Speculative equity portfolio with strong recent gains concentrated positions and limited performance history
Report created on Jun 24, 2026Risk profile
7/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 20.71% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 13.64% -
CA Caterpillar Inc
CAT - US1491231015 13.34% -
GE GE Aerospace
GE - US3696043013 11.53% -
SP Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund
SPAXX - US31617H1023 8.44% -
TD ThredUp Inc
TDUP - US88556E1029 8.03% -
MR Marvell Technology Group Ltd
MRVL - US5738741041 6.86% -
MA Marathon Digital Holdings Inc
MARA - US5657881067 6.66% -
IR IREN Ltd
IREN - AU0000185993 5.47% -
AA Apple Inc
AAPL - US0378331005 5.32%
This portfolio is mostly in stocks with a small slice in a money market fund, and no bonds at all. About one third of the weight sits in two individual companies, alongside broad US and international index ETFs and several higher‑risk single names. That structure blends diversified building blocks with concentrated, stock‑specific bets. The lack of bonds or other defensive assets means day‑to‑day moves are driven mainly by equity markets and company news. With only around nine months of data, it’s too early to say this mix behaves in a consistent pattern, but structurally it leans toward growth and speculation rather than capital preservation or income.
Growth
Over the short analysis window, $1,000 hypothetically grew to about $1,593, a very strong gain versus both US and global equity benchmarks. The portfolio’s reported CAGR above 400% reflects a fast surge over just months, not a pace that can be extrapolated over years. Max drawdown, meaning the worst peak‑to‑trough fall, was about ‑9%, slightly deeper than the benchmarks but still relatively contained. Returns were heavily driven by a handful of strong days, which is common in concentrated, speculative portfolios. Because the sample is under a year, this performance mostly shows what happened in a favorable stretch rather than establishing a reliable long‑term track record.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses the short recent history to simulate many possible 15‑year paths for $1,000, generating a range of outcomes rather than a single forecast. It estimates a median result around $2,592, with most scenarios between roughly $1,800 and $3,800, and a wide “possible” band up to about $7,000. Monte Carlo basically re‑mixes past returns to explore how volatility and compounding might interact over time. Because the input data here covers only about nine months, those simulations are especially fragile: they lean heavily on a period of unusually strong gains. That makes the numbers more of an illustration of risk and uncertainty than a basis for long‑range expectations.
Asset classes
- Stocks 91%
- Cash 8%
By asset class, about 91% of the portfolio is in stocks and around 8% in cash via a government money market fund. This is an equity‑dominated setup, with very little exposure to traditional risk dampeners like bonds. Equity‑heavy allocations typically offer more growth potential but also more pronounced ups and downs, especially when combined with stock‑specific positions. The cash slice can modestly cushion swings and provide dry powder, but it’s not large enough to dramatically change overall risk. Compared with a broad global equity market, the stock share is similar, but the absence of bonds means the portfolio behaves more like a pure equity portfolio than a mixed‑asset one.
Sectors
- Industrials 29%
- Technology 21%
- Financials 18%
- Consumer Discretionary 11%
- Cash 8%
- Health Care 3%
- Telecommunications 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Consumer Staples 2%
- Energy 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector exposure is tilted toward industrials and technology, with meaningful stakes in financials and consumer discretionary, and smaller allocations spread across other sectors. Industrials stand out as the single largest sector slice, partly due to individual holdings, while tech exposure reflects both single stocks and the broad index funds. Sector weights differ from typical global benchmarks, which often emphasize technology more and industrials slightly less. Sector tilts matter because different parts of the economy react differently to interest rates, growth surprises, and sentiment shifts. Here, the combination of cyclical sectors and tech can amplify sensitivity to economic cycles and innovation trends, especially over short horizons like the one observed.
Regions
- North America 67%
- Cash 8%
- Europe Developed 7%
- Australasia 6%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Emerging 3%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, the portfolio leans heavily toward North America, with about two thirds of equity exposure there, and smaller portions in developed Europe, Australasia, Japan, and emerging Asia, plus a tiny allocation to Africa/Middle East. This pattern is broadly consistent with many global index allocations that naturally favor the US due to its large market size. The presence of a total international fund adds meaningful non‑US representation, improving diversification beyond a single country or currency. Still, the portfolio’s behavior will likely be strongly influenced by North American market conditions. Over the brief nine‑month window, any regional performance differences could show up sharply, but that may not persist long term.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 53%
- Large-cap 16%
- Mid-cap 13%
- Small-cap 9%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
By market capitalization, the portfolio tilts toward mega‑cap companies, with additional exposure to large‑, mid‑, and small‑caps. Mega‑caps are often more established businesses that can offer relatively steadier earnings and deeper liquidity, while mid‑ and small‑caps tend to be more volatile and sensitive to sentiment, both positively and negatively. This blend gives a mix of stability from the bigger names and optionality from smaller, potentially faster‑moving stocks. Compared with a broad global index, the mega‑cap share is familiar, but the individual smaller companies add idiosyncratic risk. With only months of history, it’s too early to judge how consistently this size mix will shape volatility across different market regimes.
True holdings
-
-
-
-
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 1.08%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 0.82%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 0.70%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 60.77%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Looking through the funds, most of the top exposures come from direct stock positions rather than ETF overlap. Caterpillar, GE Aerospace, ThredUp, Marvell, Marathon Digital, and IREN are all held only directly, so their risks are not diversified away inside the index funds. Apple is the one clear overlap, held both directly and via ETFs, lifting its total exposure above its direct weight. A few mega‑cap tech names like NVIDIA, TSMC, and Microsoft appear only via ETF top holdings and remain modest in size. Overlap is likely understated because only ETF top‑10s are available, but even so, this portfolio’s main concentration clearly sits in a handful of single stocks.
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 strong tilts toward momentum and quality, with relatively low exposure to value and size factors and more neutral yield and low‑volatility scores. Factor exposure represents how much the portfolio leans into traits like recent winners (momentum) or financially solid companies (quality) that research links to returns. High momentum means recently strong performers feature prominently, which can help in trending markets but may hurt in sharp reversals. Higher quality tilt suggests an emphasis on firms with stronger profitability or balance sheets, which can sometimes cushion downturns. Limited size and value exposure implies less focus on smaller or cheaper stocks. With only nine months of data, these tilts should be seen as indicative rather than firmly established.
Risk contribution
-
Caterpillar Inc
Weight: 13.34% 35.7% -
Marvell Technology Group Ltd
Weight: 6.86% 18.9% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 20.71% 17.7% -
IREN Ltd
Weight: 5.47% 13.5% -
GE Aerospace
Weight: 11.53% 13.3% - Top 5 risk contribution 99.0%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall volatility, which can differ from simple weight. Caterpillar, at about 13% of the portfolio, contributes roughly 36% of total risk, making it the dominant driver of ups and downs. Marvell and IREN also punch above their weights, each contributing far more risk than their share of capital, reflecting their higher volatility. The total international ETF, despite being the largest position by weight, contributes less risk than its size would suggest, acting as a stabilizer. The top three risk contributors together account for more than 70% of portfolio risk, indicating a concentrated risk profile even though the number of holdings looks diversified.
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 risk‑return chart plots annualized volatility on one axis and expected return on the other, with the efficient frontier marking the best possible trade‑off using these holdings. The current portfolio sits below this frontier at its risk level, with a Sharpe ratio (a simple risk‑adjusted return measure) of 4.3 versus a higher figure for the optimized mix. That suggests that, based on recent data, different weights among the same assets could have produced better compensation for each unit of risk. However, the optimization relies on less than a year of unusually strong returns, making the precise “optimal” point highly uncertain. It mainly highlights how sensitive outcomes can be to position sizing in a concentrated setup.
Dividends
- Apple Inc 0.40%
- Caterpillar Inc 0.60%
- GE Aerospace 0.40%
- Marvell Technology Group Ltd 0.10%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.50%
- Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund 2.60%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.03%
The overall dividend yield is just above 1%, with most individual stocks paying modest dividends and the international ETF and money market fund providing the higher yields. Dividend yield is the annual cash payment as a percentage of price, and it can be an important part of total return, especially in steadier, income‑oriented portfolios. Here, the relatively low yield reinforces the idea that the portfolio is focused more on price appreciation than ongoing cash flow. Over the brief observed period dominated by strong capital gains, dividends played a small role in results. In different market environments, those cash distributions could become more noticeable, but they are unlikely to be the main performance driver.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund 0.42%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.05%
Costs look impressively low overall, with an average total expense ratio around 0.05% thanks to the use of very low‑fee index ETFs. The main outlier is the government money market fund with a higher expense ratio, though its small weight limits its impact on total costs. Expense ratios are annual management fees charged by funds; even small percentages compound over long periods, so keeping them low can leave more return in investors’ pockets. Over a nine‑month window, fee drag is hard to see directly, but structurally this portfolio benefits from a cost‑efficient core. That strong cost alignment provides a solid foundation regardless of how markets behave.
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