Riding the semiconductor rocket with a parachute made of two months of data
Report created on Jun 19, 2026Risk profile
7/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
SO iShares Semiconductor ETF
SOXX - US4642875235 40.00% -
DR Roundhill Memory ETF
DRAM - US77926X3200 40.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 20.00%
This portfolio is basically a semiconductor shrine with a small S&P 500 side salad to look respectable. Two hyper‑specific chip ETFs at 40% each dominate everything, with a lone broad-market ETF quietly wondering why it was invited. For a 7/7 risk score, the structure is exactly what you’d expect: bold, concentrated, and one bad news cycle away from a group therapy session. Calling this “diversification” is generous; it’s more like owning multiple camera angles of the same car crash. The layout screams conviction, but with only two months of history, it’s impossible to say if this is genius timing or just catching a lucky spike.
Growth
The historical performance looks absolutely ridiculous: $1,000 turning into $1,940 in roughly two months, with a cartoonish 2,235% “CAGR.” That’s not a track record, that’s a lottery ticket printed during a hot streak. CAGR, or Compound Annual Growth Rate, averages growth as if it were smooth, which this definitely isn’t. A -15% drawdown in days shows how quickly this can sting. Comparing this blip to the US and global markets and crowning it a champion is delusional; two months of chip euphoria tell you almost nothing about the next two years. Past data here is yesterday’s weather during a freak heatwave.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projections are trying to sound serious while standing on two months of data wearing clown shoes. Monte Carlo just runs thousands of “what if” paths using the recent volatility and returns, then spits out a range of possible futures. Median $2,738 over 15 years and a 76% chance of ending up positive sounds nice, but it’s built on a tiny window where chips were on fire. If the last two months were unusually wild, the simulations are basically extrapolating a sugar rush into a lifetime diet. Treat these numbers as a rough sketch, not a prophecy.
Asset classes
- Stocks 97%
- Other 3%
Asset class breakdown: 97% stocks, 3% “other,” and 0% interest in anything remotely calming. For a speculative classification, this is on brand, but still hilariously one‑note. When nearly everything is in equities, there’s no real shock absorber if things get choppy; the portfolio just rides the same roller coaster, front row. Asset classes are like food groups: loading up on one can work for a while, but it doesn’t make for a balanced plate. Here, the message is clear: growth at all costs, and if volatility shows up, it’s just part of the decor.
Sectors
- Technology 87%
- Financials 2%
- Telecommunications 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 2%
- Health Care 2%
- Industrials 2%
- Consumer Staples 1%
- Energy 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector exposure is full gremlin mode: 87% technology, with tiny sprinkles of other sectors just to populate the chart. This isn’t a tilt, it’s a tech addiction. And not even broad tech — this is tech’s most cyclical, boom‑bust corner. Sector diversification usually spreads risk across different economic drivers; here, everything basically reports to the same boss: the silicon cycle. If chips catch a cold, the whole portfolio gets pneumonia. Those tiny allocations to other sectors via the S&P 500 are too small to matter; they’re set dressing for an otherwise single‑theme show.
Regions
- North America 68%
- Asia Developed 26%
- Japan 5%
- Europe Developed 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, the portfolio says “US and chip suppliers, thanks.” About 68% sits in North America, with a chunky 26% in developed Asia and a small sliver in Japan and Europe. This isn’t a thoughtful global spread; it’s just where semiconductor and broad US names happen to live. Geography is supposed to reduce risk by tapping different economies and policy regimes. Here, the map is basically “wherever the fabs and designers are.” It’s accidentally global, but still tightly tied to one industry’s supply chain, which means shocks can travel that chain quite efficiently.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 43%
- Large-cap 29%
- Mid-cap 12%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only. Some holdings may not have full classification data available. Percentages may not add up to 100%.
Market cap exposure leans heavily into mega‑caps and large‑caps, with mid‑caps as the sidekick and small caps basically ignored. So this is a high‑risk portfolio without using the classic “tiny wild companies” route. Instead, the risk comes from owning big names in a very jumpy niche. Mega‑caps usually calm things down, but when they’re all riding the same semiconductor hype train, size doesn’t equal stability, just bigger price swings in dollar terms. The profile says: “no micro‑lottery tickets, just massive companies doing roller‑coaster impressions together.” Not exactly the usual large‑cap comfort story.
True holdings
-
00 SK Hynix Inc 7.58%
Part of fund(s):- Roundhill Memory ETF
-
FG First American Funds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 7.19%
Part of fund(s):- Roundhill Memory ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 6.53%
Part of fund(s):- Roundhill Memory ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
SS Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 5.44%
Part of fund(s):- Roundhill Memory ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 3.79%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.48%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
MR Marvell Technology Group Ltd 3.29%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
KI Kioxia Holdings Corporation 3.02%
Part of fund(s):- Roundhill Memory ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.96%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
IN Intel Corporation 2.45%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Semiconductor ETF
- Top 10 total 45.74%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
The look‑through list is just a roster of chip darlings showing up over and over again. SK Hynix, Micron, Samsung, NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Broadcom — this is the usual cast of semiconductor characters, sometimes doubled via multiple ETFs. Overlap means the same companies are being bought several times under different ticker costumes, creating hidden concentration. And that’s only from top‑10 holdings; real overlap is almost certainly worse. This isn’t a broad tech buffet; it’s the same few dishes rearranged on several plates. When these names move, the whole portfolio moves with them — no escape hatches.
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, where we can measure it, basically says: “Volatility? Sure, pile it on.” Size is 0% — a strong tilt away from smaller stocks, so the excitement isn’t coming from tiny names. Yield and low volatility are both low, meaning there’s no real cushion from steady dividends or smoother price behavior. Factors are like hidden flavors that shape how a portfolio behaves; this one is clearly not engineered for calmness or income. With no useful data yet on value, momentum, or quality, and only two months of history, the factor profile is a blurry glimpse, not a full X‑ray.
Risk contribution
-
Roundhill Memory ETF
Weight: 40.00% 60.3% -
iShares Semiconductor ETF
Weight: 40.00% 36.0% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 20.00% 3.7%
Risk contribution lays it out bluntly: the Roundhill Memory ETF is the chaos engine. At 40% weight but over 60% of portfolio risk, it’s massively punching above its size. The semiconductor ETF is no saint either, carrying 36% of risk for its 40% weight. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is the quiet kid in the corner, 20% weight but only 3.7% of the drama. Risk contribution shows who’s actually shaking the portfolio, not just who looks big on paper. Here, two funds effectively control the mood swings, while the broad market fund just offers a tiny emotional support hug.
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 is basically sitting right on the curve, which is mildly impressive given the chaos vibe. The Sharpe ratio (a “return per unit of risk” score) is very high, but that’s based on a microscopic period when chips were the hero of every story. Optimization says: with these same three holdings, different weights could tweak things, but you’re already in the efficient neighborhood. The catch is that this whole curve is drawn from two months of fireworks. So yes, efficient — but only relative to a tiny, overexcited slice of history.
Dividends
- iShares Semiconductor ETF 0.20%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.28%
Dividends here are a rounding error: a 0.28% yield in total, dragged slightly up by the S&P 500. This portfolio clearly did not show up for income; it showed up for price swings. Dividends can act like a slow, steady drip of returns that doesn’t depend on market mood. Here, that drip is more of a light mist. In a roaring bull run, no one cares. In a flat or choppy market, the lack of meaningful yield just means the portfolio lives or dies on capital gains. It’s all adrenaline, no paycheck.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.15%
Costs are the one area where this thing isn’t completely unhinged. A blended TER of 0.15% is actually pretty reasonable, mainly because the S&P 500 fund is practically free at 0.03%, while the themed chip ETF charges a more “because we can” 0.35%. Fees are like a slow leak in a tire — not dramatic day to day, but annoying over years. Here, at least, the leak is small. Given how aggressively concentrated and speculative the rest of the portfolio is, the lowish cost is almost suspiciously sensible, like someone clicked the cheap ETFs on purpose.
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