Momentum-chasing megacap tech shrine disguised as a diversified long term portfolio
Report created on May 27, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 50.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 25.00% -
SP Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
SPMO - US46138E3392 25.00%
This “portfolio” is basically one idea repeated three times: US large-cap growth with a momentum obsession. Half is a plain S&P 500, then you bolt on a NASDAQ 100 turbo and an S&P 500 momentum filter, which mostly re-shuffles the same names. It looks like diversification, but it’s really just changing the camera angle on the same movie. When three funds all fish in the same pond, you don’t get three sources of return, you just triple down on the same story. The structure screams “I like winners, but I don’t like reading fund factsheets.”
Growth
Historically, this thing has absolutely ripped: $1,000 turning into $2,519 with a 17.97% CAGR is serious performance, happily beating both the US market and global market. But the bill for that return showed up as a -25.98% max drawdown that took 15 months to crawl out of. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is the “average speed” of the ride; drawdown is how far the roller coaster drops when it’s not going well. This portfolio bought the front row seat. Past returns here look great, but they’re also heavily tied to one era where big US growth and tech were the teacher’s pet.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection basically says, “Yeah, this might still work, but don’t get cocky.” A simulation like this re-rolls history thousands of times with different dice to see how a portfolio might behave—median outcome is $2,864 after 15 years, but the spread is wild: anywhere from roughly break-even at $987 to a victory lap at $8,029. That range is the market’s way of reminding everyone that yesterday’s winners do not come with a warranty. Using past volatility and returns to simulate the future is like using the last five years of weather to plan the next fifteen—useful, but hilariously imperfect.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. This is not so much a “balanced portfolio” as it is an equity monologue. No bonds, no cash buffer, no diversifiers—just pure exposure to the stock market mood swings. Being all-equity isn’t automatically bad, but it does mean the portfolio only has one setting: “on offense.” When markets are kind, that’s fun. When they’re not, there’s nothing else here to soften the blows. Think of asset classes like ingredients in a recipe; this is the culinary equivalent of a bowl of hot sauce.
Sectors
- Technology 45%
- Telecommunications 12%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Industrials 8%
- Financials 7%
- Health Care 7%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector breakdown: 45% technology with another big chunk in telecoms and consumer discretionary. This isn’t a sector allocation; it’s a fan club for anything fast-growing and screen-friendly. The so-called diversification into industrials, financials, and health care is more like garnish than substance. Compared with a broad market index, this portfolio is unapologetically tilted toward the most cyclical, hype-sensitive parts of the market. When tech is loved, everything looks genius. When tech falls out of fashion, 45% in one sector becomes less “precision strike” and more “single point of failure.”
Regions
- North America 99%
Geography: 99% North America. The rest of the planet apparently doesn’t exist. This is home bias on steroids—like assuming the best food, music, and ideas only happen within US borders. Global indexes at least pretend the rest of the world matters; this portfolio basically shrugs at that idea. The risk here isn’t just missing growth elsewhere; it’s tying everything to one economic, political, and regulatory system. If North America sneezes, this portfolio catches pneumonia because there’s almost nothing here that dances to a different tune.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 38%
- Mid-cap 14%
Market cap breakdown is mega-cap 47%, large-cap 38%, mid-cap 14%, and absolutely no interest in smaller names. This is a love letter to the corporate giants sitting at the top of every index. It’s like only ever backing the most famous racehorses and pretending the rest of the field doesn’t exist. Mega-caps bring stability until they don’t; when the biggest names wobble, everything here wobbles in sync because there’s barely any exposure to the more diversified and quirky parts of the market. The size profile shouts “index tourist with a growth fetish.”
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 8.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 4.23%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 4.01%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.73%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 3.31%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.28%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 3.16%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.77%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.72%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 38.67%
The look-through holdings are basically a who’s who of the same tech royalty, just repeated. NVIDIA at 8.40% is the unofficial mascot of this portfolio, with Apple, Broadcom, Alphabet (both share classes), Microsoft, Amazon, Micron, AMD, and Tesla all jammed in too. The fact that overlap is only measured using ETF top 10s means the real duplication is almost certainly worse. This isn’t diversification; it’s building a shrine to a dozen names via multiple wrappers. When those leaders do well, life is great. When they crack, the whole structure leans in the same direction at once.
Factors
Factor-wise, this thing is surprisingly bland for something so concentrated. Value sits low at 43% and yield even lower at 40%, so the portfolio mildly leans away from cheap, income-generating stuff and hugs pricier, growthy companies. Everything else—momentum, quality, low volatility—is basically neutral. Factor exposure is like checking the ingredient label: you’d expect a massive momentum overdose here, but it’s more of a gentle drift away from boring value and dividends than a full-on factor bet. The profile says: “Accidentally growthy, not scientifically engineered.”
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 50.00% 45.2% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 25.00% 29.7% -
Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
Weight: 25.00% 25.1%
Risk contribution is at least honest: the three ETFs are the entire portfolio, and they contribute basically all the risk in line with their weights. The NASDAQ 100 slice pulls slightly more than its share, with a risk-to-weight ratio of 1.19, acting like the excitable friend who talks louder than everyone else. The S&P 500 core is steady-ish, and the momentum ETF does about what its weight suggests. Risk contribution measures who’s actually shaking the portfolio, not who looks big on paper—and here, everyone’s guilty in proportion to their size. No hidden villains, just three loudspeakers wired to the same channel.
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 chart, the current portfolio sits 1.44 percentage points below what could be achieved just by rearranging the existing holdings. The Sharpe ratio (return per unit of risk) is 0.79, while an optimized mix gets to 1.04—same ingredients, better recipe. Being below the frontier means this setup is leaving performance or stability on the table for no good reason. It’s like driving a sports car permanently stuck in second gear: clearly capable of more, but configured awkwardly. For a portfolio this simple, under-shooting the efficient frontier is almost impressive in its own way.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.70%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.78%
Dividend yield at 0.78% confirms this isn’t here for income; it’s a growth junkie. That’s a rounding error next to what many people would call an “income strategy.” Dividends are the boring part of returns—regular cash drips instead of fireworks—and this portfolio has basically opted out. When markets rise, that doesn’t matter much because price gains drown everything else. When markets stall, a higher yield can cushion the boredom; here, there’s barely a pillow. This setup is clearly betting that capital gains will keep doing the heavy lifting indefinitely.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.13%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%
Costs are the one unambiguously grown-up thing here. A total TER of 0.08% is impressively low, especially for a lineup that includes factor and NASDAQ-flavored products. This is like somehow stumbling into business class pricing while still paying economy fares. Cheap doesn’t fix concentration risk, but at least the portfolio isn’t overpaying to make the same bet three times. Fees are one of the few things investors can control, and on that narrow front, this setup looks almost suspiciously sensible—as if someone accidentally clicked the low-TER filters while chasing high-octane funds.
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