Roast mode 🔥

A tech drunk portfolio wearing a balanced name tag and calling that diversification

Report created on Dec 23, 2025

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

1/5
Single-Focused
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This setup is basically “S&P 500 plus my favorite toys.” There’s a giant Apple–Microsoft–tech pile, then a handful of random stocks and a few ETFs glued on like stickers. For something labeled “Balanced,” it’s hilariously stock-heavy and single-theme, more like a growth junkie in denial. A truly balanced mix usually spreads risk across different return drivers, not just different tickers that all fall together. Think of it as building a team: you picked seven strikers and one goalkeeper. Tidying this up means deciding what the core is (broad ETFs) and then trimming the vanity singles so each position actually has a clear role instead of just vibes.

Growth Info

A historic CAGR of 20.49% is bonkers good, basically “everything bubble speed.” If someone tossed in $10,000 years ago, they’d be strutting around now pretending it was skill, not a monster tech run. But max drawdown of -29.26% says this thing can punch you in the face when markets wobble. For context, a vanilla S&P 500 fund has had similar drops, but with cleaner diversification and fewer moving parts. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful, not psychic. Lock in the lesson, not the ego — this return happened in a very friendly environment for exactly the kind of stuff you own.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo results basically say, “You might be rich, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of running thousands of what-if simulations, like rolling financial dice over and over to see how often the portfolio survives. Median result of +852% looks like superhero territory, but that 5th percentile of only +27.2% is the “oh… that’s it?” outcome. And 973 out of 1,000 simulations positive sounds awesome, but that still leaves some truly ugly paths. Future returns won’t care about how glorious the backtest was. This setup can thrive, but it absolutely can also disappoint if tech stops being everyone’s favorite child.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    87%
  • Other
    6%
  • Cash
    3%
  • Bonds
    1%

Asset class breakdown screams “I like balance in theory only.” Roughly 87% stock, 6% “Other” (gold and friends), 3% cash, 1% bonds is not a balanced profile; it’s an equity portfolio with a guilt offering to safety. A truly balanced mix would have a much larger bond slice to cushion ugly years and smooth the ride. Right now the bonds are more of a decorative garnish than an actual risk buffer. If the goal is steadier behavior, not pure adrenaline, that bond allocation needs to go from “polite gesture” to “meaningful shock absorber,” even if that means slightly slower best-case scenarios.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    45%
  • Telecommunications
    10%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    10%
  • Financials
    7%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Health Care
    2%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%

Tech at 45% is not a tilt, it’s a full-blown lifestyle choice. Add in QQQ, tech sector ETF, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, NVIDIA, Teradyne… you’re basically running a tech fund with some cosplay as diversified. Consumer cyclicals and communication services help a bit, but when the tech party ends, they’ll likely be dragged out with it. An index like the S&P 500 spreads sector risk much more evenly; this is that index with a tech amp turned to 11. If the aim is to avoid watching half the portfolio sink in one sector shock, dialing tech down and lifting other sectors up wouldn’t be the worst idea.

Regions Info

  • North America
    87%
  • No data
    1%

Geographically, this is “America or bust,” with 87% in North America and essentially nothing meaningful elsewhere. That’s great if the U.S. continues to dominate everything forever, less great if other regions catch up or the dollar has a rough decade. Global diversification is like having more than one job offer; you’re less dependent on a single economy, currency, and political circus. This setup is riding one country’s future extremely hard. Folding in more broad global exposure (not just U.S.-centric names) would make the portfolio less of a patriotic bet and more of a grown-up global plan.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    45%
  • Large-cap
    38%
  • No data
    6%
  • Mid-cap
    4%

Market cap spread is mega and big cap heavy: 45% mega, 38% big, and basically nothing in small or micro caps. So this is a portfolio that only hangs out with the popular kids. That’s fine for stability and brand comfort, but it misses some of the long-term growth kick smaller companies can give, even if they’re drama queens in the short run. Index benchmarks usually have a spectrum of sizes baked in. Here, the middle and lower tiers are nearly absent. You don’t need to dive into tiny weird companies, but allowing more mid/small exposure would add another growth engine instead of just worshipping the usual giants.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Technology Select Sector SPDR® Fund
    High correlation

Correlation just means “how much things move together,” like whether your entire friend group freaks out at the same bad joke. Your QQQ and Technology Select Sector ETF are basically twins, offering almost no new behavior — if one drops, the other pouts too. That overlap adds complexity without giving meaningful diversification. Add tech-heavy single stocks on top, and you’re stacking multiple versions of the same story. When the tide goes out, they all stand there equally embarrassed. Cleaning out redundant, highly correlated stuff and leaning more on fewer, broader holdings would give simpler tracking and a better shot at actual risk spreading.

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 optimization data is a bit of a slap: for the same risk, a cleaner setup could hit an expected return of 3.03%, clearly above what your current mix is modeling. And the “optimal” portfolio at 3.03% return with 0.26% risk is basically the efficient frontier equivalent of a smug overachiever. Efficient frontier just means the best trade-off between risk and return — not magic free money, just not wasting risk on noisy overlaps. Right now, you’re burning volatility on redundant tech and U.S. concentration. Trimming duplication and spreading risk across more independent drivers would move you closer to that “not dumb for the amount of risk taken” zone.

Dividends Info

  • Apple Inc 0.40%
  • Bank of America Corp 1.40%
  • Cummins Inc 1.50%
  • ConocoPhillips 3.40%
  • Cisco Systems Inc 2.10%
  • Walt Disney Company 0.40%
  • Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc 1.20%
  • Halliburton Company 1.80%
  • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 8.10%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.70%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.80%
  • iShares® 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF 3.80%
  • SCHWAB TAX-FREE BOND FUND SCHWAB TAX-FREE BOND FUND 1.80%
  • Teradyne Inc 0.20%
  • The TJX Companies Inc 1.10%
  • Verizon Communications Inc 6.80%
  • Technology Select Sector SPDR® Fund 0.50%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.15%

Total yield of 1.15% is “we pay you in vibes, not cash.” Despite holding some dividend-oriented ETFs and a couple of high-yield names, the overall income stream is weak for something pretending to care about balance. JEPI at 8.1% and SCHD-like yield help, but they’re small slices of the pie, and Verizon is doing emotional labor at 6.8% for a tiny allocation. If steady income is a goal, this setup isn’t serious about it yet. You’d need a larger allocation to real income engines rather than sprinkling in a few yieldy bits and hoping they magically move the whole portfolio’s paycheck.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Fidelity Govt Cash Rsrvs 0.26%
  • SPDR® Gold Shares 0.40%
  • iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • iShares® 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF 0.07%
  • SCHWAB TAX-FREE BOND FUND SCHWAB TAX-FREE BOND FUND 0.38%
  • Technology Select Sector SPDR® Fund 0.09%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.05%

Costs are the one area where this thing isn’t chaos. A total TER of 0.05% is impressively low — it almost looks like someone knew what they were clicking. Most of the ETFs are cheap, and you’re not getting fleeced by sneaky expense ratios. That said, low cost doesn’t automatically equal smart structure. You’ve basically built a low-cost Frankenstein: good parts, weird assembly. Think of it like buying discounted ingredients and then making a lopsided meal. Keeping costs lean is excellent, but pairing that with a clearer, simpler allocation would finally make those cheap fees pull their full weight.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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