some diversification in certain environments. Understanding these relationships can help decide whether each fund truly adds something different.

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/return chart, the current portfolio has an expected return of 14.07% with 18.88% volatility, giving a Sharpe ratio of 0.64. The Sharpe ratio compares excess return to risk—higher is generally better. The optimal mix of these same holdings has a much higher Sharpe ratio of 1.38 with slightly lower risk and a markedly higher expected return, while the minimum-variance version offers lower risk and better risk‑adjusted performance than the current setup. Because the existing allocation sits below the efficient frontier, simply reweighting the same funds—without adding anything new—could meaningfully improve the tradeoff between risk and return, especially by adjusting how much risk comes from the Bitcoin sleeve.

Dividends Info

  • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF 8.60%
  • Amplify International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF 5.50%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 15.90%
  • NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF 47.10%
  • NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF 15.70%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 19.68%

The portfolio’s headline yield is extremely high at around 19.7%, driven mainly by the Bitcoin high-income ETF (over 47% yield) and the two NEOS equity income funds (roughly 16% each), with additional income from U.S. and international dividend ETFs. Income-focused strategies like these often use options (such as covered calls) to generate cash flow, trading some potential upside for immediate payouts. While this high yield can be attractive for cash needs, distributions may include option premiums and possibly return of capital, not just traditional dividends. It’s important to remember that high yield doesn’t automatically mean higher total return—price movements and tax treatment also matter a lot.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF 0.29%
  • Amplify International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF 0.66%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.56%

The weighted ongoing cost (TER) is about 0.56%, which is moderate for a portfolio using specialized option-income and thematic ETFs. Individual fund costs range from 0.29% on the S&P 500 income ETF to 0.68% on the NEOS and Russell 2000 funds, and 0.66% for the international dividend ETF. For context, simple index funds can be cheaper, while complex, actively managed strategies often cost more. These costs come directly out of returns each year, so keeping them reasonable is important. Here, the fees look acceptable given the complexity and income focus, and they should not be a major drag if performance and income remain strong.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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