Concentrated US growth portfolio with strong historic returns and a focused tilt toward technology and semiconductors
Report created on Jul 19, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
SP Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
SPGP - US46137V4317 70.00% -
SM VanEck Semiconductor ETF
SMH - US92189F6768 30.00%
This portfolio is very straightforward: two US-listed equity ETFs, with about 70% in a broad GARP (growth at a reasonable price) S&P 500 strategy and 30% in a dedicated semiconductor fund. That means every dollar is in stocks and almost all of it in one country and one broad theme: growth-oriented US companies, with a chunky satellite position in chips. A simple structure like this is easy to follow and understand, which many people value. The tradeoff is that simplicity comes with concentration: if US growth and semiconductors do well, the whole portfolio tends to shine, but if that area struggles, there are few other assets in here to offset it.
Growth
Over the last decade, the portfolio turned $1,000 into about $8,779, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24.36%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out bumps to show long-term pace. This clearly outpaced both the US market (15.03%) and global market (12.48%). The price for that extra return was a max drawdown of -38.01% during early 2020, slightly deeper than the benchmarks. A drawdown is the worst peak-to-trough drop along the way. Also, 90% of gains came from just 47 days, highlighting how a few big up days heavily influenced overall results.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses many simulated futures based on past patterns to estimate a range of possible outcomes. Think of it as rerunning history 1,000 different ways, shuffling returns to see what might happen. Over 15 years, the median result grows $1,000 to around $2,730, with a wide “likely” range from about $1,794 to $4,117, and a broader possible band from $964 to $8,482. The average simulated annual return is 8.15%, lower than the historical 24% because the model bakes in uncertainty and volatility. As always, this is not a prediction, just a way to visualize risk and spread of outcomes.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio is in one asset class: stocks. There’s no allocation to bonds, cash-like funds, or alternative assets. A 100% equity mix typically means higher potential long-term growth but also sharper ups and downs along the way, since there’s nothing more defensive to cushion market falls. Compared with diversified “multi-asset” mixes that combine stocks and bonds, this setup leans clearly toward growth and volatility. The diversification score of 2/5 reflects that narrow asset spread. This isn’t inherently good or bad; it just means portfolio behavior will closely track equity market cycles rather than being smoothed by other asset types.
Sectors
- Technology 45%
- Financials 16%
- Consumer Discretionary 13%
- Industrials 11%
- Energy 5%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Health Care 3%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is heavily tilted toward technology at about 45%, with the rest spread across financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, energy, telecom, health care, and a bit of real estate. That tech tilt is stronger than broad market benchmarks, especially because the separate semiconductor ETF amplifies one part of the tech space. Tech-heavy setups often benefit when innovation and growth are rewarded, but they can swing more when interest rates rise or investors rotate toward cheaper, more defensive areas. The presence of multiple non-tech sectors helps a little with diversification, but the overall character here remains clearly growth-and-tech oriented rather than broadly sector-balanced.
Regions
- North America 95%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Europe Developed 2%
Geographically, about 95% of the portfolio is in North America, with only small slices in developed Asia (3%) and developed Europe (2%). Relative to global equity benchmarks, that’s a strong home-country tilt toward the US. This has been rewarded over the last decade, as US markets and especially US growth stocks outperformed many other regions. The flip side is concentration in a single economy, currency, and regulatory environment. If US markets underperform other parts of the world for a stretch, this portfolio wouldn’t naturally capture much of that outperformance because international exposure is limited.
Market capitalization
- Mid-cap 50%
- Large-cap 26%
- Mega-cap 22%
- Small-cap 1%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans toward mid-caps at around 50%, with 26% in large-caps, 22% in mega-caps, and a very small 1% in small-caps. Market cap just means the total value of a company’s shares; mega-caps are the giants, mid-caps sit in the middle. A mid-cap tilt can sometimes offer a balance of growth potential and established business models, and it’s a bit different from the typical mega-cap-heavy profile of many US indexes. The meaningful exposure to large and mega-caps still anchors the portfolio in more mature companies, while the relatively tiny small-cap slice means very little is in the most volatile bucket.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.13%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
TS Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 2.78%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 2.35%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
IN Intel Corporation 2.17%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.12%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
HS Host Hotels & Resorts Inc 1.87%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.83%
Part of fund(s):- VanEck Semiconductor ETF
-
DA Delta Air Lines Inc 1.67%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
-
MP Monolithic Power Systems Inc 1.59%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
-
UB Uber Technologies Inc 1.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
- Top 10 total 24.09%
Looking through the top holdings, some names appear prominently, especially within semiconductors. NVIDIA, Taiwan Semiconductor, Micron, Intel, AMD, and Broadcom together already account for a noticeable portion of the total portfolio, even though only top-10 ETF positions are shown. This hints at meaningful overlap between the GARP ETF and the semiconductor ETF. Overlap means the same companies drive returns in multiple funds, creating hidden concentration. Because we only see top-10 holdings, the actual overlap may be understated. This setup amplifies the influence of a small group of chip and chip-related firms on the portfolio’s overall ups and downs.
Factors
The factor profile shows high exposure to size and quality, with neutral tilts to value, momentum, and yield, and low exposure to low volatility. Factors are like “traits” that influence how investments behave over time. A high size factor here actually means a tilt away from the very largest mega-caps and toward mid-sized companies. Strong quality exposure suggests the portfolio leans toward firms with healthier profitability, balance sheets, or earnings stability. Low exposure to the low volatility factor means the holdings don’t shy away from price swings. Altogether, this can translate into a portfolio that favors solid, growing businesses but is willing to accept noticeable volatility.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF
Weight: 70.00% 61.2% -
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
Weight: 30.00% 38.8%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to overall portfolio volatility, which can differ from simple weights. The GARP ETF is 70% of the portfolio but contributes about 61% of total risk, so its risk/weight ratio is below 1. In contrast, the semiconductor ETF is 30% by weight but contributes almost 39% of the risk, with a risk/weight ratio of 1.29. That means semiconductors pull more than their proportional share of the portfolio’s ups and downs. In practice, this tells you that even as the smaller holding, the chip ETF is a major driver of swings, especially in turbulent periods for that industry.
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 portfolio sits on or very near the frontier, meaning that, given these two ETFs, the existing weights deliver an efficient balance of risk and return. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of volatility above a risk-free rate, is 0.78 for the current mix. The maximum Sharpe portfolio reaches 1.04 with higher return and higher risk, while the minimum variance setup has slightly lower risk and a Sharpe of 0.72. So within this two-fund universe, the current allocation is already making effective use of what’s available, without obvious signs of inefficiency.
Dividends
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.20%
- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF 0.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.62%
The overall dividend yield is modest at about 0.62%, with the GARP ETF around 0.80% and the semiconductor ETF near 0.20%. Yield is the cash income paid out as dividends, expressed as a percentage of investment value. This portfolio is clearly built around capital growth rather than income; most of the historical return has come from price appreciation, not dividends. For growth-focused equity mixes, low yields are common, especially in technology and semiconductor plays where companies often reinvest heavily rather than paying out large cash distributions. Dividends here are a small bonus rather than a major component of total return.
Ongoing product costs
- VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
- Invesco S&P 500 GARP ETF 0.34%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.34%
The total expense ratio (TER) of the portfolio is about 0.34% per year, with both ETFs in a similar cost range. TER is the ongoing annual fee charged by funds, taken directly out of returns. In the context of active or thematic strategies, these costs are relatively reasonable and not especially high. Over very long periods, even a few tenths of a percent can add up, but here the fee drag is modest compared with the portfolio’s historical volatility and return potential. This cost profile supports the long-term compounding of returns, assuming performance remains strong, and is a structural positive.
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