A copy paste US stock buffet pretending to be diversified while worshipping the same ten mega caps
Report created on Mar 13, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 37.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 25.47% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 22.80% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 14.73%
This “portfolio” is basically three ways to buy the S&P 500 plus a NASDAQ 100 booster shot. It’s like ordering three burgers and one side salad and calling it a balanced meal. Fidelity 500, Vanguard S&P 500, and the NASDAQ ETF all fish in the same US large‑cap growth pond, with the international ETF tacked on as an afterthought. The risk score saying “Balanced” is cute; this is a nearly pure equity growth setup. Cleaning this up means deciding what role each position plays: core US exposure, growth tilt, and international satellite, rather than three cores fighting for the same job.
Growth
Historically, a 14.4% CAGR is undeniably spicy. If $10k went in, the backtest says you’re sitting around $38k after 10 years, which feels great until you remember past data is like yesterday’s weather: informative but not prophetic. A max drawdown of -27.4% is also the reminder that this thing bleeds like an equity portfolio during tantrums. Against typical “balanced” portfolios with bonds, this would’ve smoked them in bull markets and hurt more in big crashes. Sensible tweak: accept that this is an equity engine and decide if your nerves and timeline can actually handle the next -30% without panic-selling.
Projection
Monte Carlo simulations are like running 1,000 alternate futures to see how ugly or pretty things could get. Here, even the 5th percentile ends around 115% of today, while the median is over 520%, with an average simulated annual return of 15.25%. Translation: the model thinks odds of losing over the long run are tiny, but the path could still be rough. Simulations rely on historical patterns, which markets love to ignore at the worst times. The takeaway: this setup is built for growth, not comfort. If sleepless nights during crashes are a problem, mixing in real downside dampeners, not just more of the same stocks, would help.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
Asset classes: 99% stock, 0% bonds, 0% anything else. Calling this “Balanced” is like calling an energy drink a hydration plan. One asset class means one basic flavor of risk: when equities tank, almost everything here goes down together. Sure, for a long horizon that can work, but it’s dishonest to pretend this is a middle‑of‑the‑road risk profile. If the goal is long‑term max growth and volatility doesn’t scare you, this is coherent. If “balanced” was meant literally, you’re missing stabilizers like bonds, cash buffers, or other diversifiers that cushion the next -30% headline.
Sectors
- Technology 36%
- Telecommunications 12%
- Financials 11%
- Health Care 8%
- Industrials 8%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Consumer Discretionary 4%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector breakdown screams “Tech and friends.” Technology at 36%, Communication Services 12% (aka “more quasi‑tech”), plus Consumer and Financials sprinkled in. This is more or less a souped‑up version of a standard US index, with a clear growth tilt. There’s nothing intrinsically evil about that, but pretending this is neutral sector exposure would be delusional. One prolonged tech or growth slump, and the entire portfolio sulks. The simple fix isn’t some clever sector bet; it’s recognizing that the NASDAQ 100 layer is a concentrated growth pedal on top of two broad US funds, and dialing that pedal up or down intentionally, not by accident.
Regions
- North America 86%
- Europe Developed 6%
- Asia Emerging 2%
- Japan 2%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
Geography: North America 86%, everyone else fighting over scraps. This is the classic “USA or bust” mindset, with Developed Europe and Asia getting the spare change. It’s fine if the thesis is “US large caps rule the world,” but then own that bias instead of pretending this is global. When the US leads, you look like a genius; if US markets lag a decade like they did in the 2000s, this setup will feel painfully one‑dimensional. The international holding at 14.7% is more a token gesture than a real global allocation. Bumping it meaningfully would make the “diversified” label less of a stretch.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 35%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap shows 47% mega, 35% big, 16% medium, and a rounding‑error 1% small. So all the action is in giant household names. That makes the ride smoother than a small‑cap roller coaster but also means you’re largely outsourcing growth to mature behemoths. Again, not wrong, just very index‑hugging. If the intent was to tap into higher‑risk small caps or earlier‑stage growth, this portfolio misses that entirely. If the goal is boringly efficient scale exposure, mission accomplished, but then your extra NASDAQ dose just adds more big glamour names, not genuine size diversification. You’re doubling down on the same crowd, not expanding the cast.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 3.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.75%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.99%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.67%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.58%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.46%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 0.85%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 20.63%
The look‑through is basically a who’s who of “things everyone already owns”: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Broadcom, Tesla. You’re not just on the MAG7 train; you bought multiple tickets. Coverage is only 22.6%, but even from that sliver it’s obvious: this portfolio lives or dies by a tiny club of US mega tech‑adjacent names. Overlap is probably worse than reported, since only top‑10 holdings were used. If those darlings stumble together, everything in here catches a cold. If the goal is to keep them, fine, but at least acknowledge you’re heavily tied to one crowded trade and consider whether all four funds are needed to achieve that.
Factors
Factor exposure is a bit of a personality split: strong momentum (53.8%) and strong low volatility (61.9%) plus a moderate value tilt (25%). Factors are the “hidden ingredients” like value, size, momentum, etc., that drive how a portfolio behaves. Momentum + low vol is like saying “I want the winners, but please don’t scare me too much.” Cute, but you’re mostly getting whatever the indices currently favor, not a carefully designed factor strategy. Coverage is only ~31%, so the precision here is sketchy. Still, this setup likely holds up decently in choppy markets, but it is heavily tied to whatever is currently fashionable in big US names, particularly tech.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 37.00% 35.5% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 25.47% 31.6% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 22.80% 21.7% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 14.73% 11.2%
Risk contribution exposes who’s actually rocking the boat. The NASDAQ ETF is just 25.5% of the weight but a chunky 31.6% of the risk — it’s the loud kid in the classroom. The two S&P 500 clones carry most of the rest, while the international fund quietly sits in the corner at 14.7% weight and only 11.2% risk. Top 3 positions drive nearly 89% of total risk. That’s a lot of emotional dependence on a few overlapping funds. A cleanup job here means deciding which US core you actually want, trimming duplicative exposure, and letting each holding have a clear, distinct job in the risk budget.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard S&P 500 ETFFidelity 500 Index Fund
Correlation is how similarly things move; here, the Fidelity 500 and Vanguard S&P 500 are basically twins. Highly correlated assets don’t diversify; they just echo each other. Holding both is like paying for two Netflix accounts to watch the same show. In a crash, they fall together, so you’re not getting a safety net, just slightly different branding. The broader portfolio is one giant “US equity” trade with minor seasoning. A more thoughtful structure would reduce redundant funds, then use the freed‑up room for genuinely different risk drivers, not three variations of the same index theme song.
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.
In risk–return terms, this portfolio is like driving a fast car stuck in one gear. The Efficient Frontier (the curve of best possible return for each level of risk) would probably show you sitting on a line that’s too high in risk for only slightly more return than a cleaner, less overlapping setup. You’re paying with extra volatility for very little extra expected reward compared with just holding one broad US fund and a meaningful international piece. Before any fancy optimization, the obvious move is to ditch duplicate exposure and decide consciously how much pure equity roller coaster versus actual diversification you want.
Dividends
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.10%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 3.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.26%
Total yield at 1.26% is firmly in the “don’t pretend this is income” zone. This is a growth‑first setup with dividends as a small side benefit, not a paycheck. The international sleeve is pulling its weight with ~3.1% yield, while the NASDAQ fund is basically a dividend diet plan at 0.5%. If the idea was to live off cash flow, this is pretty undercooked. If reinvesting for long‑term compounding is the real game, the low yield is absolutely fine. Just don’t confuse this with a retirement income engine; it’s more of a capital growth rocket with tiny coupon sprinkles.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are where this thing actually shines. A 0.06% total expense ratio is absurdly low — this is “clicked the right ETFs by accident” territory. Fees aren’t what’s holding you back here; structure is. You’re paying almost nothing to own a highly concentrated US equity bias with overlapping holdings. That’s efficient execution of a messy design. If the lineup gets streamlined — say, one core US index, one growth tilt, one international fund — you’d keep the hilariously low fee profile while actually improving portfolio clarity. So yes, gold star for cost, gently confiscate a star for redundancy.
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