Leveraged chaos in a trench coat pretending to be a diversified growth portfolio
Report created on Jul 19, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
RS Return Stacked International Stock & Managed Futures ETF
RSIT 50.00% -
GO iShares 25+ Year Treasury STRIPS Bond ETF
GOVZ - US46436E5776 25.00% -
UP ProShares UltraPro S&P500
UPRO - US74347X8645 25.00%
This portfolio looks like someone tried to speedrun “fancy institutional strategy” using three ETFs and a dream. Half the money is in a return-stacked international stock plus managed futures product, a quarter in ultra‑long Treasuries, and a quarter in 3x leveraged S&P. That’s not diversification; that’s three loud opinions fighting in one account. With only about two months of history, none of this has had time to prove whether it’s genius or just very sophisticated self‑sabotage. The structure screams complexity for complexity’s sake, with leverage, derivatives, and duration risk all crammed together, hoping they’ll magically cancel each other out instead of amplifying the drama.
Growth
In its short two‑month audition, $1,000 shrank to $988 while the US market quietly grew to something meaningfully higher. CAGR here is -5.9% versus +8.1% for the US benchmark and +2.0% globally, so this portfolio managed to lose money while broad markets went up. Max drawdown of -8.1% in such a tiny window is a yellow flag, not a life sentence, but it does hint that this thing doesn’t exactly glide. Also, 90% of returns came from one day — that’s not a trend, that’s a jump scare. With such a short history, this is basically a trailer, not the full movie, but the early scenes are… rough.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projections are trying very hard to be optimistic: median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,426 over 15 years, with a wide “anything from meh to wild” range. Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of rolling the dice thousands of times using past volatility as a guide, but here the “past” is two months of leveraged weirdness. So the simulation is basically extrapolating from a very thin, very noisy sample. The 6.5% annualized expected return looks reasonable on paper, but with leverage, futures, and long bonds involved, the future path could be far more chaotic than these smooth percentile bands politely suggest.
Asset classes
- Stocks 94%
- Other 12%
On paper, this thing is 94% “stocks” plus some “other,” but that label seriously undersells the risk cocktail. The “other” is managed futures and ultra‑long Treasuries, both of which can move like overcaffeinated side characters, not safe background extras. Asset class breakdowns usually help show balance between growth and stability; here they mostly hide that leverage and duration are doing the real talking. With only short history, it’s impossible to say how these pieces will really dance in a crisis, but this isn’t a simple stock‑bond split — it’s a layered trade that depends on several risky assumptions behaving nicely at the same time.
Sectors
- Technology 20%
- Financials 14%
- Industrials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 6%
- Health Care 6%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only. Some holdings may not have full classification data available. Percentages may not add up to 100%.
The sector breakdown looks surprisingly reasonable: tech at 20%, financials at 14%, then a decent spread across the usual suspects. If someone only saw this pie chart, they’d assume a fairly boring global equity portfolio. Problem is, this chart completely ignores that a chunk of the equity exposure is delivered via a 3x leveraged S&P product and a return‑stacked structure. Sector weights tell you “what” you own, not “how” you own it. Here, the “how” is turbocharged and derivatives‑heavy. So yes, the sector mix looks textbook, but the delivery mechanism is more roller coaster than index hugger, especially given the short and already bumpy live track record.
Regions
- North America 39%
- Europe Developed 22%
- Japan 8%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Australasia 2%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only. Some holdings may not have full classification data available. Percentages may not add up to 100%.
Geographically, this thing actually looks kind of grown‑up: 39% North America, 22% Europe, bits of Japan and other developed regions. For a portfolio built around leverage and futures, the global spread is almost suspiciously sensible. But again, the map hides the method. This isn’t a calm world equity fund; it’s world equity partially wrapped in a complex return‑stacked wrapper and then spiked with leveraged US exposure and long Treasuries. Short history means we haven’t seen how this geo mix behaves when multiple regions sell off together. So while the flags look diversified, the actual risk still leans heavily on a few aggressive structural bets.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 39%
- Large-cap 26%
- Mid-cap 12%
- Small-cap 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only. Some holdings may not have full classification data available. Percentages may not add up to 100%.
Market cap exposure screams “index‑like”: 39% mega‑cap, 26% large, 12% mid, and basically nothing in small caps. On the surface, this is the least offensive part of the portfolio — big, liquid companies that are boringly standard. The twist is that some of this exposure is being pushed through leverage, so those mega‑caps might behave less like steady anchors and more like amplifiers when markets move. Market cap breakdowns assume you’re holding them in normal wrappers; here, the wrapper is half the story. With so little live data, it’s too early to call it structurally flawed, but right now it looks like a vanilla equity core wearing a jetpack.
True holdings
-
GW SPDR S&P World ex-US ETF 36.89%
Part of fund(s):- Return Stacked International Stock & Managed Futures ETF
-
FG First American Funds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 7.97%
Part of fund(s):- Return Stacked International Stock & Managed Futures ETF
-
IQ Proshares Genius Money Market ETF 5.47%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 0.98%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
AA Apple Inc. 0.95%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 0.58%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 0.48%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 0.40%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
AV Broadcom Inc 0.35%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.33%
Part of fund(s):- ProShares UltraPro S&P500
- Top 10 total 54.40%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
The look‑through data is basically squinting through frosted glass: only about 55% coverage, so almost half the portfolio’s actual ingredients are still a mystery. What we can see is heavy use of a world ex‑US fund, a surprising amount in money‑market‑type holdings, and familiar mega‑cap names like NVIDIA and Apple appearing in tiny doses. Overlap risk looks low only because the data is incomplete and the core exposure is stuffed in complex wrappers. In reality, the same broad markets may be showing up multiple times via different routes. The hidden concentration isn’t in single stocks, it’s in the same equity beta and macro trades being recycled.
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 hilariously lopsided where we actually have numbers. Size is “very low,” meaning this thing ducks smaller companies and hugs big names — like only ordering from the top 10% of a menu. Low volatility is also “very low,” so there’s a conscious or accidental choice to avoid the calmer stuff. Meanwhile yield is high at 65%, which is ironic given one of the stars is a 3x leveraged S&P product that doesn’t exactly scream income. With missing data for several factors and barely two months of history, the profile is more blurry selfie than high‑res picture, but the direction is clear: big, yieldish, and absolutely not interested in playing it safe.
Risk contribution
-
Return Stacked International Stock & Managed Futures ETF
Weight: 50.00% 52.9% -
ProShares UltraPro S&P500
Weight: 25.00% 40.8% -
iShares 25+ Year Treasury STRIPS Bond ETF
Weight: 25.00% 6.4%
Risk contribution lays it out bluntly: the “safe” long Treasury strip is 25% of the weight but only 6% of the risk, while the 25% in 3x S&P is doing 41% of the risk heavy lifting. The stacked international plus managed futures fund at 50% weight contributes about 53% of risk, so it’s basically co‑captain of the volatility ship. This is classic leveraged structure behavior — dollar weights lull you into thinking things are balanced, but the real swings come from a couple of turbocharged pieces. With minimal history, the exact proportions might change over time, but the message is clear: the bonds are decorative; the leverage is driving.
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, this portfolio is basically paying full price for volatility and getting a discount on returns. A Sharpe ratio of -0.26, with -2.2% return and 23.5% risk, sits a chunky 6 percentage points below the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier is just the curve showing the best possible trade‑offs using the same ingredients, and this portfolio is clearly not sitting on it. Even within this limited, two‑month window, reweighting the exact same three funds could have produced a much better risk‑adjusted outcome. So right now it’s the “how not to assemble these holdings” example, at least based on this very short and admittedly noisy sample.
Dividends
- iShares 25+ Year Treasury STRIPS Bond ETF 5.30%
- ProShares UltraPro S&P500 0.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.52%
Despite the high headline yield from the long Treasury strip (around 5.3%), the overall portfolio yield dribbles in at about 1.5%. That’s the joy of mixing income with leveraged equity and futures — the fireworks come from price moves, not payouts. Anyone expecting this lineup to be a quiet dividend machine will be confused when most of the action shows up as volatility instead of cash flow. Yield is just one tiny part of this story, and with only a few months of data, even that 1.5% shouldn’t be treated as a stable baseline. This setup is built for total return swings, not for gentle, predictable checks.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares 25+ Year Treasury STRIPS Bond ETF 0.10%
- ProShares UltraPro S&P500 0.92%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.26%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio doesn’t totally clown itself. A total TER of 0.26% is reasonable given it’s using leveraged and futures‑heavy products, even if the 0.92% fee on the 3x S&P fund is steep. Think of it as paying an adrenaline surcharge: you’re not getting more companies, just more amplification of the same index. Still, for a structure this convoluted, the overall fee level is surprisingly restrained — like accidentally walking into a fancy bar and discovering happy hour pricing. Unfortunately, lowish fees don’t fix the bigger issue: the portfolio’s current mix is paying that cost to underperform with extra drama, at least so far.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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