Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-12
Review a list of portfolio holdings for concentration and overlap risk before rebalancing
Analyzes a list of current holdings for sector, single-stock, and fund-overlap concentration, surfacing where risk is more bunched up than it might look at first glance, without recommending specific trades.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are reviewing a portfolio's current holdings for concentration risk — structural exposure that's more bunched together than it might appear at a glance — not recommending what to buy, sell, or how to rebalance. This is a diagnostic, not a trading plan. CURRENT HOLDINGS 35% in a broad total-market index fund, 15% in a single large tech company stock, 12% in a semiconductor-sector ETF, 10% in a second individual tech stock, remainder spread across bonds and cash. APPROXIMATE POSITION SIZES Total portfolio value roughly $180,000; percentages as listed above. WHAT PROMPTED THIS REVIEW Portfolio hasn't been reviewed in about two years and has grown unevenly since then. KNOWN OVERLAP CONCERNS Suspect the tech stock and the semiconductor ETF are more correlated than they look. CHECK FOR, IN ORDER: 1. Single-position concentration — any individual holding representing an outsized share of the total portfolio, stated as a specific percentage. 2. Sector or theme concentration — holdings that look diversified by name but share the same underlying sector or economic driver (e.g. multiple tech-adjacent positions, multiple holdings all exposed to the same commodity price). 3. Fund overlap — if any holdings are index funds or ETFs, note where their underlying holdings likely overlap significantly with each other or with individually held stocks, based on what's typically known about those funds' composition, and flag this as an estimate since you don't have their live current constituent lists. 4. Currency or geographic concentration, if relevant to what was listed. For each concentration flagged, state the approximate percentage of the portfolio it represents and why it counts as concentration (shared sector, shared underlying driver, overlapping fund holdings) rather than just naming the positions. Do not recommend a specific trim, sale, or rebalancing trade — describe the concentration and let the requester or their advisor decide what, if anything, to do about it. If fund composition would need to be checked against a live prospectus or fact sheet to confirm a suspected overlap, say so explicitly rather than asserting it as fact. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. Concentration findings, ordered by size of exposure, each with an approximate percentage and the reason it counts as concentrated. 2. A summary line: total portfolio percentage tied up in the single largest concentration theme found. 3. What would need to be verified (e.g., a fund's current holdings) to confirm any estimate-based flags.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
Separating the four concentration checks (single-position, sector/theme, fund overlap, currency/geography) into an explicit sequence matters because the most dangerous concentration in a portfolio is usually the kind that doesn't look like concentration on a simple list — a portfolio with five differently-named holdings can still be one large bet on a single sector, and a model asked generically to "review this portfolio" will often just restate the position list back with commentary rather than actively hunting for the shared underlying driver across positions that look diversified by name alone. Flagging fund-overlap estimates explicitly as estimates, with an instruction to name what would need checking against a live prospectus, is necessary because GPT-5.1 has no real-time access to a fund's current constituent list, which changes over time, so asserting a specific overlap percentage as fact would be presenting a training-data-era approximation with false precision — naming it as an estimate to be verified keeps the flag useful without overstating its certainty. Refusing to recommend a specific trim or rebalancing trade keeps the tool inside honest bounds: how to respond to a concentration risk depends on the requester's tax situation, risk tolerance, and time horizon, none of which a portfolio list alone reveals, and a specific trade recommendation would be advice the model isn't positioned to responsibly give. Requiring an approximate percentage for every flagged concentration, not just a qualitative "this looks heavy," is what turns the review into something actionable — a requester can decide for themselves whether 35% in one theme is acceptable, but only if the number is stated rather than implied.
What you get back
Sector concentration: the individual tech stock (15%), second tech stock (10%), and semiconductor ETF (12%) together represent roughly 37% of the portfolio with meaningful shared exposure to the same technology and chip-demand cycle, even though they're three separate line items. Estimate flag: exact overlap between the semiconductor ETF's holdings and the individual stocks would need checking against the ETF's current fact sheet to confirm the degree of double-counting.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-12
Changelog
- 2026-08-12 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
