High income focused US equity portfolio with strong yield tilt and moderate diversification
Report created on Apr 23, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 18.56% -
FD Fidelity® High Dividend ETF
FDVV - US3160928400 17.53% -
SP SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF
SPYD - US78468R7888 16.80% -
JE JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
JEPI - US46641Q3323 14.54% -
NI NiSource Inc
NI - US65473P1057 8.45% -
YY Amplify High Income ETF
YYY - US0321088470 8.14% -
O Realty Income Corporation
O - US7561091049 7.63% -
MD Medtronic PLC
MDT - IE00BTN1Y115 6.29% -
EF Ellington Financial Inc.
EFC - US28852N1090 2.06%
This portfolio is built almost entirely from income‑oriented US equity ETFs plus a few individual dividend stocks. The top four funds together make up around two‑thirds of the portfolio, while four single stocks account for most of the rest. This structure puts the core decision on a handful of diversified, rules‑based income strategies, with a smaller satellite in specific companies. A mix like this can keep day‑to‑day management simpler than a long list of individual stocks, while still allowing some targeted convictions. The overall risk label as “balanced” with a mid‑range score reflects that, despite the income focus, this is still mainly an equity portfolio that will move meaningfully with stock markets.
Growth
Over the period shown, a $1,000 investment grew to about $2,160, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.98%. CAGR is like the average yearly speed of a road trip, smoothing out all the bumps along the way. This trailed both the US and global market benchmarks, which grew faster but also fell harder in downturns. The portfolio’s worst peak‑to‑trough fall was about -18.8%, less severe than the benchmarks’ drawdowns above -24%. Recovery from that drop took roughly 17 months. This pattern fits an income‑tilted equity mix: it gave up some upside in strong markets but experienced slightly gentler declines when conditions were rougher.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which takes the portfolio’s historical ups and downs and shuffles them into thousands of random future paths. It does not try to “predict” the future; instead, it shows a range of plausible outcomes if returns behave roughly like the past. After 15 years, the median path turns $1,000 into about $2,679, an annualized 7.85%. The middle half of outcomes lands between roughly $1,800 and $3,960, while extreme scenarios stretch wider. Around three‑quarters of simulations end with a gain. These ranges highlight uncertainty: even with the same starting portfolio, actual results can differ a lot from the central estimate.
Asset classes
- Stocks 95%
- Bonds 4%
- Not classified 2%
The portfolio is about 95% stocks, with a small slice in bonds and a tiny “not classified” bucket. That means returns and risk are overwhelmingly driven by equities, even though many holdings are marketed as “income” strategies. In practice, this is still a growth‑oriented mix, just one that harvests more cash flows along the way. Compared with a classic multi‑asset blend that might hold much larger bond allocations, this structure offers more participation in equity rallies but also more exposure when markets fall. The modest bond exposure provides only limited cushioning, so most diversification here comes from differences within the equity sleeve rather than across very different asset classes.
Sectors
- Real Estate 17%
- Health Care 15%
- Utilities 14%
- Technology 12%
- Financials 10%
- Consumer Staples 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Energy 6%
- Industrials 5%
- Telecommunications 4%
- Basic Materials 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector exposure is spread across many areas, with real estate, health care, and utilities standing out as the largest slices. Technology is present but not dominant, and more cyclical areas like consumer discretionary and energy sit in the middle of the pack. This pattern is typical of higher‑dividend portfolios, which often lean into sectors where companies pay steady, mature dividends. One implication is that returns may behave differently from a broad market index that’s more tech‑heavy. For example, income‑oriented sectors can hold up relatively well when growth stocks cool off, but they may lag in periods when fast‑growing, lower‑yielding companies are driving the market.
Regions
- North America 90%
- Europe Developed 9%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, the exposure is very strongly tilted to North America at about 90%, with the rest in developed Europe. That lines up with many US‑listed dividend and high‑income products, which naturally focus on familiar, developed markets with long dividend histories. The upside is that the portfolio is aligned with the dominant region in global equity markets and avoids complexity from more volatile geographies. The trade‑off is limited diversification across different economies and currencies: results will be heavily tied to how North American markets and the US dollar perform. This is consistent with a US‑based investor, but it is still a clear geographic concentration to be aware of.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 55%
- Mid-cap 21%
- Mega-cap 8%
- Small-cap 7%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
By market capitalization, more than half of the portfolio sits in large‑cap companies, with meaningful mid‑cap and smaller allocations plus a smaller slice in mega‑caps. Large‑caps are typically more established businesses, often with the financial stability to pay reliable dividends. Including mids and smaller names adds some potential for different growth and risk characteristics, which can help diversification within equities. The balance here avoids being purely “mega‑cap index‑like” while not drifting heavily into smaller, more volatile stocks. That mix supports the income theme while keeping exposure anchored in broadly recognized, liquid names that tend to dominate major equity benchmarks.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 1.44%
Part of fund(s):- Fidelity® High Dividend ETF
- JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
-
KO The Coca-Cola Company 1.03%
Part of fund(s):- Fidelity® High Dividend ETF
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
HD The Home Depot Inc 1.01%
Part of fund(s):- Fidelity® High Dividend ETF
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 0.99%
Part of fund(s):- Fidelity® High Dividend ETF
-
UN UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 0.90%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
TX Texas Instruments Incorporated 0.87%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 30.68%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, there is relatively little overlap with the specific individual stocks you hold directly. Names like NiSource, Realty Income, Medtronic, and Ellington Financial appear only as direct positions, so their impact is quite transparent. Among ETF holdings, large, familiar companies such as NVIDIA, Coca‑Cola, Home Depot, Apple, and UnitedHealth show up, but each at around 1% or less of total portfolio exposure based on top‑10 data. This suggests that hidden concentration in any single mega‑cap name is moderate. Keep in mind that only ETF top‑10 holdings are captured here, so overlap further down the lists may exist but isn’t fully visible in these numbers.
Factors
Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.
Factor exposure shows a very strong tilt toward yield, with an 85% score, and elevated exposure to low volatility and value. Factors are like the underlying “personality traits” of investments that research links to long‑term return patterns. A very high yield tilt means holdings are chosen heavily for their income, which can boost cash payouts but sometimes comes with slower growth or higher sensitivity to interest rates. High low‑volatility exposure suggests a preference for steadier, less jumpy stocks, which can cushion swings but might lag in sharp risk‑on rallies. The value tilt points to cheaper‑priced companies relative to fundamentals, which can behave differently from growth‑driven markets.
Risk contribution
-
SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF
Weight: 16.80% 21.2% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 18.56% 19.7% -
Fidelity® High Dividend ETF
Weight: 17.53% 18.8% -
JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
Weight: 14.54% 9.9% -
NiSource Inc
Weight: 8.45% 8.4% - Top 5 risk contribution 77.9%
Risk contribution data shows that the top three ETFs together provide about 60% of the portfolio’s overall volatility, slightly more than their combined weight. Risk contribution measures how much each holding drives the portfolio’s ups and downs, which can differ from simple size. For example, the SPDR high dividend ETF is around 17% of the portfolio but contributes about 21% of total risk, meaning it punches a bit above its weight. In contrast, the JPMorgan equity premium income ETF contributes less risk than its size might suggest, indicating a somewhat smoother return profile. Overall, risk is concentrated but still spread across several core positions rather than a single dominant one.
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 2.8 percentage points at its risk level. The efficient frontier represents the best possible return for each level of volatility using only these existing holdings in different weightings. Sharpe ratio, a measure of return per unit of risk, is 0.74 for the current mix, compared with 1.17 for the optimal combination and 0.92 for the minimum‑variance mix. This means, historically, other blends of the same holdings could have delivered a better tradeoff between risk and return. The encouraging part is that the ingredients are already there; it’s the proportions that drive the gap.
Dividends
- Ellington Financial Inc. 11.00%
- Fidelity® High Dividend ETF 2.80%
- JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 8.30%
- Medtronic PLC 3.40%
- NiSource Inc 2.40%
- Realty Income Corporation 5.10%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF 4.30%
- Amplify High Income ETF 12.50%
- Weighted yield (per year) 5.10%
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is about 5.1%, clearly higher than broad market averages in recent years. Individual positions like Amplify High Income and Ellington Financial sit in the low‑double‑digit range, while core ETFs and stocks cluster between roughly 2.4% and 5.4%. Dividends matter because they contribute a large share of total return over time and can smooth the experience during flat markets. In an income‑focused portfolio like this, the cash flow is a central feature, not just a by‑product. The trade‑off is that high yield often means less emphasis on fast‑growing companies that reinvest profits, which can affect how the portfolio tracks high‑growth equity benchmarks.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity® High Dividend ETF 0.15%
- JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF 0.07%
- Amplify High Income ETF 4.60%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.47%
Average ongoing costs for the portfolio, measured by the total expense ratio (TER), come to about 0.47% per year. That’s pulled up by one very expensive fund, which charges 4.60%, while the other ETFs are quite low‑cost, mostly in the 0.06%–0.35% range. Fees are like a slow leak in a tire: small each year, but they compound over long periods and directly reduce net returns. The encouraging aspect is that the bulk of the assets sit in competitively priced funds, which supports better long‑term compounding. Knowing that a single holding drives much of the cost burden makes it easier to understand how fees enter into the overall portfolio picture.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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