Hey,

I was playing around with Portfolio Visualizer and came across something interesting, wanted to get your take.

Basically a super simple portfolio:

• LLY
• WMT
• COST
• TKO

All 25%, rebalanced once a year.

Results (2000–2026):

• ~14.5% CAGR
• ~17.6% volatility
• max drawdown ~36%
• beta ~0.65
• alpha surprisingly high (~9.5%)

(source: Portfolio Visualizer backtest)

What caught my attention:

1. Low correlation between holdings

Like really low in some cases:
LLY vs COST ~0.1
LLY vs WMT ~0.2

Feels like that’s doing a lot of the work here.

2. Held up relatively well in crashes

• dotcom ~-35%
• 2008 ~-32%
• covid ~-12%

Which is honestly better than I expected, especially without bonds.

3. Downside seems limited

Downside capture ~50%
So it drops about half of what the market does (at least historically).

What I’m trying to figure out:

• Is this just cherry picking / survivorship bias?
• Or is there something real here with combining low-correlation “quality” names?

Also:

• No tech exposure at all
• Heavy reliance on LLY
• TKO seems pretty volatile

Bigger question:

Would you ever consider something like this:

• as a small satellite portfolio?
• or is this just overfitting vs simply buying SPY / QQQ?

Curious how you’d look at this from a portfolio construction perspective.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=5M43EcVsguYdqb4JI8PtUO