An almost perfect three fund portfolio that cannot stop double dipping big tech risk
Report created on May 13, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
SW Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund
SWPPX - US8085098551 76.52% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 11.89% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 11.59%
This portfolio is basically the “I read one Boglehead thread” starter kit with an extra shot of FOMO. It’s almost entirely one big US index fund with a side of international and then a separate NASDAQ 100 ETF stapled on top like a turbo button. Structurally it’s clean but also hilariously redundant: the S&P 500 already includes a lot of the same mega-cap tech that dominates the NASDAQ 100, so the third fund mostly just cranks existing bets to 11. It looks diversified on paper with three tickers, but functionally it’s one broad US core, one smaller international garnish, and one concentrated growth amplifier yelling over everyone else.
Growth
Historically, this thing has ridden the recent tech-heavy bull wave like a champ: $1,000 turning into $2,260 with a 15.82% CAGR is very flattering. It barely edged out the US market and comfortably beat the global market, which says more about how the world outside the US has lagged than about genius construction here. Max drawdown of about -26% shows the usual “stocks hurt sometimes” story: nine months of falling, more than a year to crawl back. Past performance is like a highlight reel — fun to watch, but it carefully forgets to show what happens when leadership rotates or the crowd-favorite sectors finally cool off.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection basically says, “Yeah, this should probably work out, unless it doesn’t.” A median outcome of $2,680 after 15 years sounds decent, but the range from roughly $1,000 to $7,600 is a reminder that simulations are glorified guesswork based on old weather. Monte Carlo just runs thousands of possible futures using past volatility and returns, then spits out a probability spread. Here, a 74% chance of ending positive is nice, but that 26% chance of not growing is the tax you pay for being 100% in stocks. The portfolio is living entirely in the “equities or bust” universe.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset classes: all stocks, all the time. No bonds, no cash buffer, no diversifiers, no chill. It’s like building a car with only an accelerator and then acting surprised when the ride sometimes feels rough. Being 100% equity means full exposure to market tantrums with no natural shock absorbers when things get ugly. That’s fine as long as no one pretends this is “balanced” in any real-world sense; the “balanced” label here is marketing yoga, not actual asset-mix reality. The upside is simplicity and long-term growth potential, but the downside is that everything in this portfolio screams “equity cycle or nothing.”
Sectors
- Technology 34%
- Financials 12%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Industrials 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, tech addiction is very much a thing here. Technology alone clocks in at 34%, and that’s before accounting for all the “sort-of tech but not labeled tech” names hiding in other sectors. Add in hefty slices of telecom and consumer-related areas and you’ve basically designed a portfolio that lives and dies on growthy, market-darling narratives. Compared with a boring broad index, this setup leans harder into the shiny parts of the market and less into the dull, cash-cow areas that quietly keep portfolios stable. When the innovation story is hot, this looks brilliant; when it isn’t, this looks like a very expensive lesson in sector concentration.
Regions
- North America 89%
- Europe Developed 5%
- Japan 2%
- Asia Emerging 2%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Australasia 1%
Geography is simple: North America or bust. At 89% in that bucket, this isn’t a global portfolio, it’s a polite shrug at the rest of the world. The international ETF is more cameo than co-star. This kind of home bias works amazingly when US markets lead, which they have for a long stretch, but it cuts both ways if other regions finally have their turn in the spotlight. The education point here is basic: diversification isn’t just about counting funds; it’s about not having your entire financial life tied to one economic region behaving itself forever. This portfolio clearly didn’t get that memo.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 34%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 1%
The market cap breakdown is classic “index plus a bit of extra spice.” Nearly half in mega-caps and another third in large-caps means the giants rule. Mid-caps show up as a supporting cast, and small-caps are basically background extras at 1%. So despite looking like a broad portfolio, most of the real action is coming from a relatively small club of massive firms whose every earnings call moves the needle. That’s fine when size dominance is rewarded, but it doesn’t give much exposure to the scrappier parts of the market that sometimes quietly outperform while the giants are busy tripping over their own scale.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 1.00%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 0.82%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 0.59%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 0.56%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 0.45%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 0.44%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.41%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 0.41%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.41%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 0.39%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 5.49%
The look-through holdings scream “hidden overlap.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, TSMC, AMD — it’s a who’s-who of mega-cap darlings, and they’re turning up across multiple wrappers. Even with only ETF top-10s included, Nvidia alone already hits 1% exposure. Real overlap is almost certainly higher, given most of the portfolio is broad cap-weighted indexes stuffed with the same names. This isn’t diversification; it’s holding the same celebrities from slightly different camera angles. When those few giants do well, everything sings; when they don’t, every fund in the lineup catches the same cold at the same time.
Factors
Factor exposure is shockingly normal, almost disappointingly so. Value, size, momentum, quality, and low volatility all sit basically neutral — this is market-like factor soup, not some cleverly engineered tilt. The only real story is low yield: at 34%, the portfolio leans away from higher-dividend stocks. That fits the growth-heavy, tech-centric flavor: more “tell me a story about the future” and less “just pay me cash now.” Factor exposures are like the hidden recipe behind performance; here the recipe is generic index blend with a growth garnish, not a deliberate factor strategy. The portfolio behaves like a vanilla core that accidentally overweights shiny stuff.
Risk contribution
-
Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund
Weight: 76.52% 76.0% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 11.59% 14.6% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 11.89% 9.5%
Risk contribution lays it bare: the S&P 500 fund is the main character, delivering about 76% of risk for 76% of weight, which is pretty proportional. The NASDAQ 100, though, is the loud friend in the group — just 11.6% of the portfolio yet kicking in 14.6% of total risk, a higher volatility punch per dollar. The international fund pulls its weight more quietly, contributing less risk than its size might suggest. Translation: almost all the drama in this portfolio’s day-to-day swings is coming from US large-cap growth, especially the NASDAQ slice, even though it looks like just a small add-on.
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 efficient frontier, this portfolio actually behaves like it knows what it’s doing. The Sharpe ratio of 0.72 isn’t bad, and the optimizer only squeezes out a modest improvement to 0.91 using the same ingredients. That means the current mix is already sitting close to the best risk–return tradeoff achievable with these three funds. In plain English, the proportions here aren’t wildly wasteful — you’re not leaving a ton of free performance or safety on the table just by how it’s weighted. It’s a rare case where the simple three-fund-ish layout is actually pulling its weight mathematically. Try not to get smug about it.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund 1.00%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.70%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.13%
Dividend yield at 1.13% is basically pocket change by design. The NASDAQ 100 barely pays anything, the S&P 500 gives a modest drip, and international does the heavy lifting with the highest payout. So the income profile is “growth first, dividends if they happen to show up.” That’s totally consistent with the tech and mega-cap tilt: most of these companies prefer reinvesting earnings or buying back stock rather than writing big checks to shareholders. The catch is that in a rough market, there’s not much cash yield here to feel comforting. The portfolio is relying on price gains, not payout checks, to tell its success story.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%
Costs are almost suspiciously low at a 0.04% total expense ratio. This is about as close to free as public markets let you get without someone making a mistake. Fees are under control — you must have clicked the right funds by accident. The amusing part is that for all the extra complexity of adding a separate NASDAQ ETF, you’re still not paying much more for the thrill ride. Low cost doesn’t fix concentration risk or sector bets, but at least you’re not overpaying for the privilege of owning the same mega-caps in multiple wrappers. The leak isn’t fees; it’s design choices.
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