Portfolio report
Tech obsessed index hugger with a side of China drama and unearned drawdown pain
Report created on Oct 2, 2026The briefing
What stands out
This portfolio pretends to be diversified but the look-through holdings reveal a mega-cap tech fan club in different costumes. Check how much of the total risk really boils down to a handful of familiar ticker symbols.
The efficient frontier is openly mocking the current mix: same ingredients could deliver higher return or lower risk with just different sizing. It’s like cooking with good groceries and still ending up with lukewarm leftovers.
That 8% China tech slice is contributing over 10% of total risk while charging the highest fee. Decide whether this drama-heavy, high-cost side quest actually deserves its starring role in a “balanced” portfolio.
Highlights from the assessment. Explore the analysis below for context and assumptions.
Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
The starting point
Positions
-
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 43.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 23.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 18.00% -
CQ Invesco China Technology ETF
CQQQ - US46138E8003 8.00% -
VB Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares
VB - US9229087518 8.00%
This portfolio looks diversified at first glance, then immediately trips over its own reflection. Almost half is in a broad US fund, then nearly a quarter piles into a NASDAQ tracker that mostly owns the exact same giants. On top of that, there’s another US small-cap fund and a broad international fund, which are fine, plus an 8% wildcard bet on China tech just to keep things spicy. Structurally, it’s “index core with bonus duplication and a gamble.” The supposed “balanced” label clashes with the actual risk: concentrated growth plus a single high-volatility satellite. It’s diversification theater — lots of tickers, not that many truly different drivers under the hood.
Growth
Historically, this thing managed a 13.45% CAGR since late 2020, which sounds good until the benchmarks walk in. The US market beat it by 2.2% per year with *less* max drawdown, and even the global market slightly edged it. In other words, it took a bigger punch (-29.5% drawdown) than the US benchmark for worse returns. CAGR is just “what average yearly speed got you from $1,000 to $2,115,” and here that road trip involved more potholes than necessary. Also, only 23 days made up 90% of returns — miss a handful and the story gets uglier. Past data helped expose flaws, not genius.
Drawdowns
- Worst fall 11/16/2021 – 10/14/2022 -29.5%
- Time from the high to the bottom 332 days
- Time back to the previous high 02/08/2024 482 days
- Today, below the last high -1.9%
- Worst fall, US Market -24.5%
- Worst fall, Global Market -26.4%
Benchmarks over the same dates, for reference only.
Worst falls
- 11/16/2021 – 10/14/2022 Back at the high after 814 days -29.5%
- 02/18/2025 – 04/08/2025 Back at the high after 126 days -19.4%
- 01/27/2026 – 03/30/2026 Back at the high after 78 days -9.7%
- 07/16/2024 – 08/05/2024 Back at the high after 65 days -9.4%
- 02/16/2021 – 03/08/2021 Back at the high after 58 days -7.1%
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection basically says, “Yeah, this might work, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of rolling the dice on thousands of possible futures based on past volatility and returns. Median outcome: $1,000 grows to about $2,701 in 15 years — not terrible, not heroic. The “likely” range of roughly $1,794–$4,094 shows how wide the uncertainty is, and the fact the p5 is back at $1,000 screams “capital risk is real.” Simulations are glorified weather forecasts: better than guessing, still absolutely capable of being wrong in the ways that hurt.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. For a portfolio labeled “balanced,” this is basically an all-gas-no-brakes equity bet dressed up in a sensible sweater. No bonds, no cash allocation, no diversifying real assets — just pure participation in market mood swings. An asset class is just a bucket of stuff that tends to behave differently; you took one bucket and filled it to the brim. The result is a portfolio that will ride every equity cycle in full: euphoric rallies, painful crashes, and everything in between. There’s no built-in shock absorber here, just a nicer label pretending otherwise.
Sectors
- Technology 39%
- Financials 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Industrials 9%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Staples 4%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Real Estate 2%
- Utilities 2%
Sector-wise, this portfolio is clearly in a relationship with tech and not seeing other people seriously. Tech sits at 39%, then there’s a long tail of financials, consumer discretionary, telecom, industrials, and health care. The rest barely register. This isn’t broad economic exposure; it’s a tech-led band with a few backup singers for appearances. Sector exposure is just “which parts of the economy you’re betting on,” and here the bet is heavily skewed toward high-growth, sentiment-sensitive bits. When tech is loved, this flies. When tech sneezes, the whole portfolio catches pneumonia. The “balanced” tag isn’t fooling the sector breakdown at all.
Regions
- North America 75%
- Asia Emerging 10%
- Europe Developed 7%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Japan 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, this is “USA plus some decorations.” About 75% sits in North America, with everyone else sharing the remaining scraps: a bit of emerging Asia, a sliver of Europe, and tiny slices of everywhere else. Geography exposure is basically where your business earnings really come from, and here it screams home bias with a passing nod to the rest of the planet. It’s not awful — the international exposure at least exists — but let’s not pretend this is some grand global strategy. When the US does great, this rides along; when it lags, the overseas sprinkling won’t save much.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 42%
- Large-cap 30%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 8%
- Micro-cap 2%
The market cap mix is mostly mega and large caps (72%), with a respectable helping of mid and small caps on the side. That’s basically “own the giants, plus some smaller chaos for flavor.” Market cap is just company size, and size affects how violently things move. The small-cap sleeve at 8% plus 2% micro is enough to add extra volatility without truly changing the character — more like adding hot sauce, not a new meal. The portfolio leans very clearly on mega-caps to drive behavior, which means it rises and falls with the big names dominating headlines and indexes.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.89%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc. 4.44%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.52%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.39%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.86%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 1.78%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.26%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.02%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 24.21%
The look-through holdings scream overlap. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — the usual suspects — are all over this thing via multiple ETFs. That’s classic “index hugger plus extra index of the same stuff” energy. Overlap means the same companies show up in different wrappers, which quietly turns a multi-ETF portfolio into one giant bet on a handful of mega-cap names. And this is only using top-10 data, so the true duplication is probably worse. It’s not a disaster, but it is a bit of a joke: five funds, one personality. The NASDAQ position especially just amplifies what the total US fund was already doing.
Factors
Factor-wise, this portfolio is aggressively average — in a surprisingly competent way. All six factors (value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility) sit in the “neutral” band, meaning you’ve basically recreated the market’s factor mix by accident. Factors are the hidden flavors — like spicy, sweet, or bitter — that explain why performance behaves a certain way. Here, nothing stands out: not extra cheap, not extra high-quality, not low-vol, not yield-heavy. It’s almost annoyingly sensible for a portfolio with an 8% China tech bet bolted on. The result is that returns will mostly track broad markets, just with some extra noise from the side bets.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 43.00% 39.9% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 23.00% 27.1% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 18.00% 14.5% -
Invesco China Technology ETF
Weight: 8.00% 10.4% -
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 8.00% 8.2%
Risk contribution makes it obvious who’s actually driving this bus. The top three holdings — total US, NASDAQ 100, and total international — make up 81% of the portfolio’s risk. The NASDAQ fund in particular is punching above its weight: 23% of capital, 27% of risk. China tech is only 8% by weight but contributes over 10% to risk, so that little slice is doing some dramatic background acting. Risk contribution is just “who causes the mood swings,” and here a few funds call the shots while the rest quietly tag along. It’s diversification on paper, concentration in practice.
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 basically calls this portfolio sloppy with its risk. For the current 17.76% volatility, it sits about 1.95 percentage points below the best achievable return using the same ingredients. Sharpe ratio of 0.56 vs 0.83 for the optimal mix is a polite way of saying, “You’re getting less paid for each unit of pain than you could.” The minimum variance portfolio even has *higher* Sharpe (0.78) at lower risk. The frontier is just the curve of “best possible deals,” and this portfolio is standing awkwardly below it, overpaying in volatility for the returns it gets.
Dividends
- Invesco China Technology ETF 2.50%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares 1.30%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.40%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.30%
Total yield at 1.3% says this portfolio is clearly not here for the income. The China tech and international funds drag the average up slightly, but NASDAQ’s 0.4% is a strong “dividends are for other people” signal. Yield is just cash paid out as a percentage of what you own; here it’s a minor side effect, not a core feature. This is unapologetically a growth-leaning setup, hoping price appreciation does the heavy lifting. Anyone expecting the income stream to do something meaningful would be disappointed — it’s more like a small snack than a paycheck.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco China Technology ETF 0.65%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%
Costs are probably the one area where this portfolio doesn’t embarrass itself. A total TER of 0.11% is impressively low, dragged up only by the 0.65% China tech fund acting as the diva in an otherwise frugal cast. TER is the annual fee skimmed off by the funds, and here it’s more “loose change under the couch” than “wallet drain,” except for that one expensive satellite. You basically assembled a fairly cheap structure, then slapped on a pricey theme ETF like a designer logo. Fees aren’t the main problem here — the structure and risk choices are doing that job just fine.
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