In brief
Lychee’s Tail holds five ETFs, but I do not count that as five independent sources of diversification. VOO is the 70% U.S. core. VXUS is a 10% non-U.S. sleeve. VGT, SMH, and QTUM are intentional tilts whose underlying companies and economic drivers can overlap with the core and with one another.
My review therefore asks what each sleeve adds to the combined portfolio, not whether each fund is diversified in isolation.
The current target
| Holding | Weight | Role I assigned |
|---|---|---|
| VOO | 70% | Broad S&P 500 foundation |
| VXUS | 10% | Developed- and emerging-market stocks outside the United States |
| VGT | 10% | U.S. information-technology tilt |
| SMH | 5% | Semiconductor concentration |
| QTUM | 5% | Quantum-computing and machine-learning theme |
The target is 100% stocks. No bond sleeve stabilizes withdrawals, and the 20% technology-related tail can make the portfolio behave more like its growth themes than the ticker count suggests.
Three kinds of overlap I check
Security overlap asks whether the same company appears in more than one fund. VOO already includes large technology companies. VGT and SMH can add weight to companies already inside that core.
Sector overlap asks whether different holdings depend on the same part of the economy. Two funds need not own identical securities to suffer together when semiconductor spending, technology valuations, or AI capital expenditure disappoints.
Narrative overlap asks whether several positions rely on the same thesis. VGT, SMH, and QTUM differ, but my reason for holding them is connected to technology adoption and AI-related investment. That shared thesis is a concentration even when an overlap tool reports a modest common-stock percentage.
Why I keep the tail small
I use weight, not the number of tickers, as the risk control. The three tilts total 20%, and the narrowest two are 5% each. This does not prevent a loss; it limits how much of the target I deliberately assign to the narrower claims.
I also review the core first. If VOO changes because the S&P 500 becomes more concentrated, the portfolio’s effective technology exposure can rise without any change in my target weights.
What would trigger a change
I would reconsider a sleeve if its methodology changed, its expense became unreasonable relative to alternatives, its role became redundant, or the original thesis no longer described what the fund owns. I would not remove a sound sleeve solely because it underperformed for a short period, nor add weight solely because it recently led.
This is a personal research record, not a recommendation to hold the same funds.
Bottom line
Lychee’s Tail owns five ETFs, but its economic exposures overlap. VOO remains the core while VGT, SMH, and QTUM deliberately add technology-related concentration; the small sleeve weights limit the intended tilt but do not make it independent of the core or remove drawdown risk.