Income focused stock portfolio with strong quality tilt and moderate risk below broad equity benchmarks
Report created on Aug 21, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
EP Enterprise Products Partners LP
EPD - US2937921078 9.51% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 9.49% -
HD iShares Core High Dividend ETF
HDV - US46429B6636 8.68% -
AT Atmos Energy Corporation
ATO - US0495601058 7.34% -
BM Bank of Montreal
BMO - CA0636711016 7.10% -
CW Clearway Energy Inc Class C
CWEN - US18539C2044 6.77% -
ES Eversource Energy
ES - US30040W1080 6.26% -
CS Cisco Systems Inc
CSCO - US17275R1023 6.24% -
PL Prologis Inc
PLD - US74340W1036 5.13% -
VT Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund ETF Shares
VTWO - US92206C6646 4.87% -
NE Newmont Goldcorp Corp
NEM - US6516391066 4.59% -
PE PepsiCo Inc
PEP - US7134481081 3.67% -
FN Franco-Nevada Corporation
FNV - CA3518581051 3.44% -
O Realty Income Corporation
O - US7561091049 2.80% -
UT Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund
UTF - US19248A1097 2.71% -
DL Digital Realty Trust Inc
DLR - US2538681030 2.64% -
AB AbbVie Inc
ABBV - US00287Y1091 2.31% -
GL Gaming & Leisure Properties
GLPI - US36467J1088 2.28% -
AR Ares Capital Corporation
ARCC - US04010L1035 2.21% -
VZ Verizon Communications Inc
VZ - US92343V1044 1.96%
This portfolio is almost entirely made up of individual dividend‑paying stocks, with a few equity ETFs and one infrastructure closed‑end fund. The largest single position is just under 10%, and the top five together make up more than a third of the portfolio, so there is some noticeable concentration at the top. Because everything here is equity or equity‑like, the portfolio’s ups and downs will broadly follow stock markets rather than bonds or cash. The overall risk score of 4/7 lines up with that picture: not extreme, but clearly growth‑oriented. A low diversification score reflects that returns will depend heavily on a limited set of companies and themes rather than many small, uncorrelated positions.
Growth
From 2016 to 2026, a hypothetical $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $3,113, which works out to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.07%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip: it smooths out the bumps to show how fast you traveled overall. Over the same time, the US market grew faster at 15.38% and the global market at 12.72%, so this portfolio lagged both, more noticeably versus the US. The maximum drawdown, or worst peak‑to‑trough fall, was about ‑34%, similar to the benchmarks in the COVID crash, and it took eight months to recover. That shows risk is equity‑like, even if returns have been a bit lower.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses past return and volatility patterns to simulate many possible future paths for the portfolio. Think of it as rolling the dice 1,000 times based on historical behavior to see a range of potential 15‑year outcomes. In these simulations, a $1,000 starting amount had a median ending value around $2,727, with a broad “likely” range from roughly $1,830 to $4,244. The average annualized return across all scenarios was about 8.16%, lower than the historical 12% CAGR, reflecting some caution. As with any model, this is not a forecast; if future markets behave differently from the past, actual outcomes may fall outside these ranges.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
Asset‑class allocation is straightforward: about 99% sits in stocks, with no meaningful exposure to bonds or cash‑like assets. That makes the portfolio strongly tied to equity market cycles, because there’s little in the mix that typically moves differently when stocks struggle. Many blended portfolios spread risk across different asset classes to dampen big swings; here, that buffering effect isn’t present. The risk classification as “Balanced Investors” partly reflects moderate overall volatility, but structurally this is still an equity‑only setup. In practice, that means returns are driven by company earnings, dividend streams, and investor sentiment rather than interest income or bond price movements.
Sectors
- Utilities 23%
- Energy 14%
- Real Estate 13%
- Financials 12%
- Basic Materials 8%
- Technology 8%
- Consumer Staples 8%
- Health Care 7%
- Telecommunications 3%
- Industrials 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 2%
Sector exposure is one of the most distinctive features: utilities, energy, and real estate together take up a large share, while technology, consumer staples, health care, and financials round out most of the rest. Compared with broad market indices, this is much more tilted toward income‑oriented, defensive sectors and less toward fast‑growing tech and consumer names. Sector composition matters because different parts of the market react differently to interest rates, inflation, and economic growth. For example, utilities and real estate can be more sensitive to rate changes, while energy often responds to commodity prices. This sector mix helps explain the strong yield and relatively high low‑volatility factor exposure seen elsewhere in the report.
Regions
- North America 99%
Geographically, the portfolio is overwhelmingly focused on North America, at about 99% of equity exposure. That means performance is tightly linked to the economic, political, and regulatory environment of a single region and its currency. Global equity benchmarks usually spread more widely across Europe, Asia‑Pacific, and emerging markets, so this is a clear regional tilt. Regional concentration can be a double‑edged sword: it can benefit from strong local market performance, but it also means that regional downturns or policy shifts have an outsized impact. This alignment with North America has historically been supportive, but it does mean that much of the rest of the world’s equity opportunity set is not represented here.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 71%
- Mid-cap 12%
- Mega-cap 11%
- Small-cap 3%
- Micro-cap 3%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans clearly toward large and mega‑cap companies, which together account for over 80% of exposure, with smaller slices in mid, small, and micro‑caps. Market cap describes the total value of a company’s shares; larger firms are often more established and tend to have steadier earnings and, in many cases, more predictable dividends. This tilting toward bigger names fits with the overall high‑quality, high‑yield profile and may help keep volatility more moderate than a small‑cap‑heavy portfolio. At the same time, the modest allocation to smaller companies introduces some additional growth potential and idiosyncratic risk, since these businesses can move more sharply in both directions.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Top 10 total 60.05%
Looking through the ETFs and fund to the underlying holdings, most of the portfolio’s biggest exposures come from direct stock positions rather than overlap inside funds. Names like Enterprise Products Partners, Atmos Energy, Bank of Montreal, and Prologis appear only as single direct lines. There is some overlap in AbbVie and Verizon, which show up both directly and via ETFs, nudging their true weights slightly above the surface allocation. Overlap matters because owning the same company in multiple vehicles can create hidden concentration. Here, overlap appears limited so far, but note that only ETF top‑10 holdings are included, so actual duplication within funds may be modestly higher than shown.
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 shows a strong tilt toward quality, yield, and low volatility, with each of these factors scoring well above a neutral 50% baseline. Factors are like the underlying “personality traits” of stocks — quality captures things like strong balance sheets, yield reflects dividend levels, and low volatility focuses on smoother price patterns. This combination suggests the portfolio has historically behaved more like a defensive, income‑oriented equity mix rather than a high‑beta growth strategy. Value and momentum are around neutral, meaning they behave similarly to the broad market. Size exposure is on the low side, consistent with the large‑cap bias. In different market regimes, these tilts can help or hurt relative performance, depending on which styles are in favor.
Risk contribution
-
Enterprise Products Partners LP
Weight: 9.51% 9.3% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 9.49% 8.9% -
Clearway Energy Inc Class C
Weight: 6.77% 8.2% -
iShares Core High Dividend ETF
Weight: 8.68% 7.8% -
Bank of Montreal
Weight: 7.10% 7.7% - Top 5 risk contribution 41.9%
Risk contribution data highlights which holdings drive the portfolio’s overall volatility, not just its weight. For example, the top three positions account for roughly 26% of total risk, broadly in line with their combined allocation, so there aren’t extreme outliers at the very top. Clearway Energy stands out slightly, contributing more risk than its weight would suggest, hinting at higher individual volatility. Risk/weight ratios close to 1 for several core holdings indicate that most positions add risk roughly proportionally to their size. This pattern suggests that concentration risk is more about having meaningful weights in a handful of names than about any single ultra‑volatile position dominating the portfolio’s behavior.
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‑versus‑return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.64. The Sharpe ratio measures risk‑adjusted return by comparing excess return over a risk‑free rate to volatility, like asking how much “payoff” you get for each unit of bumpiness. The optimal mix of these same holdings has a Sharpe around 1.07, and even the minimum‑variance mix scores higher at 0.82, indicating more efficient tradeoffs are mathematically possible without adding new securities. Being about 3.7 percentage points below the frontier at its current risk level means that, historically, a different weighting of the same ingredients could have produced either higher returns for similar risk or similar returns with lower volatility.
Dividends
- AbbVie Inc 2.60%
- Ares Capital Corporation 9.70%
- Atmos Energy Corporation 2.30%
- Bank of Montreal 2.10%
- Cisco Systems Inc 1.50%
- Clearway Energy Inc Class C 5.60%
- Digital Realty Trust Inc 2.50%
- Enterprise Products Partners LP 5.70%
- Eversource Energy 4.30%
- Franco-Nevada Corporation 0.60%
- Gaming & Leisure Properties 7.20%
- iShares Core High Dividend ETF 3.00%
- Newmont Goldcorp Corp 0.80%
- Realty Income Corporation 5.10%
- PepsiCo Inc 4.00%
- Prologis Inc 3.00%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.00%
- Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund 6.40%
- Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
- Verizon Communications Inc 5.70%
- Weighted yield (per year) 3.49%
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield of about 3.49% is clearly above the yield of many broad equity benchmarks. Individual positions like Ares Capital, Gaming & Leisure Properties, Enterprise Products Partners, Clearway, Realty Income, Verizon, and the infrastructure closed‑end fund contribute especially high payouts. Dividend yield measures annual cash distributions as a percentage of price, and over time these payments can be a significant part of total return, particularly if reinvested. The presence of some lower‑yield or near‑zero‑yield names, such as gold‑related stocks, adds diversification by tying part of returns to different drivers. Overall, the income profile here is a defining trait and aligns well with the portfolio’s strong yield factor reading.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Core High Dividend ETF 0.08%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund 2.29%
- Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%
Costs in this portfolio are generally low thanks to inexpensive ETFs from large providers, with expense ratios (TERs) as low as 0.06–0.10% and a portfolio‑level TER around 0.08%. TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee charged by a fund as a percentage of assets — like a small haircut on performance each year. One clear exception is the infrastructure closed‑end fund, with a TER above 2%, which is significantly higher than the rest. While a single higher‑fee holding is a small portion of the total, over long periods even small differences in fees can compound into noticeable amounts. As it stands, the overall cost structure is impressively low and supportive of better long‑term net returns.
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