Mostly Voices [0:00]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. A different drummer.

Mostly Mary [0:19]

And now, coming to you from dead center on your dial, welcome to Risk Parity Radio, where we explore alternatives and asset allocations for the do-it-yourself investor. Broadcasting to you now from the comfort of his easy chair, here is your host, Frank Vasquez.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:37]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to episode 101 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, it is time for our weekly portfolio reviews of the six sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com. But we do have a couple things to do before that. First off, I want to thank Matthew G, who is our latest Patreon patron. You can become a Patreon patron by going to the support page at the website www.riskparrtyradio.com and if you donate there, that money there is going to a charity. It's called the Father McKenna Center that serves homeless and hungry people in DC and I am a board member there just for Full disclosure, but if you do that, you will get my eternal gratitude. Yes! And, and if you order now, you will go to the top of the email list. So your email will get answered relatively soon after you send it. Other than that, we're a week to 10 days behind perpetually. I'm putting you to sleep.

Mostly Voices [1:53]

So join the few, join the proud to become a Patreon.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:57]

The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

Mostly Voices [2:02]

Second off. Second off?

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:05]

Here I go once again with the email. And our first email of the day is from EJ and EJ writes, Frank, I've recently discovered your podcast and keep up the great work. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but could you explain the rationale for including both Tlt and EDV for long-term treasury coverage in some of the models. In other words, if one is comfortable with the zero coupon nature of EDV, why not use it exclusively over TLT with a slightly lower allocation percentage? Thanks and look forward to hearing from you. Well, I suppose you could do that, but there's a couple warnings I should give you about EDV. First of all, it doesn't quite work as reliably as TLT when I've tried to back test it and then used it over a few years. Sometimes it moves about the same as TLT and sometimes it moves up to 1.5% in the direction that TLT is moving. So it's kind of like TLT on steroids, but you're never quite sure what kind of shot of steroids it got that month. So be wary of that. The other issue is that it has a large bid ask spread. So you really need to do put a limit order if you're buying that because it often can be 20 or 30 cents between the bid and the ask as opposed to TLT, which is generally a penny and it's very liquid. The other issue with EDV is it has typically a large capital gain distribution at the end of the year. that you may not want just because of the way it's structured with only a few issuances that are zero coupons. It's got to rotate a big pile of its bonds every year and so ends up with capital gains coming out of it. So I use it more as an alternative and I did want to put it in our sample portfolios so people could see it and experience it. Oftentimes a good use of it is simply if you are going to tax loss harvest or tax gain harvest TLT for whatever reason, you can simply replace it with the EDV or a slightly smaller amount of the EDV and get the same kind of effect that you would overall in your portfolio. So it is kind of a backup option if you will.

Mostly Voices [4:31]

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:34]

And thank you for that email. The next email comes from Greg. Love the podcast. I recently retired and have implemented a risk parity portfolio following the Golden Butterfly model. I'd prefer to hold a maximum of 10% gold. What investment would you recommend for the 10% that was moved from the Golden Butterflies Gold Allocation? Thank you. I love gold. Okay, well you need to think about what is the purpose of gold in that portfolio. Part of it is simply just to be uncorrelated with anything else, but the other purpose of it in that portfolio is to deal with these strange kind of high inflationary environments where inflation is vastly outstripping growth or in a deflationary environment where growth is sinking much faster than inflation is holding. And you saw each of those kind of environments, one in the 1970s and one in the early 2000s up from about 2000-2007. So you're generally looking for something that is going to perform well in inflationary environments. And two of those things would be commodities and REITs tend to do that. You could also increase your exposure to small cap value stocks, but you probably want to make it a little bit different than the 20% that are already in there. So you might look at something like financials. Banks and insurance companies do well in inflationary environments. Because they collect a lot of money and then they don't have to pay it out until later. And so they're collecting with today's dollars and paying in tomorrow's dollars. And that's a good environment if you're in an inflationary environment, particularly for insurance companies. Energy is another area where you might focus. So you might look at those types of things, either a focused energy fund like XLE, a focused financials fund like XLF, or you could go into actual insurance company funds. One of them I'm aware of is called KWBP, if I'm not misquoting it. That fund is more interesting for its components, which you could buy individually if you're so inclined, although that's a lot more work. That's property and casualty insurance companies like Progressive and Allstate and all those. All right, the next email comes from Nathan R, and this is a longer one. Nathan R writes, hello Frank, I absolutely love the podcast. I discovered you from your Tuesday F.I. appearance a couple months ago, and have since listened to all your available episodes.

Mostly Voices [7:37]

Woohoo! Yeah, baby, yeah!

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:41]

It's been fun hearing the progression from your earlier episodes with more sound bites added over time. I disagree with the listeners who suggested you cut down on On the sound bites. Au contraire.

Mostly Voices [7:53]

I laughed out loud when I heard the Nicholas Cage wicker man

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:57]

clip with the bees when talking about uncomfortable stock market volatility. And in case you missed that.

Mostly Voices [8:05]

What is that? What is that? What is it? Oh, no, not the bees. Not the bees.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:14]

I am currently in my accumulation phase and will be for approximately 20 more years. I currently hold a 100% stock portfolio. After listening to your show, I'm trying to plan ahead so that I can transition my accumulation portfolio to a risk parity style drawdown portfolio without major tax consequences from selling to rebalance. My 401k has limited options and I can rebalance without tax consequences so I don't scrutinize that as much. Most of my savings go into a brokerage account with Vanguard where I made a set up routine auto purchases of VTSAX and VTIAAX or VT and VXUS at an 80% / 20% ratio. I plan on rebalancing over time by using the new money rather than selling to avoid the tax. I'm not dogmatic about these two funds, but really want to keep my number of funds to a minimum for simplicity. When I'm five to ten years out from my drawdown stage, I figure I would begin buying gold, Non-Vanguard account, long-term treasuries and some rates to transition to this to a risk parity style portfolio. I wanted to get your opinion on the stock fund choices and strategy. Any tweaks or tips that you would offer? You don't seem to discuss international stock funds as part of most of the portfolios you discuss. I was also very curious to hear more about how you transition your own portfolio over time from accumulation to a risk parity drawdown portfolio. I believe I heard you use a version of your golden ratio portfolio for your personal accounts now that you are retired? Did you transition to this over a long time period or make the transition more suddenly? Anything that you have done differently or would have done differently in your investing career? Thank you very much for the great podcast and considering my email. Well, thank you for that email. It raises a few interesting questions and allows me to babble on about myself, which is always welcome.

Mostly Voices [10:12]

you are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:21]

So as to accumulation portfolios or 100 stock portfolios, the first thing we, we should keep in mind is the macro allocation principle from the book of Jack. Book of Jack is common sense investing by Jack Bogle. And in particular, in chapters 18 and 19, he discusses this principle where he lays out that for any reasonably well diversified portfolio, it is the macro allocations, the stock bond other that is going to drive the overall return for the portfolio, which gives you the corollary that all reasonably well diversified 100% stock portfolios are going to perform about 90% plus the same. 94% plus the same is what he says. And the differences are likely going to be random for that particular decade, which you cannot predict. So, for instance, last decade was very good for large cap growth funds and VTSAx type total market funds, which are a lot of large cap growth. And it wasn't very good for small cap value. There's been other decades that have been good for small cap value, other decades that have been good for international or better for international. like the period between 2000 and 2010. As for your ability to predict that next is pretty much nil. So your best strategy is to pick something you are comfortable with and stick with it for your stock portion, whether that's going to be a 100% accumulation portfolio to begin with or something else that is more conservative as you accumulate. I want you to be nice. With 20 years out, you certainly have a lot of future cash to invest and think about your portfolio in that way that I not only have my portfolio today, but if I'm putting in maybe $20,000 a year for the next 20 years, that's another $400,000 that's going in there that's essentially in cash right now. And so you can see why It's important to get that money into the highest yielding assets with a reasonably likely return, which ends up putting you in stock funds.

Mostly Voices [12:38]

You need somebody watching your back at all times.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:43]

So your 80/20 international US, I'm sorry, US international is a very standard portfolio. It's a very good portfolio. What we certainly like about it is the low expense fees, which is one of the other things that is hammered upon in the book of Jack. These go to 11. As to what a portfolio that I would prefer these days, I like a portfolio that is 50% large cap growth represented by a fund like VUG at Vanguard and 50% small cap value represented by a fund like VIOV. And the reason I like those things is they are of these large Diversified funds, those are the two least correlated. They are about 75% correlated in the last Morningstar report that came out about correlations of funds. And it's interesting that small cap value stocks are actually less correlated to US large caps than your international funds. It's an oddity these days. I think it's partially because of globalization. I don't really know. I can tell you that 25, 30 years ago, international stocks were much less correlated with US stocks than they are today. But if you look inside those big international funds, a lot of them are big companies like Nestle that are selling worldwide and big banks that are doing business worldwide. And so I think that has contributed to the overall correlations between those things. The kinds of international stocks that I find the most interesting, or I should say international funds, are ones that are focused particularly not on the global companies, but on things that are doing business in domestic economies. And I've really only found a couple of good ones these days. We will be adding one to the Risk Parity Ultimate Portfolio when we rebalance it. It's a, what's called Chinese A shares, and it's basically companies that you can really only buy on the Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange and that are mostly doing domestic business in China. And so those tend to have correlations with US stock market of only like 0.2 or 0.3, which is really uncorrelated for two stock funds. That's what international funds looked like back in around 1990. And so that is the sort of thing that would really be helpful in terms of diversification, because they also have a relatively high rate of return. I'll improve on your methods. I don't think it's necessary to have that, but just so you know, what I'm looking at, I always looking at the correlation or lack thereof when I'm looking at two funds, and if they're very highly correlated, I'm probably just going to pick one of them and not both of them, and that keeps your portfolio simpler. As to how I got to where I am today and when I transitioned, I started doing on this kind of research back in 2010, really right after the great financial crisis and my negative experience with tips and wondering why that didn't work out so well. But I also wanted to think about what were a good way to construct a portfolio that would withstand those kinds of dislocations. And the two things that I found when I was doing research were one, the permanent portfolio, which goes back to the 1970s, which was kind of like a primitive stab at a risk parity style portfolio before anybody called these risk parity style portfolios. If you want to hear about that, go back to episode three and I talk about the history of that. And then I read some papers by Ray Dalio and Bridgewater about this risk parity style of investing and the all-weather portfolio that they had constructed and there were some other papers around there. And so at that point in time, I tried to begin constructing one of these kind of portfolios. It was much more difficult then because we don't have the tools that we have today. And those tools came online really around 2015-2016 when we're talking about portfolio charts and portfolio visualizer in particular, allowing you to do more back testing and analyzing of these types of portfolios with different kinds of allocations in them. So I had been experimenting with a small part of our assets to figure out what kind of portfolio I thought would work long term. And then eventually we did most of the transitioning after we figured out what I wanted back around 2016-2017. So the idea was at that point, I'd be able to walk away from my primary gig or downsize it and be kind of ready to go, if you will. I am still a tinkerer by nature and need to scale that back to make sure I'm not screwing up my portfolio by making too many changes in it. But we do tinker on the sides with things like commodity funds and volatility funds because I think this is the sort of last frontier in developing a truly risk parity style portfolio over all the asset classes that are available, which gets back to what is called the Dragon Portfolio that we talked about in episodes 53 and 55. But a lot of those things are still not quite ready for prime time in terms of what kind of ETFs we have available. It's getting better, but it's changing. We are in the steel age of investing and so We can expect that we are going to have even better options going forward with some of these things. But this is a very small part of the portfolio we're talking about. Around 5% is sort of what I'm tinkering with.

Mostly Voices [19:01]

We have been charged by God with a sacred quest.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:04]

As to the question of is there anything that you would have been done differently over your investing career? Well, yeah, there's a lot of things because there's a lot of things I just didn't know or wouldn't easily known. Back when I started investing, really my professional career goes back to the early 1990s when we're talking about managed mutual funds and those sorts of things that were all the rage those days. It was really before indexing had caught on. General and best advice is to take your time and be slow about making transitions from one idea of a portfolio to another. One of the worst things that amateur investors do is get caught up in the latest greatest thing. So they have a portfolio that looks one way and then they see some shiny object and they go, oh, I need to get some of that. So they grab some of that. And what that typically ends up with is portfolios that underperform their components, believe it or not, because people are jumping in and out of things when they're hot and then end up selling low and buying high. You can't handle the gambling problem. Stand, it's gone. So I would just be careful about making abrupt changes to anything in your portfolio. If you need to scratch an itch, the way to do it is just to use a really small amount of money that isn't going to matter that much in the great scheme of things. And since we have No fee trading and fractional shares and things. You can buy $100 worth of something if it scratches your itch. And that will avoid making large changes to your portfolio that are unwise.

Mostly Voices [20:48]

You can't handle the crystal ball.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:57]

But thank you for that email. And the next email comes from Scott. And Scott writes, Thanks a ton for your content. It's really eye-opening. I was wondering if you had a link to an article or podcast that goes into depth about the recommended portfolios for the accumulation phase. Thanks again. Well, I suppose, no, I really don't, other than I can link to the portfolio charts page of sample portfolios. And the reason I don't is I believe this area has been plowed and plowed over and under by so many other people and that I don't have a whole lot to add to it. So whether you start with something like the JL Collins approach, simple path to wealth, have one total stock market fund, you go to a Merriman 4 fund approach or a Merriman ultimate approach, any kind of all equity portfolio, like I've said in answer to the last question, is likely to perform about 90% plus the same as any other all equity diversified portfolio. The only way that you get something different is by having a concentration in a particular area, and then you are taking on the risk of that concentration. So for instance, if you concentrate in tech, the last 10 years have been great. You made a lot of money.

Mostly Voices [22:23]

You can actually feel the energy from your ball by just putting your hands in and out.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:27]

But if you had that portfolio starting in 1998, going to 2010, that would look really ugly. And so there's an extra added risk to any concentration that you hold in a particular sector.

Mostly Voices [22:47]

Dogs and cats living together, Mass hysteria.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:52]

Okay, another portfolio that you can see there on portfolio charts would be the Bernstein no brainer, and that's from William Bernstein, and that one has 25% large cap blend, 25% small cap blend, 25% international, and 25% short-term bonds. I would not put any bonds in an accumulation portfolio, at least not to start with, not until you had accumulated something really significant, and your years of contribution we're getting short. If you have many, many years of contribution, you want to have an all stock portfolio. Because like I've said, that's just like sitting on this big pile of future cash that needs to get invested. But you could take that Bernstein portfolio and do 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 and that would be a perfectly acceptable way of doing it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. As I've said, I have a preference for a two fund portfolio that's large cap growth and small cap value. And the reason I have a preference for that is because I see those two large sub asset classes as being the most diversified from each other that you can get with big index funds. So that seems to cover all of the ground of these more complicated portfolios in a simpler way, in my mind. Everything is going as planned. and if you look at the calculations, it's pretty much the same as well. I honestly think that you only really need between one and four index funds in your accumulation phase. You are correct, sir, yes. And whether you want something more is more of a personal preference or interest than a necessity. And it's through the candle that you will see the images into the crystal. I do think people do spend way too much time obsessing over what's in their accumulation portfolio, particularly at the beginning of their investing journey, that really what we ought to be advising our beginning investors is just put it all in one index fund and get something significant in there, like about $100,000 or your annual salary. Get in the habit of the earning, saving, and getting the money into investing. You don't need to worry about the details of the investments until you have something significant to work with. And there's a great article from Michael Kitces about this, the four phases or four stages of your investing life. And they are earning, saving the investing, and then preserving your investments. managing your investments. The first part of it is all about the earning and saving and what you invest in is almost irrelevant until you have something significant accumulated. So that's where we should really be focusing ourselves and our children because I think people make this way too complicated at the beginning and it just doesn't need to be that way.

Mostly Voices [25:52]

Now the crystal ball has been used since ancient times. It's used for scrying. healing and meditation. You can't handle the crystal ball.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:04]

I suppose what distresses me most about the complication is it plays into the financial services industry, which wants to make everyone think that they know something special and you need to go to them to get this special knowledge because you can't do it yourself.

Mostly Voices [26:23]

Tell me, have you ever heard of single premium life? Because I think that really could be the ticket for you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:27]

that is just not true. Forget about it.

Mostly Voices [26:31]

And so we need to dispel that, that you only need those kind

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:35]

of professionals when you have accumulated a lot of assets and you have a lot of issues involving taxes and estates and all those sorts of things. That's when you need the professionals. You don't need professionals when you are just starting to get going. We had the tools, we had the talent. And we want to encourage people to take charge of their own life, whether it's their financial life or the rest of their life. It's your life, you need to take charge of it.

Mostly Voices [27:08]

Guess how many people can retire from the income of their own personal resources when it comes time to retire? Answer, 5%. In America, 5% of the people are independent. 95% are dependent. Take charge of your own retirement. You can multiply it at least by five. Take charge of your own day. Don't have days like most people have. You'll wind up broken, poor. Pennies, no treasures, trinkets, no values. Walk away from the 90%. Walk away from the 97%. Walk away from the 95%. Don't go where they go. Don't do what they do. Don't talk like they talk. Develop you a whole new language. Once you look back on it, you will never turn back. You'll never go back to the old ways and the old language and the old neglect. Never. All right, that's enough on that soapbox.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:56]

And the last email today is from David H. David H. writes, Good morning, Frank. I'm a big fan and really enjoy listening to your podcast. I am 57 and have approximately 825,000 in tax deferred accounts. At 62 years, I hope to be able to have the option to continue working or begin to slow down and fully retire by age 65. My question is how do you determine when to transition from the accumulation stage to a more conservative preservation stage? At 57, should I continue to be more aggressive with the investing and at what point given my goal do I begin to become more conservative? Thank you for your time and consideration. David H. Thank you for this email. Yes, this is a fundamental question that all of us have to wrestle with as we get to that point where we are transitioning from our work life to our less working life, if you will.

Mostly Voices [28:53]

It's all the same to you. I'll drive that tanker.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:58]

And so I think the process needs to start with evaluating your expenses. So the first thing we need to start with is our financial goals and we get to that by what our expenses are. So how do we know if we have enough? We know by starting with the expenses. That is what we have the most control over and so you need to sit down and try to estimate what that's going to be. Usually it's going to be less than what you're spending now for most people but that's what you start with. Now, once you figure out and get a good estimate of your annual expenses, then you would deduct any pensions or Social Security or whatever else you expect to come out of that or to cover that rather. Because then that gets you a number, a number that needs to be covered by your investments. And we multiply that number by 25. which corresponds to the 4% rule. That ought to be a conservative approach to this. I know there are people who are espousing now we need to be 3% and 3.5% or something less. I don't see the point in that. I think you're just going to keep a lot of money locked up and not be spending it if you have that approach. And that also implies that you can't construct a portfolio that'll give you better than 4% I think these risk parity style portfolios are likely to do that just as they have for many past decades. We had the tools, we had the talent. So I think 4% is actually a conservative number to use particularly when we're talking about people in their 60s. Alright, so you multiply that remaining expenses to be covered annual expenses by 25 and that gives you the number you need to have in your portfolio roughly. So, well, how do you figure out how I won the game or not? Well, obviously, if you already have that much money, you've won the game and you can transition anytime you want. But then the next question is, well, if I have this amount of money, what can I expect that to look like in five years or so or seven years or so? And for that, you're going to need to make an estimate of your returns. And so the idea here is, well, if I did convert this to some kind of conservative portfolio, that's only returning, say, 5% annually or 7% annually, which is less than a risk parity style portfolio that we talk about would be returning for the most part, because you figure that an all stock portfolio over decades of time returns over 10% a risk parity style portfolio that we talk about here or like a 60/40 portfolio over time returns. 8 to 9% and that is not adjusted for inflation, that's the nominal rate. But what if we took a smaller number? So what if you have $825,000 and you're thinking about retiring in five years? If you were to project out what a 5% return on that money would be, it would get you to $1,052,000. If it was a 7% return, it would get you to $1,157,000. And then the question is, is that the same as the number that you were looking at that you calculated? And if it is, you're already there. And so you can transition your portfolio whenever you would like. And in fact, there are many advantages to transitioning earlier rather than later, because it gives you peace of mind that even if something were to happen, this is still going to grow into that amount over that short period of time. I think once you get further out than five years or so, it's harder to project these things unless you are actually at your number. You keep using the word. I do not think it means what you think it means. But that is the basic process that I would follow. The other thing to consider though is whether your portfolio is at or near an all-time high because that's when you want to make the transition. You don't want to be making transitions when the portfolio has dropped 40% like it did in March of 2020 if you had an all stock portfolio. So that also puts a little more imperative on making sure that if you've got to that number, it's time to transition and go ahead and do it and don't wait for something bad to happen. Cause the worst thing that can happen to you If you don't transition, and what you're trying to avoid here is having a stock market crash before you make your transition, before you readjust your portfolio to a drawdown portfolio, because then you're just going to have to work longer and hope the thing recovers, which could take up to 13 years as it has in the past. You can see how undesirable that is. And that compares with a risk parity style portfolio, which typically has a maximum drawdown in time frame of only three or four years. Yeah, baby, yeah! And with that we have concluded our email extravaganza for today.

Mostly Voices [34:16]

And now for something completely different.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:20]

And that something completely different is our weekly portfolio review of the six sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com. Just looking at the markets this week, we saw the S&P 500 go up 2.74%. NASDAQ was up 2.35%. Gold was up 1.01%.

Mostly Voices [34:41]

I love gold! Finally, gold had a good week again.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:47]

Long-term treasuries represented by TLT, we're the big loser, the only loser of the week, down 2.56%. Reits were up 2.02%, commodities represented by PDBC were up 1.9%, those Reits are represented by the fund R-E-E-T, and preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were up 0.62%. What was interesting about this week is it's almost exactly a reversal from the prior week when everything else was down and the long-term treasury bonds were up about the same amount. And that just gives you a good example of what a diversified portfolio looks like. Some things are going up, but some things are going down. So looking at the sample portfolios in particular, starting with the All Seasons, our most conservative portfolio, this one's only 30% in stocks, and it's got 55% in short-term, I'm sorry, intermediate term and long-term treasury bonds, 7.5% in gold, and 7.5% in commodities. this one was up 0.34% for the week. It is up 7.4% since inception last July. And so it's doing fine for as conservative as it is. Moving to our more standard risk parity portfolios that are more along the lines of the risk profile of a 60/40 portfolio. First we have the Golden Butterfly. This one is 40% in stocks divided into a small cap value fund and a total market fund, VIoV and VTI, and it's got 20% in long-term treasuries, that's TLT, 20% in short-term treasuries, that's SHY, and 20% in gold, GLDM. This one was up 2.48% for the week. It has regained its leader position in terms of these sample portfolios for the past year. It is up 21. 5.7% since inception last July. You have a gambling problem.

Mostly Voices [36:50]

Going to the Golden Ratio portfolio, this one is 42%

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:54]

in stock funds. It's got 26% in those long-term treasuries, 16% in gold, 10% in REITs, R-E-E-T, and 6% in cash, which is actually down to 2% now as we've been drawing down on it all year. But it was up 1.57% for the week. It is up 19.48% since inception last July and is humming along nicely as well. The Risk Parity Ultimate Portfolio, this one is 40% in stocks, 25% in long-term treasury bonds, 10% in REITs, 10% in gold, 12.5% in a preferred shares fund, PFF, and then it's got 2.5% in a Volatility Fund VXX, although that is all the way down to about 0.26% of the portfolio now. It's been going down all year while other things have been going up. But it was up 1.43% for the week. It is up 18.62% since inception last July, and it is doing quite well. It is less volatile than those other two portfolios I just described. So even though its return isn't quite as much, it actually is doing quite well for what it is and that's why we are actually distributing on it at a higher rate than we are the other two. Alright, now we go to the experimental portfolios.

Mostly Voices [38:21]

Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave with a bunch of scraps.

Mostly Uncle Frank [38:30]

and the first one we built in the cave was the Accelerated Permanent Portfolio. This one is 27.5% in TMF, which is a leveraged long-term bond fund. It's got 25% in UPRO. It's a leveraged S&P 500 fund, 25% in PFF, the preferred shares fund, and 22.5% in gold, GLDM. It was up 1.15% for the week. It is up 16. 5-4% since inception last July. And our final portfolio, the aggressive 5050, which is our most volatile one, this one is 33% in that leveraged long-term treasury bond fund, TMF 33% in UPRO, the leveraged S&P 500 fund, it's got 17% in PFF, the preferred shares fund, and 17% in Intermediate term Treasuries, VGIT, kind of his ballast. This one was the only one that was up last week. It was up like 0.24% last week. It is up 0.3% for the week. It is up 20. 55% since inception last July. And so there is nothing really earth shattering to report for this week in these portfolios. They all are out stripping by great amounts their distribution schedules, so we're very happy with where they are. And we are looking forward to rebalancing them next month, or at least four of them next month. The experimental ones do not get rebalanced on calendar years. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade.

Mostly Voices [40:13]

I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?

Mostly Uncle Frank [40:17]

If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that's frank@riskparityradio.com or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio.com and fill out the contact form there and I'll get your message that way. We will be proceeding this week with a few more emails because we still have piles and piles of them to go through. Yes! And we will also be inaugurating a seventh sample portfolio on July 1. I'll just keep you in suspense over what that might look like.

Mostly Voices [40:57]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave.

Mostly Uncle Frank [41:08]

If you haven't done it already, please go to Apple Podcast or wherever you pick this up. and leave it a five star review and a nice comment. I'd be eternally grateful for that. That would be great. Okay.

Mostly Voices [41:20]

Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off. Pin your ear to the wisdom post. Pin your eye to the line. Never let the weeds get a higher in the garden. Always keep a sapphire in your mind. Always keep a diamond in your mind. You got to get behind a mule.

Mostly Mary [41:54]

The Risk Parity Radio Show is hosted by Frank Vasquez. The content provided is for entertainment and informational purposes only. and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Please consult with your own advisors before taking any actions based on any information you have heard here, making sure to take into account your own personal circumstances.