2025 Annual Report: Portfolio Results and Process

Author: Giorgio Reveco Barraza
Publication date: 01/01/2026
Period evaluated: 2025
Data source: 2025 annual/monthly panel and 1Y comparison (as of 01/01/2026) on the platform (screenshots/visible statistics)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive summary
2. Year performance
3. Comparison with indexes
4. Objective and operating philosophy
5. Portfolio structure
6. Implementation: simple, repeatable rules
7. Risks and scenarios
8. What to expect if you copy (and what not)
9. Changes and lessons from the year
10. Focus plan for the new year
11. Conclusion

I. Executive summary

• 2025 annual result: +24.23%
• Context: a year with high concentration of returns in certain months, with meaningful pullbacks in Q1 and a sustained recovery afterward.
• Operating framework: layered structure (ETF core, thesis satellites, diversifiers) and simple rebalancing rules.
• Core message: prioritize process and risk management over prediction. The goal is to sustain a repeatable, copyable logic, not to maximize a specific month.

II. Year performance

The monthly series for the year is as follows:

January: +4.81%
February: -5.86%
March: -4.30%
April: +2.52%
May: +6.57%
June: +4.44%
July: +2.06%
August: +2.65%
September: +5.61%
October: +3.67%
November: 0.00%
December: +0.53%
Total: +24.23%

Key takeaways:

• Two consecutive negative months: February and March. This matters more than the final return, because it defines the real risk experience of the year for a copier.
• Recovery with continuity: from April onward, positive months appear with limited pauses, including months with meaningful advances (May, June, September, and October).
• Contained volatility in the second half: a relatively stable sequence, with one flat month (November) and a positive close (December).
• How the result was built: the annual performance did not come from a single “hit”, but from the sum of positive months distributed across the rest of the year.

• Insight 1: The depth of the Q1 adjustment (two consecutive negative months) does not invalidate the process. A copier must assume that two negative months in a row can happen.
• Insight 2: The best contributions to the annual return tend to concentrate in certain months. This favors a process-based reading rather than precise timing.
• Insight 3: The 0.00% month (November) is part of reality. It does not always “pay”, and the annual cumulative result can still be competitive.

II.1. Brief methodological note

• Monthly/annual return (2025): corresponds to the visible monthly changes in the platform’s annual/monthly panel for calendar year 2025. These data are descriptive and can be affected by rounding and by the exact cutoff day.
• 1Y comparison (as of 01/01/2026): corresponds to a rolling 1-year window reported by the platform, so it is not identical to the calendar-year result, although it is often close if there are no relevant cutoff events.
• Drawdown and intra-month declines: when drawdown is reported by monthly closes, it can understate intra-month declines. For copy decisions, it is better to assume the emotional experience can be more demanding than the “close-to-close” number.
• Copying and replication: Copy Trading execution can differ due to capital, timing, spreads, leverage limits, copy stop loss, and rebalancing events. The process aims to reduce, not eliminate, those differences.

III. Comparison with indexes

1Y comparison visible on the platform (as of 01/01/2026):

• @girebz (Giorgio Reveco Barraza): +24.13%
• NASDAQ 100: +20.08%
• MSCI ACWI: +20.57%
• EURO STOXX 50: +19.45%
• S&P 500: +16.43%

Note on the slight difference in figures: the 2025 annual return is +24.23% and the 1Y return shown above is +24.13%. This is because 1Y is a rolling window with a cutoff on 01/01/2026 and can differ due to cutoff days and rounding.

Methodological note: this comparison describes returns, it does not adjust for risk tolerance. The method is oriented toward sustainability and process, not toward directly pursuing a benchmark. There may be tracking error due to the layered logic, accumulation, and the specific portfolio composition.

III.1. How to read this comparison

• Purpose: it is a context reference, not conclusive proof of superiority. Indexes are theoretical portfolios with different rules and without your layered structure.
• Currency and cutoffs: the comparison depends on the reporting currency and the platform’s exact measurement day, so there can be small differences due to rounding or cutoff days.
• Practical interpretation: what matters is process consistency and risk tolerance. A point comparison does not replace evaluating drawdowns, volatility, and the copier’s discipline.

IV. Objective and operating philosophy

This portfolio is designed as a replicable investment system, with an accumulation and rebalancing logic based on simple rules. It does not seek to maximize a quarter or anticipate the next move, but to build a sustainable trajectory over time.

• Main objective: long-term growth with risk management and real diversification (not only by number of positions).
• Approach: combination of an ETF core, thesis satellites, and diversifiers (gold and other exposures) to cushion extremes.
• Operating principle: reduce impulsive decisions. When the system is clear, the job is to execute, not reinvent.

V. Portfolio structure

Below I present the 10 most relevant positions in the portfolio at the close (sorted by weight) along with their role within the structure. Percentages correspond to total portfolio weight.

V.1. Allocation by asset type

• ETFs: 52.65%
• Stocks: 43.88%
• Crypto: 3.47%
• Other (if applicable): 0.00%

V.2. Layered architecture

Core: the portfolio’s main behavior is built on ETFs. This reduces dependence on a single stock or thesis and improves relative stability for copiers.

• $SCHG (US large-cap growth) / role: main core engine in US growth equities.
• $SCHF (developed international) / role: geographic diversification outside the US in developed markets.
• $SCHE (emerging markets) / role: exposure to growth and additional diversification outside the developed block, with higher expected volatility.
• $IAU (gold) / role: partial diversification and buffer in stress or inflation scenarios, without depending on a single mining company.

Satellites: around the core, stocks (and some sector ETFs) are added with specific theses. The idea is that satellites contribute, but do not govern the total behavior.

• Group 1: technology and semiconductors / role: capture structural growth (examples mentioned: $GOOG, $MSFT, $NVDA, $TSM, $AAPL, $AMZN, $ASML, $AMD).
• Group 2: healthcare / role: balance the growth tilt with a more stable exposure (instruments such as $ABT, $PFE, and the sector ETF $XLV).
• Group 3: consumer and defensives / role: add resilience and more defensive flow (examples: $MCD, $COST, and global defensive companies such as $ULVR.L).
• Group 4: energy, materials, and metals / role: diversification and sensitivity to cycles and inflation (examples: $SHEL.L, $CVX, $FCX, silver/gold exposure such as $SLV, $AU).

Long tail or monitoring zone: besides the core and satellites, there may be small positions aimed at diversifying factors (dividends, real estate, others). For copyability, this block should not be what defines the year, the logic is that the core carries the weight of the result.

Note: this table is built from lower-weight positions at the cutoff (the “Invested” column, 01/01/2026). If you choose to operate with a different threshold for the “long tail” (for example <1.5% or <1.0%), adjust the selection while keeping the same criterion.

V.3. Concentration and limits (recommended)

To keep this structure organized and copyable, it is advisable to set limits. Below are the observed limits and the operating framework followed.

• Maximum weight per individual position (observed): approximately 10%. This maximum is reserved for the core, not for individual stocks.
• Maximum weight per individual stock position (observed): below the core range, keeping individual stocks in ranges that do not define the year on their own.
• Maximum weight per theme/sector (operating criterion): avoid a single theme (for example, technology) concentrating an excessive percentage without counterweights from healthcare, defensives, and diversifiers (gold, energy/materials).
• Crypto (strategic limit): maximum 5% (current visible: 3.47%).
• Cash (target range, if applicable): no fixed range, it adapts to the execution logic (accumulation and rebalancing) and market conditions.

VI. Implementation: simple, repeatable rules

Implementation relies on simple rules to avoid depending on predictions. In practical terms:

• Gradual accumulation: increase exposure when there are significant pullbacks, without trying to “nail the bottom”.
• Rebalancing: if a position grows too much relative to the framework, it is trimmed to return to operating ranges.
• Copyability: maintain minimum weights per position to avoid operational noise and facilitate replication with smaller capital.

VII. Risks and scenarios

• Style concentration risk: a growth/technology tilt can suffer in high-rate or contraction scenarios.
• Correlation risk in stress: in large drawdowns, many stocks tend to correlate. Diversification does not eliminate risk, it reduces it.
• Crypto risk: even with a low weight, volatility can have an emotional impact if the copier cannot tolerate it.
• Execution risk (copy): spreads, slippage, timing, and available capital can produce differences versus the “master” portfolio.
• Behavioral risk: entering or exiting impulsively, pausing the copy during drawdown, or moving the copy stop loss at the worst moment.

Mitigations:

• Layered structure: an ETF core for relative stability.
• Limits by position and theme: avoid a single thesis governing the entire result.
• Clear rules: to reduce reactive decisions.

VIII. What to expect if you copy (and what not)

• What you can expect: a consistent approach, with possible negative months, and an accumulation/rebalancing process without relying on prediction.
• What you cannot expect: “smooth” monthly returns or the absence of drawdowns. If you want zero negative months, this approach does not apply.
• On small capital: with low amounts, replication may be imperfect. That is why the goal is to maintain minimum position weights and limit the long tail.
• Your role as a copier: maintain the copy through reasonable drawdowns, do not intervene out of anxiety, and respect the time horizon.

IX. Changes and lessons from the year

• What I kept: the layered structure (core, satellites, diversifiers) as a way to sustain the gradual accumulation process, prioritizing process over reaction.
• What I also kept: the idea that sizing control and rebalancing are the “silent foundation” of the method: you win through consistency, not by trying to anticipate every market move.
• What I adjusted: more attention to copyability, simplifying and organizing minimum weights to prevent small positions from generating unnecessary operational noise.
• What I also adjusted: the way I read pullbacks, with more focus on scenarios and expected operating ranges, rather than responding with abrupt changes in the portfolio.
• What I would remove if I repeated it: trading on intra-month micro-impulses, especially when the signal is not structural but noise.

X. Focus plan for the new year

• Focus 1 (structure): keep the layered architecture with clear limits and reinforce the rebalancing logic.
• Focus 2 (operational communication): explain in a simple way what I am doing and why, especially during drawdowns.
• Focus 3 (execution): discipline to sustain the process and avoid impulsive reactions to noise.

Conclusion

2025 was a year where the result was built through months of recovery after meaningful pullbacks. The point is not to “guess”, but to sustain a repeatable framework: limits, accumulation, and rebalancing. For the next year, the focus is to reinforce structure, operational communication, and consistent execution.

Risk warning:
Your capital is at risk. Past performance does not guarantee future results.