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 119 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, it is time for our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page.

Mostly Voices [0:59]

But before we get to that, I'm intrigued by this. How you say, emails.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:06]

And we have four emails today. First off. First off is one from Joel. The man, the myth, the legend. Yes. And Joel writes. Hi again, Frank.

Mostly Mary [1:22]

Figured I would wait a while after my last email. And glad I did, as I've learned a lot from everyone's questions. Glad you enjoyed Ragbray. I never rode it myself, but always enjoyed seeing the riders going by when I drove home from detassling every few years. Iowa native myself. I have been more interested in leverage as of late, primarily as it seems to be a more reliable way of boosting return per unit of risk as compared to something like small cap value or emerging markets, especially when leveraging up the bond side. After toying with a paper money account at TD Ameritrade with Treasury funds and rolling them, I decided there were too many points of failure with me managing these, so I have to settle for some ETFs. I have had a similar portfolio to your risk parity lever from Choose FI Pies in a Roth as my lottery ticket fund since April or May of this year, after running Hedge Funde's excellent adventure in it during the first part of the year and failing the stomach acid test. Much better with this variation. The only difference between mine and yours is using EDV as a three times leveraged intermediate treasury ETF as recommended by John at Optimized Portfolios in the comments on one of his articles and then adding some VNCQ in to add a bit more income into it.

Mostly Voices [2:56]

It ends up being UPRO 26%, TMF 26%, SGOL 12% Aberdeen Gold, VIoV 12%, PFF 12%,

Mostly Mary [3:00]

EDV 6%, VNQ 6%. Curious as to your thoughts on this modification? Keeping in mind that the above portfolio and your leverage golden ratio are experimental and could blow up due to the leverage in certain ETFs or from the ETFs going under, etc., and this isn't personalized financial advice, what are your thoughts on using the above or something like the leverage golden ratio for an accumulation portfolio, particularly for someone who is looking at a time horizon of about 20 to 25 years to retirement? I am primarily considering WisdomTree Efficient Core Funds, NTSX, NTSE as the foundation for my accumulation portfolio despite the illiquidity of the latter two as I dupe plan to hold bonds in my portfolio and sum them up, wife's orders. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Comparing returns, particularly at 10 years, the WT strategy could be negative in the worst case. I don't want to overestimate my ability to handle that kind of bad return, hence the question about the RP lever and leveraged GR. Final question, why is there so much gold in the leveraged golden ratio? I seem to remember you mentioning that the problem with the permanent portfolio was the 25% gold overtakes the rest of the portfolio returns. And Big Earn found that about 15% would be optimal. So why is 25% working so well in this one? I tried bringing down the amount of gold from 25% to 15% in portfolio charts and then the simulating UTSL, three times utilities, as 30% LCV to replace that. I just put the parts allocated to VIXM and the Bitcoin stuff as STTs to simulate cash volatility drag. This ended up running through my head as I looked at the results. That's not an improvement. I think I've improved on your methods a bit, too. That's not an improvement. Thanks for the podcast and for any answers you can provide.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:09]

Joel. Well, let's first talk about this experimental leverage portfolio you've constructed. I went ahead and went over to portfolio Visualizer and ran a version of it against a Vanguard 500 Index Investor Fund just to compare it to the total stock market. Of course this only goes back to 2009 because that's all the longer these leveraged funds have existed. But if you put this in and I would suggest you put it on rebalancing bands at a six percent rebalancing. So if something moves 6% from its original allocation, you would rebalance the entire portfolio. You do get better results with these kind of portfolios when you put them on bands as opposed to doing some kind of calendar-based rebalancing because they do tend to swing back and forth a lot more than standard portfolios. But anyway, just taking a look at your portfolio, it had an outstanding performance for this period. The compounded annual growth rate was 23.23% compared with 16.16% for the S&P 500 fund. Its best year was 51%. Its worst year was -10%. So those were not bad at all. The maximum drawdown for your portfolio is 16.14% compared to 19.63% for the S&P 500 fund modeled here. your Sharpe ratio was 1.44, which is very high compared to 1.13 for the Vanguard 500 Fund for this period, which is also high because it was just a very good period for the stock market generally. But you can see, yes, this kind of portfolio, because of the leverage in it, can outperform standard stock portfolios. that are not leveraged. Yeah, baby, yeah! So the question then leads to, well, why don't we use these instead of VTSAX or some other portfolio that is just a 100% stock accumulation portfolio? You could ask yourself questions. And the answer is simply that we just haven't had these leverage funds around long enough to work with. In theory, this should work. It should do better than a standard accumulation portfolio to take some leverage in a diversified manner and put it into one of these kinds of portfolios, whether it's the one you've constructed or the leveraged golden ratio or some other portfolio constructed out of those WisdomTree funds like NTSX. So I think it makes sense if you want to try one of these out for part of your allocations. that you do it in some kind of measured or hedged way. The way that it would seem to make the most sense to me is if you have a Roth IRA, which you want to be taking the most risk in any way, that that would be the place to put this kind of portfolio to see if it really measures up and lives up to its billing. Do I feel lucky? Do I feel lucky? and that way you can use your main accumulation portfolios as something that has been around for more than 12 or 13 years. At least that is the more conservative way to play it, as you did experience earlier this year if you have something that has leveraged bonds in it, an S&P 500 fund like that Hedge Fund E Variation, it can be very jarring. As you say, the stomach acid can broil or boil up at certain points in time because it's going to have some really big ups and downs. You can't handle the dogs and cats living together. But if you diversified it a little more, you can get an outperformance without so much stomach acid. Am I right or am I right or am I right? Right, right, right. One thing you will want to try to do with any of these portfolios you construct is not only analyze them at Portfolio Visualizer, but also go to Portfolio Charts and you may need to modify them, put in a version of whatever you're thinking about to get an idea of what that would have looked like back in the 1970s, which is usually the stress point, the major stress point for these kinds of portfolios. I actually did that for your portfolio as well. I cannot link to this in in the show notes just because the way it's set up, but let me just read you what you need to put in to model your portfolio essentially using the options available at Portfolio Charts. So what you want to do is go over there, click on My Portfolio, put in something that is 78% TSM, the total stock market, that's to model the UPRO. 12% large cap value, that's the best model you have for the PFF, 12% small cap value, which you have, 87% long-term treasuries, that covers the TMF and the EDV in your portfolio, 12% gold, which matches up with your gold allocation, and then 6% in REITs. And what you'll see there, what you'll find when you run that is you have a portfolio that is 207% and the worst period for it is that period in the 1970s from about 73 through 76 or 77. The max drawdown for it was about 40%, but it averages 18% I think over the course of the whole period. That's a 50-year period. So again, this does look like it would outperform a total stock market kind of portfolio, assuming that the funds in it do perform as advertised. You have a gambling problem. Which they have done so for at least the past 13 years of their existence. And I really hope we are able to create robust leverage portfolios in the future as do-it-yourself investors. This was the original idea that the hedge funds had when they were constructing risk parity style portfolios. Create a conservative portfolio, add a bunch of leverage to it. It should in theory outperform the stock market with less volatility. Well, you have a gambling problem. So hopefully within the next decade we will have arrived at do-it-yourself solutions. I think what we're playing around with now is just the first phase of that development. You can't handle the gambling problem. And now let's talk about gold and why the leveraged golden ratio sample portfolio has 25% gold in it instead of the 15% recommended. And why is that? I love gold! Well, that's really not the reason. Here we have a situation where 25 actually does equal 15 or 16 about. When you are calculating the percentages or allocations in these kind of portfolios, when they have leverage in them, you have to add up all of the allocations and it's always going to be some number that's bigger than 100%. So in this case, the portfolio performs with its leverage in it as if it had 157.5% of a standard portfolio. And when you take 15% of 157.5, it is about 25, which means that an unleveraged portion of the portfolio, like this gold portion, needs to be at that level because it is in fact about 15% of the leveraged portfolio. Now for those of you who like some mathematical symmetry, you can compare the leveraged golden ratio portfolio to the original golden ratio portfolio, and you'll see that all the components are essentially levered up by about the golden ratio. So in the original golden ratio portfolio, there's 42% stocks. In the leveraged version, it's about 61%. It's roughly the golden ratio. For the bonds, it's gone from 26% in the original golden ratio portfolio for the long-term treasury bonds. Now it's around 40% in the leveraged version. The goal goes from 16% in the original to about 25% or 25%. In the leveraged version, the REITs go from 10% to 15%. And so all of those components, which are in the original Golden Ratio, are essentially multiplied by the Golden Ratio to get you a leveraged version of the Golden Ratio portfolio that is leveraged up by the Golden Ratio. You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind. And then we had some odds and ends at the bottom of it, which we put in some speculative things for that particular portfolio, commodities and cryptocurrency funds. You could have easily made a more conservative version of it by simply leaving that in cash if you wanted to. And that's the remaining five percent. But if you want to see how this is all broken down, Go to the portfolios page, read the description of the levered golden ratio portfolio, and you will see how the funds are broken apart and how they line up to the allocations that I've just described. But thank you for that email. That was an improvement.

Mostly Voices [15:35]

I employed some Kiara Scurro shading.

Mostly Uncle Frank [15:39]

And now? Second off, Second off, we have an email from Jaben.

Mostly Mary [15:43]

And Jaben writes：hi Frank, a quick note to say thanks for your BTAL episode. I was the listener who asked about that ETF a while back. I've got a small allocation to BTAL in a market timing portion of my portfolio. I know, crystal ball. Anyway, I'm still loving the podcast. Thanks for all the good work.

Mostly Uncle Frank [16:06]

Well, thanks for reminding me of that Jaben. I knew somebody had suggested it and I couldn't figure out who it was. You need somebody watching your back at all times. But I did go back and put your name and give you credit in the show notes for the BTAL episode, which is episode 114. You're keeping score at home. It happened once. And if you do have other suggestions, or anybody else has other suggestions of things you want me to take a look at, I am willing to entertain them so you can send me more. Messages about them.

Mostly Voices [16:42]

Prove it, baby. And thank you for that email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [16:46]

Our next email comes from Bradley. And Bradley writes, hello, sir.

Mostly Mary [16:53]

I've been aware of you in the FI space for some time now, and I'm giving your podcast a listen. I don't want to look through the different portfolios here or I'll spoil the listening. I'm on about episode 30, making quick progress. Firstly, your show is great. The purpose and structure is well thought out. Secondly, I'd like to say that precious little is said or thought about portfolio allocation other than 100% VTSAVX in the FI space. So thank you. My wife and I are about 38. We aim to hit our FI number in less than 10 years. Probably work still, just less. That said, my question, could you use some risk parity techniques while on the accumulation phase? Are there portfolio allocations that you recommend by age or phase? Follow up. What is your favorite platform? Vanguard M1? Thanks for all you do, sir. I appreciate your content. All right.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:45]

Your first question is whether we could use some risk parity techniques while in the accumulation phase. And I think this gets back to the first email we had of the day where we see someone who is just doing just that. What you would need to do, though, is add some leverage to your portfolio because an unlevered risk parity style portfolio is not going to accumulate as much money long term as a total stock market portfolio. It's just not. Return characteristics are designed to have 80 to 85% of the return of a total stock market portfolio but only have half the volatility. So it's really focused on the decumulation phase, or the safe withdrawal rate, if you will. But as we've seen, it is possible to design these kind of experimental portfolios with these leveraged funds in them that, at least in theory and in the recent past, have outperformed the total stock market with less volatility. So I think that's probably where this is all going, even though it may not be there quite yet. Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. All right, the next question. Are there portfolio allocations you recommend by age or phase? Well, yes, basically. I think that someone in their accumulation phase ought to be focused on 100% stocks, at least to start out with. and you really only need one fund to start with. And the reason I say that is because at the beginning of your investing journey and the way compounding works, it's a very slow climb to begin with. And the increases in your portfolio are mostly due to how much you are saving in it and investing in it and not the intrinsic returns of the portfolio itself. So fiddling around with a whole bunch of stock funds ends up being a Just a big waste of time for most people. I think it's more important for the beginning investor to establish the good habits of investing on a regular basis. And you can put it in one fund or you can put it in a bunch of funds, whichever you like for that. Because it's just not going to matter until you've accumulated something significant. And by significant, I mean something that looks like your annual salary or $100,000. and that's just to get going. Then the question becomes how much time do you want to spend learning about investing and fiddling around with other ideas or portfolios? Because if you don't want to spend the time on it, you don't have to go and earn some money, keep putting it into VTSAX or your preferred total stock market fund or something close to that, or a couple of funds take up Paul Merriman approach to it, or a Rick Ferri approach to it, or any other approach that is essentially 100% stock funds. I view them as all equally likely to perform similarly in the future, so long as you're not jumping in and out of funds. But if you want to learn more, there is lots and lots of good information that we just have today that we did not have even 10 years ago. ways that we can analyze portfolios at portfolio charts or portfolio visualizer, a lot more information. Hopefully this podcast is informative for you. If you go back and listen to some of the first podcasts where I'm describing the history of personal finance and do it yourself investing, we are really living in a golden age when it comes to that because we have so much more information, we can do it so much cheaper, And we have so many more options. We have the tools. We have the talent.

Mostly Voices [21:43]

Particularly in the ETF space, which is exploding and

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:47]

overtaking the mutual fund space, which is kind of the old way of doing things. What I would suggest you do, an easy way to approach this, is to go to portfolio charts. There are a set of sample portfolios there. Each of those has a history and a literature behind it as to why somebody designed it, how long it's been around, what it's supposed to do, and you can get an idea of kind of the evolution of portfolio construction that goes back to simple stock bond mixes where you didn't really have the funds to really diversify that well or that much in it. cost efficient manner to what we have now where you can find an ETF that is in the very niche space that you are looking for in terms of whether you want a intermediate treasury bond fund or a small cap value fund or an emerging markets fund. You can find all of these things. You can find gold funds. These things didn't exist before. And so if you're willing to take the time to learn Not only what these things are, but how they can mix together. I think you will be able to find some happy variations and some applications of these risk parity techniques to accumulation portfolios. That being said, I don't think you necessarily need it for that purpose. And there are a lot of people who would frankly just be better off with their one to three fund portfolios in their accumulation phase. and just focus on doing the accumulation over a period of time, let the thing compound, and then think about what you need to do next. Don't be saucy with me Bernaise. As for the age or phase, I really don't think about these things in terms of age, and there's really only two phases and then a transition between them. There is an accumulation phase where you're trying to grow your portfolio, to a certain size, that size is determined by your expenses. And when you have reached, say, 25 times your expenses, assuming you don't have any pensions or other things, that's still a valid rule of thumb, even though it's not an exact rule, then you have won the game. And then you can transition to your decumulation portfolio. in which case the priority then should be not on accumulating more, but on the highest safe withdrawal rate or perpetual withdrawal rate that you can come up with. And that's why you want to shift to a more diversified portfolio like one of these risk parity style portfolios, because your goals have changed. And so you want to have the portfolio that matches the goals you have. That would be great. Okay. Now, there are other paths along the way that you may wish to explore for specific projects, if you will. Obviously, if you need money within one or two years, it's got to be in some kind of savings or savings bond or CD or something boring that's not going to make you really any money because the purpose is liquidity. So the answer to those emergency fund questions, where do I put it? Just find the best thing available that's easily available to you and don't sweat it so much. maybe it's just too large for you, I think is the problem that a lot of people have, that they may have emergency funds that are just too big for what they actually need. When you do get to an intermediate term project, if you will, maybe saving for a house or some other large purchase that you can put down the road to five to ten years, or some extended period of time, you could use a risk parity style portfolio to save in that, particularly if your time frame is a little bit flexible. And the reason you can use a risk parity style portfolio for that purpose is because our main ones typically have maximum drawdowns of less than 20% that lasts for a maximum of three to four years. And so in that way, you know you're not going to get stuck. for a very long time if there is a drawdown during the period when you're saving. But I think with all of these problems to solve, the issue is always, when am I going to need this money? is the first question. And then everything else drives based on that answer. All right, your last question here, what is your favorite platform? All right, I currently have accounts Let's see, we've got interactive brokers, we've got Empower, we've got Fidelity, we've got an E-Trade legacy account, and I've also had at various points in time accounts with Schwab and other brokers that seem to get swallowed up.

Mostly Voices [27:04]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:11]

In a lot of ways, this question doesn't matter so much because as long as you can buy ETFs with no fees, you're going to be in good shape regardless of where you go or if they have minimal fees. If you have a large taxable account, you probably want to put it at Interactive Brokers because that would give you the option to borrow against it at rates that are about 1% or less, which is a nice way to avoid incurring unnecessary tax bills for selling things or to use as an emergency fund. Of the big three discount brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard, I think Fidelity at this point in time has the best platform. This is always changing. The other ones I believe will catch up. I would not switch platforms. But the reason Fidelity is out front right now is because it not only has no fee trading. It also has fractional shares as an option. So you can go there and, you know, buy one tenth of a share of, say, VTI, the Vanguard Total Stock Market fund, which I do not believe you can do at Vanguard itself. Schwab is probably the next best of those three in terms of services offered right now. Vanguard has some catching up to do. They've been having a lot of Customer service problems that I'm aware of people complaining of not being able to get through, not being able to open accounts, or other problems and just getting things done there. I think they've just been overwhelmed. No fee trading has put a lot of strain on a lot of these brokerages because a lot more people are just opening up a lot more accounts. M1 is kind of a new kid on the block, but it has a very interesting platform and a very interesting idea and is also very economical, particularly if you want to construct a portfolio of any complexity, but you don't have a large sum of money to invest. That is the ideal place to do that sort of thing. I think it does encourage good portfolio habits, if you will, by setting allocations, rebalancing them on some kind of schedule, but sticking to your knitting as it were. I do not have any accounts there, although I have signed up to poke around in there just to see how everything worked. I also like the fact that they are focused on ETF investing because ETFs are the wave of the future. They are a superior investment vehicle over mutual funds. And while there's nothing wrong with having mutual funds, and you wouldn't want to sell out of them just to buy an ETF, particularly if you're going to have tax issues because now we've gone to no fee trading and fractional shares at most brokerages. The ETF wrapper, if you will, is just a superior method of investing that's more tax efficient and usually costs less overall. The other legacy problem I see with mutual funds is they were really designed for an era where you would get captured by the company who is putting out the funds. So you were kind of stuck in their ecosystem. If you take a mutual fund and try to transfer it to a different brokerage and then try to sell it, you may end up with some fees. So you really don't want to hold a mutual fund anywhere but the place that created that particular mutual fund due to these ongoing problems with fees. What that means is they're not very transportable. and they're that way by design. They are designed to keep you in their own ecosystem with that company and whatever funds they have to offer. To me, that's a relic of the 20th century that we should not be engaging in future activities that wedges us to a particular brokerage or company. We want to be able to move all of our stuff somewhere else for whatever reason that we might have. And that's going to be a lot easier for you if you own ETFs and not mutual funds. So in conclusion, there are a lot of good options out there. And if you are with one of the big discount brokers, you can stick with what you have and you should be just fine. If you are starting out or creating something new, then maybe you should take a look at some of these new options if you have not considered them. I would stay away, however, from the Robinhoods of the world. Anything that is getting investigated by the SEC for various things, has been fined, and has problems with their platform and doesn't have a phone number you can call is probably something you want to stay away from, or at least not put a whole lot of money with that kind of company. Man's got to know his limitations. Should use those sorts of things for entertainment purposes only. Well, you have a gambling problem. But thank you for that email. And now...

Mostly Voices [32:25]

Last off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:29]

Last off, we have an email from Brian, and Brian writes：Can you explain in

Mostly Mary [32:33]

a little more detail how you calculate performance of each portfolio, specifically when it comes to taking distributions? Does the performance percentage ignore the distribution?

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:45]

And Brian is referring to the performance metrics that we provide on the portfolios page at the website, riskparityradio.

Mostly Voices [32:52]

com well, I like to do the job right.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:57]

There are several performance metrics there. The monthly ones that you see in the little table at the top, those are all just from Fidelity. These accounts are at Fidelity and I go to the performance page of that. Pull the number off for the month and put it in there. And that's where those come from. There is a year-to-date metric that also comes from Fidelity that comes out once a month and I put that one up there. And then in terms of the overall performance, we do add back in the distributions to get an idea of the overall performance. So all of these portfolios started at $10,000. and so if you see one that has gone up to $11,000 and then has $500 in distributions that have occurred, we would count that as 15% or 1500 on the 10,000 as the overall performance for that portfolio. Now I realize that's not a perfect measurement due to the time value of money and the timing of the distributions. but it's close enough for what we are doing. If you look at the performance metrics that appear in my Fidelity account on the performance places, it generally shows them performing even better than what I'm reporting on my page. But I don't know exactly how Fidelity is calculating that. If you look at the graphs that are on the portfolios page, those have the distributions taken out. So those graphs are after distributions and are lower than the, obviously the total performance. So those graphs are under describing or describing a lower performance than the actual performance of the portfolio. Hopefully that was clear. And then finally for the weekly performance, all I do is take whatever happened last week, And compare it to what it is at this week divided by the denominator which was last week's figure. And that is how we determine the weekly performance for the portfolio. But hopefully that is clear.

Mostly Voices [35:19]

And thank you for that email. And now for something completely different.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:26]

and the something completely different is our weekly portfolio review. And we can tell it's September because most things are going down. It seems to happen every September, at least for one or two weeks of the month. You see just bad performances all around for the most part. But taking a look at the markets last week, the S&P 500 was down 1.69%, the Nasdaq was down 1.61%, gold was down 2.28%. TLT, the long-term treasury bond fund that we hold, was actually the only bright spot. It was up a mere 0.24%, so holding in there. Rates were the worst performer. They were down 3.79%, and that's our REET representative fund. Commodities represented by PBDC were down to 1.24%, so not as bad as the stock market, but not good. And preferred shares represented by PFF were down 0.18%. Just one other note, the small cap value fund that we have in some of our portfolios also had a terrible week. The IOV was down 3.04% for the week. And so as you might expect, since most everything was down, our portfolios did go down this past week, although not nearly as much as the stock market in most cases here. Taking a look at our most conservative portfolio, the All Seasons, this one is only 30% in stocks. VTI is the fund that's got 55% in long and intermediate term treasury bonds. 7.5% in gold and 7.5% in commodities, PDBC. It was down 0.62% for the week. It is up 10.62% since inception in July 2020. Moving to our next portfolio, the next three are sort of our bread and butter portfolios. The Golden Butterfly is our first one. This one is 40% in stocks divided into A small cap value fund, VIOV, and a total market index fund, VTI. It's got 40% in treasury bonds divided into short and long term, and then 20% in gold represented by GLDM. It was down 1.43% for the week, so down less than the stock market, and it is up 20.20% since inception in July 2020. Moving to the golden ratio. This one is 42% in stocks, 26% in long-term treasury bonds, 16% in gold, 10% in REITs, R-E-E-T, and 6% in cash. It was down 1.6% for the week. It is up 21.17% since inception in July 2020. And then we go to the Risk Parity Ultimate. this was actually the better performer of these three. This one is 40% in stocks, which includes 5% in a leveraged stock fund, UPRO, 20% in bonds, which includes a leveraged long-term treasury fund, TMF at 5%. It's got 15% in gold, GLDM, 5% in commodities, COM 10% in preferred shares, PFF 5% in REITs, that's R-E-E-T, and then for the remaining 5% we have 3% of that in a volatility fund VIXY and 2% in cryptocurrency funds BITQ and BITW. It was down 1.36% for the week and it is up 21.76% since inception in July 2020. So again, doing better than the stock market in terms of a less decline. Now we move to our experimental portfolios. These have leveraged funds in them in significant amounts. First one is our accelerated permanent portfolio. This one is 25% in UPRO, a leveraged stock fund, 27.5% in TMF, a leveraged long-term treasury bond fund, 25% in PFF, the preferred shares fund, and 22.5% in GLDM, the Gold Fund. It was down 1. 7% for the week, so about the same as the stock market, is up 24.21% since inception in July 2020. And now moving to what is usually our most volatile portfolio, the aggressive 5050. This one is 33% in UPRO, that leveraged stock fund, 33% in the leveraged bond fund, TMF, then 17% each in PFF, that's preferred shares, and Intermediate-Term Treasuries, VGIT. It was down 1.74% for the week. It is up 31.21% since inception in July 2020. And our final portfolio, the Levered Golden Ratio, was our worst performer of the week. This one is comprised of 35% in NTSX, that is a leveraged composite fund of stocks and treasury bonds. It's got 25% in gold, GLDM, 15% in a REIT, that's Realty Income Corporation, ticker symbol O, and it's got 10% each in leveraged treasury bond fund, TMF, and leveraged small cap fund, TNA, and for the remaining five percent we have three percent in a volatility fund and two percent in those crypto funds, BITQ and BITW. How that breaks out we talked about earlier and is described on the portfolios page. But anyway it had a terrible week. It was down 2.89% for the week, but it is still up 2.15% since inception, which occurred this July, July 1, 2021. I think it suffered mostly due to the small cap leveraged fund, which had a particularly bad week. But that is all for the sample portfolios this week. And now I see our signal is beginning to fade. If you have questions or comments for me, you can send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that is frank@riskparityradio.com that's an email. 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. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to wherever you get this podcast, at Stitcher or Apple podcasts, and leave it some likes, follows, stars, comments. That would be greatly appreciated. That would be great. M'kay? Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio, signing off. We're from high away, high away, king of all the land, joy on every hand, from high away, high away, next where the call comes from.

Mostly Mary [43:15]

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.