Highly concentrated US growth portfolio with strong tech tilt and historically high returns but deep drawdowns
Report created on Apr 20, 2026Risk profile
- Secure Speculative
The risk profile, derived from past market volatility, reflects the level of risk the portfolio is exposed to. This assessment helps align your investments with your financial goals and comfort with market fluctuations.
Diversification profile
- Focused Diversified
The diversification assessment evaluates the spread of investments across asset classes, regions, and sectors. This ensures a balanced mix, reducing risk and maximizing returns by not concentrating in any single area.
Positions
-
VF VANGUARD 500 INDEX FUND ADMIRAL SHARES
VFIAX - US9229087104 31.36% -
FS Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio
FSELX - US3163908631 19.42% -
FB FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND
FBGRX - US3163893031 19.04% -
XT SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
XTL - US78464A5406 18.76% -
AA Apple Inc
AAPL - US0378331005 3.84% -
GO Alphabet Inc Class A
GOOGL - US02079K3059 3.79% -
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA - US67066G1040 3.79%
This portfolio is almost entirely in US growth-oriented stocks and funds, with seven holdings in total. About a third sits in a broad US large-cap index fund, while two active growth mutual funds and a telecom ETF make up most of the rest. A small slice is held directly in three big-name tech companies. This structure leans heavily on equities, with 99% in stocks and essentially no stabilizing assets like bonds or cash. That kind of composition tends to amplify both gains and losses. The relatively small number of holdings and heavy use of specialized funds explains the low diversification score: risk is concentrated in a few areas rather than spread widely.
Growth
Historically, this portfolio’s performance has been extremely strong. From 2016 to 2026, $1,000 grew to about $15,321, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 31.57%. CAGR is like the average yearly “speed” of growth over the full period. That easily beat both the US market (14.56%) and global market (11.99%). The flip side is a max drawdown of -43.40%, meaning the portfolio once fell over 43% from peak to trough. It took 11 months to bottom and 8 months to recover. That kind of drop is deeper than the benchmarks’ drawdowns and shows how an aggressive, concentrated style can cut both ways.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which basically runs 1,000 “what if” scenarios using patterns from historical data. It’s like rolling a loaded die many times to see a range of possible futures, not just one forecast. For a $1,000 starting amount over 15 years, the median outcome is about $2,765, with most paths falling between roughly $1,834 and $4,156. The broad range, from around $1,026 to $7,195, illustrates how uncertain long-term returns can be, especially for a high-risk portfolio. The average simulated annual return of 7.99% is much lower than the historical 31.57%, underlining that past outperformance doesn’t guarantee anything similar going forward.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
- Other 1%
By asset class, this portfolio is almost pure equity, with 99% in stocks and only 1% classified as “other.” That’s far more stock-heavy than many broad market or balanced portfolios, which often mix in bonds, cash, or other assets to soften downturns. Equity-heavy allocations can capture more of the market’s growth over long periods but also tend to swing more sharply day to day and during crises. Here, the absence of diversifiers means all of the risk and return is driven by company shares. This lines up with the “Aggressive” risk classification and helps explain the combination of very high returns and deep historical drawdowns.
Sectors
- Technology 58%
- Telecommunications 18%
- Consumer Discretionary 6%
- Financials 4%
- Health Care 4%
- Industrials 4%
- Consumer Staples 2%
- Real Estate 1%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector-wise, the portfolio is dominated by Technology at 58%, with Telecommunications at 18% and smaller slices across the remaining sectors. Compared with broad benchmarks, this is a clear overweight in tech and telecom and an underweight in more defensive areas like utilities or consumer staples. Sector concentration matters because different industries react differently to things like interest rate changes or economic slowdowns. Tech-heavy and semiconductor-focused allocations often do very well when growth stories are in favor, but can be hit hard when rates rise or investors rotate into more value-oriented areas. The relatively small exposure to traditional defensive sectors reduces the cushioning effect those sectors sometimes provide.
Regions
- North America 96%
- Europe Developed 2%
- Asia Emerging 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, this portfolio is overwhelmingly US-centric, with 96% in North America, a small 2% in developed Europe, and 1% in emerging Asia. That’s a much stronger home bias than global equity benchmarks, where non-US markets make up a large share of total world market value. Geographic diversification can help when different regions move on their own economic cycles, currency trends, or policy decisions. In this case, the concentration in one main region and currency means portfolio outcomes are heavily tied to the US economy, US interest rates, and the dollar. This alignment has historically been beneficial over the last decade but also limits exposure to growth stories elsewhere.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 21%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 7%
- Micro-cap 6%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans toward larger companies but still includes meaningful exposure down the size spectrum. Mega-caps make up 47% and large-caps 21%, while mid-caps are 18%, small-caps 7%, and micro-caps 6%. This mix is somewhat broader than a pure large-cap index and gives some participation in smaller, potentially higher-growth but more volatile companies. Size exposure matters because smaller firms often move more sharply, both up and down, and can behave differently from the biggest household names. The balance here keeps a strong anchor in mega and large companies, which helps stabilize things somewhat, while the smaller positions add extra risk and return potential at the margins.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
GS Globalstar, Inc. Common Stock 0.80%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
-
IR Iridium Communications Inc 0.79%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
-
CI Ciena Corp 0.78%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
-
LI Lumentum Holdings Inc 0.73%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
-
VI Viavi Solutions Inc 0.73%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
-
VS ViaSat Inc 0.69%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
-
UI Ubiquiti Networks Inc 0.65%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
- Top 10 total 16.58%
Looking through the funds’ disclosed top holdings, there’s currently limited overlap captured in the data. The three directly held stocks—Apple, Alphabet, and NVIDIA—appear entirely as direct positions, not via ETFs in the look-through snapshot. Some telecom-related names like Globalstar, Iridium, and Ciena show up via the SPDR S&P Telecom ETF, each under 1% of the total portfolio. Because only ETF top-10 holdings are used, overlap is probably understated, especially for the big index and growth funds that almost certainly hold the same large tech names. Hidden overlap means that even if positions look diversified across funds, underlying exposure can still be heavily concentrated in a handful of giants.
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.
On investment factors, this portfolio shows low exposure to Value (31%), Yield (26%), and Low Volatility (38%), while Size, Momentum, and Quality sit around neutral. Factors are like traits—such as being cheap (value) or stable (low volatility)—that help explain why stocks behave a certain way. A low value score suggests a tilt toward higher-priced, growth-oriented companies rather than bargain-priced ones. Low yield means income from dividends is less of a driver of returns. Lower low-volatility exposure points to holdings that tend to move more aggressively. Altogether, the factor mix lines up with the aggressive growth profile: more focused on capital appreciation and market trends, less on income or defensive stability.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio
Weight: 19.42% 27.7% -
VANGUARD 500 INDEX FUND ADMIRAL SHARES
Weight: 31.36% 23.4% -
FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND
Weight: 19.04% 19.1% -
SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF
Weight: 18.76% 16.1% -
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 3.79% 6.5% - Top 5 risk contribution 92.9%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from simple weights. The semiconductor fund, at 19.42% weight, contributes 27.69% of total risk, so its risk impact is about 1.43 times its size. NVIDIA, with only 3.79% weight, adds 6.54% of risk, a risk-to-weight ratio of 1.73, showing how volatile it is. In contrast, the broad S&P 500 index fund is 31.36% of the portfolio but only 23.44% of the risk, acting as a stabilizer. The top three holdings together drive over 70% of total risk, highlighting how a few concentrated positions largely set 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.
The risk–return chart shows the current portfolio below the efficient frontier by about 3.95 percentage points at its present risk level. The efficient frontier represents the best return that could be achieved for each level of risk using only these holdings but with different weights. The current Sharpe ratio—return per unit of risk—is 0.85, while the maximum Sharpe portfolio using the same ingredients reaches 1.34, and the minimum-variance version is 0.79. Sharpe ratios help compare how efficiently risk is being used. Because the current mix sits below the frontier, the data suggests that simply reweighting these existing holdings, without adding anything new, could in theory improve the balance between risk and return.
Dividends
- Apple Inc 0.40%
- FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND 1.80%
- Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio 12.40%
- Alphabet Inc Class A 0.20%
- VANGUARD 500 INDEX FUND ADMIRAL SHARES 1.10%
- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF 0.90%
- Weighted yield (per year) 3.29%
The overall dividend yield is about 3.29%, with a surprisingly large contribution from the semiconductor fund’s stated yield of 12.40%. Yields above typical market levels can reflect special situations, distribution policies, or timing, so they’re worth interpreting with care. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of price; it can be a helpful component of total return but isn’t guaranteed and can fluctuate. Several holdings—like Apple and Alphabet—have very low or negligible yields, which is common for growth-focused companies that reinvest earnings. In practice, this portfolio’s return profile has been driven far more by price movements than by steady income.
Ongoing product costs
- FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND 0.61%
- Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio 0.62%
- VANGUARD 500 INDEX FUND ADMIRAL SHARES 0.04%
- SPDR® S&P Telecom ETF 0.35%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.31%
The portfolio’s total expense ratio (TER) averages about 0.31%, blending very low-cost indexing with higher-cost active funds. The Vanguard S&P 500 fund is extremely cheap at 0.04%, while the two Fidelity active funds run at around 0.61–0.62%, and the telecom ETF at 0.35%. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, expressed as a percentage of assets; it quietly chips away at returns every year. For an actively managed, growth-tilted setup, an overall cost near 0.31% is moderate and not excessive. The combination of a low-cost core index fund plus more expensive satellite strategies is a common way to keep average costs in check while still pursuing active themes.
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