Highly concentrated aggressive growth portfolio with strong stock focus and modest diversification benefits
Report created on May 30, 2024Risk profile
6/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
NT Nutanix Inc
NTNX - US67059N1081 23.94% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 20.21% -
EA Airbus Group SE
EADSF - NL0000235190 18.46% -
BY BYD Co Ltd ADR
BYDDY - US05606L1008 11.96% -
FL Fluence Energy Inc
FLNC - US34379V1035 10.65% -
HI Hims Hers Health Inc
HIMS - US4330001060 6.41% -
SP SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
SPLG - US78464A8541 4.20% -
CR Crispr Therapeutics AG
CRSP - CH0334081137 3.38% -
IO Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc
IOVA - US4622601007 0.79%
The portfolio is made up of 100% stocks, with a big tilt toward a few individual names. Three positions alone (Nutanix, Airbus, BYD) account for over half of the total value, and single stocks overall dominate the two S&P 500 ETFs. This matters because concentration can drive big wins but also deep losses when a few holdings have a bad stretch. A setup like this behaves more like a focused stock-picking portfolio than a broad market basket. Anyone using a structure like this usually wants fast growth and accepts that performance will swing more than a typical index-heavy mix.
Growth
Historically, performance has been very strong: $1,000 grew to about $1,868 over roughly three years, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 18%. CAGR is like your average yearly “speed” over the full trip. This beat both the US and global markets by a solid margin. The trade-off is a max drawdown of about -39%, meaning at one point the portfolio was down that much from a peak. That level of drop is much sharper than broad markets, which is normal for concentrated, aggressive setups. The key takeaway: past returns have been impressive, but they came with serious volatility.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All capital sits in one asset class: equities. That makes the portfolio simple and very growth-oriented, but it also means there’s no built-in buffer from bonds, cash, or alternatives when markets fall. Asset classes tend to react differently to economic cycles; mixing them can smooth the ride. Here, every dollar is exposed to stock market risk, which fits an aggressive risk label but not a “sleep easy in crashes” profile. For someone wanting maximum long-run growth and who can emotionally and financially handle large swings, this setup can be fine. Anyone seeking more stability would usually mix in more defensive asset classes over time.
Sectors
- Technology 32%
- Industrials 21%
- Consumer Discretionary 14%
- Health Care 13%
- Utilities 11%
- Financials 3%
- Telecommunications 3%
- Consumer Staples 1%
- Energy 1%
Sector-wise, there’s a clear lean toward technology and related growth areas, with meaningful exposure also in industrials and consumer-focused businesses. Health care and utilities add some balance, but defensive areas remain secondary. Sector tilts matter because different parts of the market react differently to rates, inflation, and economic growth. Tech and growth industries can surge in optimistic, low-rate environments but may get hit hard when rates rise or sentiment turns. On the positive side, this mix aligns with a pro-growth stance and offers good participation in innovation-driven themes. Just be aware that sector swings can stack on top of stock-specific risk and amplify volatility.
Regions
- North America 66%
- Europe Developed 22%
- Asia Emerging 12%
Geographically, two-thirds of exposure is to North America, with the rest split between developed Europe and emerging Asia. That’s actually not far from typical global equity benchmarks, which are also heavily North America-weighted, so the regional mix is fairly mainstream. This alignment helps because it spreads risk across major economic blocs instead of betting everything on one country. The notable twist here is that most of the risk within those regions still comes from a few names, not broad baskets. Still, having exposure to Europe and emerging Asia does offer some diversification if growth or policy paths differ between regions over time.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 63%
- Mid-cap 25%
- Mega-cap 11%
- Small-cap 1%
By market cap, most of the portfolio is in large and mega-cap stocks, with a smaller but noticeable slice in mid-caps and a tiny allocation to small-caps. Large and mega-caps tend to be more stable, widely followed companies, while mid- and small-caps can offer faster growth but bigger swings. This blend gives a nice mix of established giants via the S&P 500 ETFs and more nimble growth stories through the individual stocks. The key is that volatility still skews high because the more volatile names are the ones with bigger weights, even though the overall cap profile looks fairly mainstream at first glance.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 1.80%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 1.64%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.26%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 0.86%
Part of fund(s):- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 80.36%
Looking through the ETFs, most risk and exposure still come from the direct single-stock positions. The usual mega-cap names (NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon) appear via the S&P 500 ETFs, but each is only a small slice overall. That’s good in the sense that hidden overlap with your biggest individual stocks is low, so concentration is mostly “visible” rather than buried in ETFs. However, the portfolio still relies heavily on a short list of growth names, so company-specific news can move performance a lot. Remember that ETF overlap data is based only on top-10 holdings, so total duplication is likely a bit higher than shown.
Factors
Factor exposure is mostly neutral across value, size, momentum, yield, and low volatility, meaning it roughly resembles the wider market on those characteristics. The standout is quality, which sits in the “very low” bucket. Factor investing looks at traits like quality, which includes profitability, balance sheet strength, and earnings stability. A very low quality tilt means the portfolio leans toward companies with more speculative profiles, earlier-stage business models, or shakier financial metrics. That can supercharge returns in bull markets but often leads to deeper drawdowns when conditions tighten. For someone comfortable with aggressive growth, this is consistent; for stability-seekers, it would feel uncomfortable.
Risk contribution
-
Nutanix Inc
Weight: 23.94% 29.4% -
Fluence Energy Inc
Weight: 10.65% 23.0% -
Airbus Group SE
Weight: 18.46% 11.5% -
Hims Hers Health Inc
Weight: 6.41% 10.2% -
BYD Co Ltd ADR
Weight: 11.96% 9.7% - Top 5 risk contribution 83.7%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from simple weights. Here, Nutanix is about 24% of capital but nearly 30% of total risk, and Fluence is especially striking: roughly 11% of the portfolio but 23% of risk. That means those two names dominate day-to-day volatility. Airbus, by contrast, pulls less risk than its weight suggests. When a few stocks contribute most of the risk, portfolio behavior really hinges on their fortunes. Adjusting position sizes or pairing them with more stable holdings can bring risk contributions closer to intended comfort levels without changing the overall list of names.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationSPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETFVanguard S&P 500 ETF
Asset correlation measures how often investments move in the same direction. A value near 1.0 means they move almost identically, which limits diversification benefits. The two S&P 500 ETFs are essentially perfect twins, with a correlation of 1.0. Holding both doesn’t add meaningful diversification; it just duplicates exposure to the same underlying index. That isn’t harmful by itself, especially given their very low costs, but it does make the lineup less efficient and more cluttered than it needs to be. Consolidating highly correlated positions can simplify tracking and rebalancing while keeping the overall market exposure unchanged.
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/return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier by about 8 percentage points at its risk level. The efficient frontier represents the best expected return for each risk level using only the existing holdings but different weights. The current Sharpe ratio (return per unit of risk) is 0.83, while the optimal mix of these same assets reaches around 1.15. That gap suggests there’s room to improve risk-adjusted returns just by reweighting, without adding new positions. In practice, that usually means trimming the most volatile, risk-heavy names and modestly boosting more stable holdings so the portfolio gets more “bang” for each unit of volatility.
Dividends
- BYD Co Ltd ADR 1.40%
- Airbus Group SE 1.70%
- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF 0.80%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.76%
The overall dividend yield is quite low at about 0.76%, with modest payouts from Airbus, BYD, and the S&P 500 ETFs. This is typical of a growth-oriented, stock-heavy portfolio where the focus is on price appreciation rather than income. Dividends can matter for investors who want regular cash flow to cover expenses, but for long-term growth, reinvesting small dividends is perfectly fine. The upside of a low-yield, growth-focused approach is higher potential capital gains; the downside is relying entirely on market performance instead of getting a meaningful “paycheck” from holdings. This setup is better suited to accumulation than to funding near-term spending.
Ongoing product costs
- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 ETF 0.02%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.01%
Costs are a real strength here. The S&P 500 ETFs have expense ratios of 0.02–0.03%, leading to a blended portfolio cost around 0.01%. That’s impressively low and well below typical mutual funds or many active strategies. Since fees compound against you over time, keeping them minimal directly boosts net returns, especially over long horizons. All the active “risk-taking” is done through security selection, not by paying high fund fees. Sticking with ultra-low-cost vehicles where broad exposure is desired is a smart, long-term-friendly choice and puts more of the portfolio’s gross returns directly in your pocket.
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