Tech-obsessed US homebody portfolio pretending to be diversified
Report created on May 6, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
SP SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
SPY - US78462F1030 50.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 25.00% -
IX iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
IXUS - US46432F8344 10.00% -
XM Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
XMHQ - US46137V4721 10.00% -
GF GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS F-1
GFAFX - US3998744037 5.00%
This portfolio is basically three big bets wearing five different tickers. Half is the S&P 500, a quarter is the NASDAQ 100, then you sprinkled in some mid-cap “quality,” a token 10% international sleeve, and a random active growth fund as a garnish. It looks diversified at first glance, but under the hood it’s one giant US growth-and-tech cluster. This kind of structure is like ordering five items from a menu and realizing four of them are just slightly different burgers. It behaves like a single-theme portfolio with a few side dishes, not a genuinely mixed plate. When the US large-cap growth engine coughs, the whole thing catches a cold.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio pulled off a 15.15% CAGR, turning $1,000 into $2,177 — solid, but it still slightly trailed the broad US market while taking a bigger drawdown than it. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is just the average yearly growth rate smoothed out, like your average speed on a stop‑and‑go road trip. The max drawdown of -27.21% was deeper and slower to recover than the US benchmark, which fell less and bounced back faster. So this setup delivered “almost index” returns with slightly more pain and a longer hangover. Against the global market it looks great, but that’s mostly because everything US has been juiced lately.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projections basically say, “Probably fine, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo is just throwing the portfolio through 1,000 alternate market histories to see where the ending balances land — think financial multiverse. Median outcome of $2,663 after 15 years on $1,000 is decent, but the possible range from about $1,000 to nearly $7,800 shows this is far from guaranteed glory. A 73.4% chance of a positive return means the odds are in favor, but not overwhelming. The overall 8.08% simulated annual return is noticeably lower than the backtest, a gentle reminder that past data is more “yesterday’s weather” than a prophecy.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class breakdown: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. “Balanced” apparently means emotionally, not by asset mix. This is an all‑equity rocket without a parachute — great when markets climb, unforgiving when they drop. Asset classes are just different buckets like stocks, bonds, and cash that react differently to chaos; this portfolio uses exactly one bucket and hopes it doesn’t crack. There’s no real shock absorber built in, so volatility hits straight to the face. It’s essentially a growth engine with zero built‑in brakes: exciting, efficient, and not remotely interested in smoothing the ride month to month.
Sectors
- Technology 36%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Financials 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Industrials 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 1%
- Consumer Discretionary 1%
Sector-wise, this thing is a tech and communication sugar rush: 36% in technology and another 11% in telecom-type names, with everything else playing backup band. So nearly half the portfolio is living in the “screens and servers” economy. Compared with broad indexes that are more evenly spread, this is a clear tilt toward companies that do code, chips, and platforms. Sector concentration means when one theme goes out of style, the whole portfolio can feel it fast. If tech and related growth darlings stumble or just go sideways for a while, there aren’t enough boring, unsexy sectors here to balance out the mood swings.
Regions
- North America 90%
- Europe Developed 4%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Japan 2%
- Asia Emerging 1%
Geographically, this portfolio has a raging home-country crush: 90% North America, with tiny sampling portions of Europe, Japan, and a bit of Asia. The “total international” position is basically a decorative sticker, not a real global stance. For context, a truly global mix would give a much bigger share to non-US markets, not just a token 10%. This level of home bias works great when the US dominates, but it’s just a fancy way of saying “I’m all-in on one economy and one currency.” If leadership shifts elsewhere for a long stretch, this portfolio mostly just watches from the sidelines.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 44%
- Large-cap 30%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 7%
Market cap tilt is exactly what you’d expect from a benchmark-hugger: 44% mega-cap, 30% large-cap, then mid- and small-caps sprinkled in as seasoning. This is a portfolio that worships the giants and lets smaller companies hang around for diversity points. It’s heavily driven by the biggest household names, which already dominate indexes and headlines. That means performance is tied to how a relatively small set of enormous firms behave, not to the broader business ecosystem. The mid- and small-cap exposure is too modest to seriously change the personality of the portfolio; they’re passengers, not drivers.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.02%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
AA Apple Inc 5.07%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.81%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.36%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.80%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.36%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.87%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.72%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
-
WM Walmart Inc. 0.78%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 30.28%
The look-through holdings scream “hidden overlap alert.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (both share classes), Meta, Tesla — the usual tech celebrities show up multiple times across funds. Overlap is what happens when the same stock hides inside several ETFs, so your real exposure to it is way higher than any single line item suggests. Here, a supposedly diversified pack of funds is basically one big fan club for the same handful of mega-cap growth names. The coverage is only based on ETF top 10s, so the true duplication is almost certainly worse. This isn’t diversification; it’s just buying the same party from different ticket vendors.
Factors
Factor profile is aggressively… average. Value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility — everything sits in the “neutral” zone, basically a shrug in every direction. Factors are the hidden ingredients that explain behavior (cheap vs expensive, big vs small, steady vs wild). This portfolio doesn’t really lean into any distinct recipe; it just mirrors the general market soup. On the plus side, there’s no obvious self-sabotage like maxing momentum while ignoring quality. On the downside, there’s zero intentional edge. The portfolio just rides whatever the market mood happens to be, without any clear structural tilt to help in specific environments.
Risk contribution
-
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Weight: 50.00% 47.0% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 25.00% 30.0% -
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
Weight: 10.00% 10.0% -
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
Weight: 10.00% 7.6% -
GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS F-1
Weight: 5.00% 5.5%
Risk contribution reveals that three holdings quietly run the whole show: S&P 500, NASDAQ 100, and mid-cap quality together deliver about 87% of the total risk. Risk contribution measures which positions actually cause the portfolio’s ups and downs, not just who looks big on paper. Here, the NASDAQ 100 is especially loud — 25% weight but almost 30% of risk, a classic overcaffeinated sidekick. The international ETF is basically a background extra in risk terms. Overall, one or two growth-heavy funds are steering the rollercoaster, while the rest pretend to be meaningful. Nominal diversification, real concentration.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationGROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS F-1SPDR S&P 500 ETF TrustInvesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
The correlated assets section politely points out that the Growth Fund of America is basically a cover band for the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500. When two holdings move almost identically, owning both doesn’t really spread risk; it just copies the same behavior under a different label and fee. High correlation means that when one drops, the other likely drops too, so you don’t get much shock absorption, just synchronized suffering. The active fund and the big US ETFs dancing in lockstep shows that this “extra” piece is more redundancy than originality, adding complexity without meaningful differentiation.
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 chart is the rare part that doesn’t need a roast: this portfolio actually sits right on it. The Sharpe ratio — return per unit of risk, like miles per gallon for portfolios — is 0.66, while an optimized mix of the same holdings could hit 0.88 with slightly less risk. But the tool says the current setup is already basically efficient for its risk level. Translation: for this particular collection of funds, the weights aren’t dumb. It may be concentrated and theme-heavy, but within its own universe, it’s using its ingredients about as effectively as they can be used.
Dividends
- GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS F-1 10.40%
- iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF 2.90%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust 1.00%
- Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF 0.60%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.50%
Income-wise, this portfolio is clearly here for growth, not paychecks. The overall yield of 1.5% is modest, mostly driven by the international ETF and a hilariously high reported 10.4% on the active growth fund, which looks more like a quirk of distribution timing than a reliable cash fountain. Dividend yield is just the annual payouts divided by price — a nice bonus, not a guarantee. With so much tech and growth exposure, low income is exactly what you’d expect. This setup leans on price appreciation for results; dividends are a side quest, not the main storyline.
Ongoing product costs
- GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS F-1 0.65%
- iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF 0.07%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust 0.10%
- Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF 0.25%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.15%
Costs are actually one of the less embarrassing parts: a blended TER of 0.15% is pretty reasonable for a mostly passive lineup. TER (Total Expense Ratio) is the annual fee skimmed off the top, like a quiet subscription you pay forever. Most of the damage comes from the 0.65% active growth fund, which is charging premium rates to mimic the big US indexes it’s already sitting next to. The ETFs themselves are decently cheap, so the overall fee drag isn’t awful. Still, this isn’t the rock-bottom cost you’d expect from something that behaves so much like a vanilla index stack.
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