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 125 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, we are once again going to have at the emails, this time some from October.

Mostly Voices [0:54]

We got a scary one for you this week.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:57]

But first off, first off, we have a little announcement. Be nice. You may recall from episode 121 we had a question from Julie T that I promised to answer with a video. Mass hysteria. And I have now made that video. It is a tutorial of the retirement spending calculator you can find over at portfolio charts.

Mostly Voices [1:18]

You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind. I will link to it in these show notes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:25]

I have linked to it in episode 121's show notes and put the link also on the podcast page to where I will be storing these videos in the future.

Mostly Voices [1:37]

Groovy, baby!

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:41]

I can't say it's the highest quality video, but I think it does the job. And I hope you enjoy taking a look at that. Bow to your sensei. Bow to your sensei.

Mostly Voices [1:48]

Second off. Second off. Here I go once again with the email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:55]

And now, first off, once again, our first email comes from Paul, and Paul writes actually two emails, but we've combined them, and he writes, hi,

Mostly Mary [2:06]

Frank, love your podcast. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge with us. I came across this interesting article and wanted to share the link with you and your listeners. I back tested the three times leveraged all weather portfolio described in the article using the My Portfolio tool. tool on PortfolioCharts.com, and it seemed almost too good to be true：an 11.7% four-year safe withdrawal rate, a low ulcer index with short portfolio recovery periods following drawdowns, excellent CAGR, Sharpe, and Sortino ratios, etc. Portfolio charts didn't have an option for backtesting with utilities in lieu of commodities, as recommended in the article, But nevertheless, the risk-adjusted return of the three times leveraged all-weather portfolio seems like a perfect risk-parity type of portfolio to use in a tax-deferred account. Am I missing something here? Would love to hear your thoughts regarding the potential cons of this approach for someone who is willing to accept the somewhat higher volatility of this portfolio in exchange for the long-term outperformance relative to standard non-leveraged risk-parity portfolios. What are the downsides of the leveraged all-weather portfolio compared to your accelerated permanent and aggressive 50/50 portfolios? I am not considering this portfolio for my taxable investment portfolio due to the tax implications of the relatively frequent rebalancing that will be needed when using leveraged ETFs. Regarding rebalancing, you mentioned in one of your episodes that you recommend using 6% rebalancing bands rather than quarterly rebalancing when when using leveraged ETFs. Does that mean that the portfolio should be looked at frequently and rebalanced whenever one of its components deviates by 6% or more in absolute percentage from its target allocation? The optimizedportfolio. com article I linked above recommended quarterly rebalancing of leveraged portfolios rather than monthly or longer intervals. I know rebalancing bands performed favorably in historical research examining standard non-leveraged portfolios, but I'm curious I'm curious if you know of any research looking at rebalancing bands when utilizing leveraged portfolios. Thanks again for all you do, sincerely, Paul. Sorry, I forgot to include the screenshot, please see attached, of my inputs into my portfolio on portfoliocharts.com, and also the link to the leveraged ETFs recommended in the optimized portfolio article for the three times leveraged all weather portfolio with utilities instead of commodities. Thanks again. Well, I will be linking to your article from optimizedportfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:05]

com about the all-weather portfolio and your M1 Pie in the show notes so people can take a look at that. But let's just go through your questions here. And your first question is whether you're missing something here, whether this leveraged all-weather portfolio might be the perfect portfolio to use in a tax-deferred account. And the answer is, well, the theory is good. The theory is sound and it should work as advertised. The question here is more in the execution, and by that I mean more in the execution on the part of the funds to actually perform in the manner you would expect them, given what they are invested in and the amount of leverage that they have. and there's no guarantee on those. I've had trouble with the leveraged gold funds in the past. I have not looked at this one or invested in one for several years, but when I did do that, the ones I was invested in were based on futures contracts and they had some role to them, and so they really were not performing as I would have wanted them to. Maybe this one is different. I have not examined it in detail. And the same thing for the utilities fund, although I would expect the utilities fund to have lesser issues. One thing about this particular construction is that it's really not designed for inflationary environments. When you think about it, the gold may or may not do well in an inflationary environment, but in the original leveraged all-weather you had some commodities which were specifically designed to do well in an inflationary environment. Utilities typically do not do well in inflationary environments because they are more of a defensive kind of stock. The way to modify that may be to include some small cap stocks, maybe using TNA, for example, for part of the stock holdings, because obviously the bond holdings in this, which comprise the majority of it, are going to not perform well in inflationary environments or you wouldn't expect them to. Then your next question was how does this all-weather portfolio compare to the accelerated permanent portfolio and aggressive 50/50 portfolios? Well, really the one you've come up with has a lot more leverage in it. So you would have expected to do both better in terms of returns but be a lot more volatile. So if you go back and look at the aggressive 50/50 and the Accelerated permanent portfolio, that accelerated permanent portfolio only has half of it in leveraged funds. The aggressive 5050 has two-thirds in leveraged funds. What you are talking about constructing has 100% in leveraged funds. So obviously it's going to have greater potential returns and greater potential volatility in it. But one thing I probably should remind everyone of is that Accelerated Permanent Portfolio, that sample one in the Aggressive 50/50, were really not designed to be the best use of leveraged funds overall. They're designed to be two examples of how one might use leveraged funds. The reason the Aggressive 50/50 is constructed the way it is, is because I wanted to basically take a standard 50/50 portfolio of stocks and bonds, which is known to be a conservative portfolio, and just add some leverage to it. The way the accelerated permanent portfolio is constructed is taking that original permanent portfolio, that was 25% stocks, 25% gold, 25% short-term treasury bonds, and 25% long-term treasury bonds. And that is also an extremely conservative portfolio. And the idea of this one was to add some leverage to that idea and see how that would play out. so I purposely tried to make those simple and then also tried to make the volatility at least somewhat similar to that of a total stock market fund so that you could easily compare them. When you start talking about leverage portfolios that have much greater volatilities in them, then you're really not having them comparable to a stock market fund. You're having them comparable to something that is leverage or out on the risk spectrum. And regarding rebalancing, I'm not aware of any research whatsoever on applying rebalancing rules to leveraged portfolios. All I'm aware of is what it talks about at optimize portfolios and then what I've done on my own research just by running scenarios through portfolio visualizer and seeing how different rebalancing scenarios played out with these kinds of portfolios. It makes sense that you want to rebalance them more often because of their extreme volatilities, but whether that's ultimately better on bands or on a quarterly basis, that's up in the air. The research on regular portfolios suggests that rebalancing based on bands is a better way of doing it overall, as opposed to calendar rebalancing. But it also shows that for ordinary portfolios, doing calendar rebalancing more than once a year is usually counterproductive. So if you apply that theory to leverage portfolios, and it's hard to say why this wouldn't also be true, since you're just comparing two different rebalancing schemes, you would think that some kind of rebalancing on bands would be better than calendar rebalancing. Ultimately, I'm not aware of any studies of that though. I am more comfortable rebalancing these leveraged portfolios based on rebalancing bands just based on the research from the other ordinary portfolios. You had also mentioned the 6% used on some of the rebalancing bands with some of these portfolios. Where that really comes from generally is when you are rebalancing portfolios The optimized bands are usually around 20% of what the allocation is. So if you have an allocation that's 25 or 30%, 6% is often a good place to start when trying to set a rebalancing band. And that's roughly what we've got in those two sample portfolios, the aggressive 50/50 and the accelerated permanent portfolio. But I believe we're using 7.5% in those. In any event, that is usually around the amount that seems to work for a lot of these kinds of portfolios. But thank you for that email. I mean, this is a good example of what I'm hoping people will be able to do with the ideas presented in this podcast. Yes! Which is not to just take what I put out there as the be-all and end-all of these Constructions.

Mostly Voices [12:22]

Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:25]

But to use the ideas and go look at other constructions and choose something that they feel is appropriate for them both in terms of what they are trying to do with their portfolio as a goal and then how much risk they want to take in their portfolio. I'll show them. I'll show them all. I thought this was a most excellent idea and presentation. These go to 11. And now, second off. Second off, we have an email from Mike and Mike writes.

Mostly Mary [13:03]

Hi Frank, really enjoying your podcast up to episode 107 so far. Excellent paradigm shift for me.

Mostly Voices [13:07]

You can't handle the gambling problem.

Mostly Mary [13:13]

Question：what do you think about Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, BIP, as a REIT or REIT alternative? That was weird, wild stuff. It seems to have a low correlation with O or REET and seems like it might be a good companion within the REIT portion of a portfolio. Thanks much for all the education and entertainment, Mike.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:40]

Well, this is interesting, and let me tell you how I Typically go about analyzing some suggested fund or some new thing to see if it might be useful or not. The first thing I typically do is run it through a correlation analysis in a portfolio that holds a bunch of the things that I'm probably holding already anyway. So in this case, I went ahead and did an asset correlation analysis over at Portfolio Visualizer, and I will link to that in the show notes. And we compare this fund BIP with a total stock market fund, small cap value, long-term treasuries, gold, another REIT fund, VNQ, O, that REIT, SHY, that's short-term treasury bonds, and preferred shares, PFF. And when you run it through these things, it does give useful results and suggests that this could be a useful thing in a portfolio. And the reason you will see is that it has a relatively low correlation with everything. The highest correlation it has is with a total stock market fund at 0.56. And most of everything else is 0. 4 something for the other stock and REIT funds, and then zero correlation with gold essentially and negative correlation with your treasury bond funds. So you would look at that and say, well, yes, this could be a possibility for my portfolio. And then the next questions you would have to ask, and I have not looked at this particular fund in any detail, but it does look like it's called Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, and it invests in infrastructure projects. It has had a excellent annualized return. at least since 2008 of around 17 to 18%, which obviously is a great return. But you'd have to go back and look at it, see what its volatility characteristics are. It does seem to be quite volatile. It's about having the same volatility as, say, a small cap value fund. So it's in that kind of category. It's not ridiculously volatile. but assuming I had actually researched the fund and looked at it and liked what I saw in there, I could see putting this in as say one of my REIT funds or in that kind of category of stock funds or REIT funds. It would have to displace something else and since it's an individual thing I'd probably only be putting 1-2% into it. But I think I probably would categorize this with all of the other REIT funds that you might invest in. And you might want to go back and listen to the REIT episodes because the interesting thing about REITs is that an REIT structure does not necessarily mean that the underlying business is a typical real estate business. So you have REITs that are invested in all kinds of things from Timber to data storage to cell towers and all manner of other things that produce consistent revenue. I have one that invests in billboards called Lamar, which is another useful retold. So you have come to what I would think is the correct conclusion here. Yes. This might be a useful thing. It probably goes in the re portion of a portfolio or sort of with your slight alternatives to stocks. And if you like it as a company or fund, then you can go ahead and invest in it. I have no opinion as to what its actual future performance would be.

Mostly Voices [17:24]

Forget about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:27]

But again, this is the sort of thing I hope my listeners are able to do. Look at something like this and then kind of decide, well, I like this.

Mostly Voices [17:46]

Where would it fit in my portfolio? What would it displace or how would it fit in and how much of it should I incorporate? We had the tools, we had the talent.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:50]

One other thing I did with it just to make it interesting is I ran it at Portfolio Visualizer inside of a portfolio. I created essentially what looks like a golden ratio portfolio. But instead of having 10% in REITs and 6% in cash, that portion I just divided into the REIT O Realty Income Corporation and this fund, BIP. And when you do that, it plays very nicely. It's got a compounded annual growth rate since 2008 of 11.15% for the portfolio, a sharp ratio of 1.04. Its best year was about 25%, worst year was only a negative 8.5% maximum drawdown of negative 19.5%. So again, this just confirms that this could be a useful thing that you might want to include in your portfolio. And you can have a look at that link in the show notes. Thank you again for that email.

Mostly Mary [18:55]

And our next email is from Brett, and Brett writes, Frank, here is another strong vote in favor of the sound effects. In addition, I really like the new narration of emails by your better half. The laughter at the end of the last podcast was simply a joy to hear. Bravo. Merry Merry why you buggin? I'd like to hear if you see any wisdom in adding a closed-end fund for some income generation to a risk parity style portfolio. I know that they're expensive. However, the income stream that some of them deliver is appealing as one approaches retirement. Thanks so very much for all the work that you've put into this podcast. It's greatly appreciated, Brett.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:40]

Well, I heartily agree that Mary has improved the podcast.

Mostly Voices [19:44]

Mary, Mary, I need your hug.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:48]

As for that laughter, it came from some outtakes of the Reading of the emails that you did not hear. Sometimes they don't go so well on the first take and we get some funny results out of that. What do you mean funny? Funny how? But I'm glad you shared our joy as it was funny and fun.

Mostly Voices [20:07]

No more flying solo. All right, let's talk a little bit about closed end funds.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:11]

Closed end funds are just a kind of wrapper that goes around a fund. these things existed prior to ETFs and they are in a more primitive structure that just trades like a stock. So in most closed end funds, the value of the shares of the fund is either trading at a discount, it's worth less than its components inside the fund, or it's trading at a premium, which makes Closed end funds sometimes hard to value because something can be trading at a discount for a closed end fund for years and years on end. Now that being said, we need to recognize that closed end funds themselves are just a wrapper. Do you want a chocolate? So what is important is what is inside this fund. Man's got to know his chocolate. And some of these closed end funds are invested in reit like things, some of them are invested in stock like things, some of them are invested in bond like things, and some of them have various forms and degrees of leverage, which is often why they are structured that way to generate lots of income through leverage. You never know what you're going to get. So if you have closed end funds that you like and are familiar with, they are kind of hard to analyze because they are based both on the asset managers and how they construct the thing, then what the market thinks of those things, whether they trade at a discount or a premium. But what my mom always said, what you can and should do is simply analyze it the way we were talking about that BIP fund that we were just talking about, that if you have a closed end fund and you match it up with other things in your portfolio, and it's not very correlated, then it becomes a possibility of something you might want to include in your portfolio. And then it becomes a question of where and how much and what is it displacing. But there are potentially room for these sorts of things in a risk parity style portfolio. It will make your life a little more complicated, but some of you like it a little more complicated because you are familiar with and are comfortable with Funds and kinds of investments that go beyond my knowledge. Man's got to know his limitations. And abilities. You can't handle the crystal ball. I probably would not care as much about the income stream itself because what you're most interested is the total return of the thing. But it might be useful depending on what kind of income it is and where it appears, whether it's in a tax advantaged account. or it's in a taxable account and it's a qualified dividend. But those are just other factors you would want to consider. You need somebody watching your back at all times. And thank you for that email. I'm glad you liked the podcast.

Mostly Mary [23:13]

It's a trap. And our next email is from Yaro. And Yaro writes. Hello Frank. I love your show and I love that you do you. So keep doing that, eh? I was wondering what you might think of GAA. This is a global asset allocation fund that purports to map all global markets, equities, bonds, real assets, etc. The expense ratio is zero, which is to say the only expense ratio is the pass-through expenses from the ETFs it holds within it. Some of those funds are operated by the same company, so that's how it gets paid, I guess. This would appear to be the ultimate in diversification in theory. Curious how this might line up with the risk parity concept. All the best, Yarrow.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:02]

Yarrow sounds like you might be a Canadian. Or from somewhere in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But I did have a look at this fund GAA, and I'll be linking to some of these analyses in the show notes. This is also an interesting analysis because we come out in the opposite direction of where we came out talking about closed-end funds generally or that fund, VIP. Forget about it. But let's look at why. If you look at GAA, it's got about 20-some different funds in it and it is like a kitchen sink of funds. A bunch of scraps. It's got high yield bond funds, international funds, a little bit of gold, all kinds of momentum and value things. It's got tips, it's got something called the Cambria Global Tail Risk called Fail, F-A-I-L, which I believe is essentially a volatility fund or something that invests in things that do well when the stock market is crashing. But when you put all these things in a correlation analysis, and I'll link to this in the show notes, you immediately begin to see two problems. One is that a lot of this stuff is just correlated, highly correlated and overlapping. A lot of the bond funds are positively correlated with the stock funds, which means they're not helping you diversify. That's not an improvement.

Mostly Voices [25:38]

And then a lot of these things are just poor performers.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:42]

I mean, you would expect that fail fund to have a negative expectation over time. And they don't have anything in here that is, say, a leveraged stock fund that would compensate for that. Like we might have in, say, the Risk Parity Ultimate Portfolio, where we have one of those kinds of investments. But we also have a leveraged stock fund. I think I've improved on your methods a bit too. So it's impossible to know how and why they constructed this fund in this way, but it kind of violates two things right off the bat. One is the simplicity principle. I don't see any need or reason to have all of these different funds, some of which are overlapping. Just to say, I've got all this stuff from all over the world. You probably don't want all this stuff from all over the world.

Mostly Voices [26:37]

You can't handle the dogs and cats living together.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:41]

A lot of it is just not very useful for you.

Mostly Voices [26:44]

Now you can also use the ball to connect to the spirit world.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:48]

And a lot of it is just doing something the same as something else, but just not doing it as well. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Mostly Voices [26:55]

And then the second principle that it does violate is our Holy Grail principle,

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:59]

which is when you are looking at these kinds of investments and funds, you're probably going to start with your stock funds if those are your primary drivers. Then your other assets that you're putting in there really need to be placed in there highly on the basis of whether they're negatively correlated, have zero correlation, or at least a low correlation with your stock funds. And it's clear that they did not do this kind of analysis here. And so they came up with just a hodgepodge of stuff. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. This reminds me a lot of the wealth front, quote, risk parity, unquote, portfolio that they put out there that crashed and burned miserably in 2020 because It in fact had a lot of corporate bonds in it that were positively correlated with the stocks in there. And so when you compared how that performed to a whole raft of other risk parity style portfolios, it was like twice as bad. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.

Mostly Voices [28:10]

40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:14]

And basically did not live up to its risk parity name. at all. Forget about it. This fund suffers from the same kinds of defects or deficiencies. Hello, anybody home? Ah, think McFly, think. Now how else do we know that this is probably not something you want to be spending your time with? We know because we can do other analyses and simply compare it to some of our risk parity style portfolios, our simple risk parity style portfolios. So I did one of these analyses over at Portfolio Visualizer. We took this GAA Fund Global Asset Allocation Fund and compared it to the Golden Butterfly Portfolio and the Golden Ratio Portfolio. And this only runs five or six years because that's all the longer that GAA has been in existence. But when you take a look at this, you look at it and don't see any reason why you would want this fund. The compounded annual growth rate of this GAA fund over its lifetime has been 6. 6% compared with Golden Butterfly over that period of 7.59 and Golden Ratio of 9.29. It does not have a best year that's as good as the Golden Butterfly or Golden Ratio, yet it has a worst year that is almost twice as bad as the Golden Butterfly and Golden Ratio. And that comes out of this lack of thought Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. And actual diversification of its components. So its worst year is -7.74% in this time period. The worst year for the golden butterfly and golden ratio was 4.0 and 4.5. Its maximum drawdown for GAA was 18.25%, which is terrible for something that's supposed to be a conservative fund. That compares with maximum drawdown of Golden Butterfly in this period of 7.16 and maximum drawdown of Golden Ratio in this period of 9.2. And so as a result, when you look at the risk reward ratios, you see Golden Butterfly and Golden Ratio up there at 0.97 and 0. 99 for the Sharpe ratio compared with the GAA Sharpe ratio of 0.64. So there's really no contest. SorTino ratio looks even worse. It's 1.74 for Golden Butterfly, 1.71 for Golden Ratio, and 0.92 for the GAA fund. And that is undoubtedly attributable to this large drawdown that it suffered. So after you've done a couple of these analyses, I think it's pretty easy to conclude that this GAA fund is just not something you want to deal with. and in fact, you don't even want to waste your time trying to figure out everything that's wrong with it. Forget about it. But that's what happens if your theory is, let's just have some of everything. Some of everything is not a good theory. That's not how any of this works.

Mostly Voices [31:18]

Because it does not take into account correlation analyses

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:22]

and return analyses.

Mostly Voices [31:25]

Emotions running high, yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:29]

But I thought that was a very instructive Comparison of that between the other suggestions that we've heard of today that actually would make sense from a risk parity perspective and have some good data to show for them.

Mostly Voices [31:41]

Be nice until it's time to not be nice. Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys?

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:52]

Alright, last off. Last off. Last off, we have an email from Peter. Bumped this one to the front of the line since it concerns something that might confuse some people as it also confuses me. But this is what Peter writes.

Mostly Mary [32:10]

Hi Frank, hope all is well. Was looking at buying one of your NFTs just to try it out, and it is for charity, so why not? I see one has sold, curious if you have heard from them. I have a little Ethereum in Coinbase and trying to figure it out. On OpenSea when I try to do it, there is a miner's fee, gas tax, which is currently around $150. Just curious if the other purchasers had to pay that or if there's another way to do it that I'm not aware of. Thanks, Peter.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:43]

And well, now you're going to learn just what a crypto and NFT neophyte I am. That's really not what I do, Peter. But this pertains to the NFTs that we rolled out in our last episode on Halloween. They are for sale for approximately $20 and the link to them is in the support page at www.riskparodyradio.com. So yes, we did have a sale. Somebody bought one, the first one, and they paid the.005 Ethereum for it. I don't know why you're having the trouble you're having, unfortunately. Man's got to know his limitations. I do remember when I was constructing these things, it gave me two options for creating them. One where I had to pay a bunch of fee for this gas, and the other one where I didn't have to pay the fee for this gas. And the one that I used was on a network called Polygon. I don't know how exactly that is hooked up with OpenSeas. But I am kind of wondering whether you have to open an account at OpenSeas in order to do this. I do not know why they were trying to charge you $150. That was not my intention and you should not do that.

Mostly Voices [34:01]

That's not an improvement.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:04]

But if any of you listeners do have an answer as to why Peter was being charged $150 or was going to be charged $150, to try and buy a $20 NFT from Coinbase to open seas. He's at Coinbase. The NFTs are on open seas, whereas apparently a unknown person, and I don't know who bought it, on open seas was able to easily purchase one and did not appear to be paying any excessive fees. I would be very interested in that answer and very interested in sharing it with this audience and maybe we'll all learn something about the crypto universe. Danger, Will Robinson. Danger. When these things occur, it just makes me have less and less confidence in the whole idea of the thing. Because if you don't know the rules, you can easily get scammed or easily be paying some kind of large fee that you didn't anticipate. Uh, what? It's gone.

Mostly Voices [35:04]

It's all gone.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:07]

And I certainly do not know all the rules. Expect the unexpected.

Mostly Voices [35:11]

But I'm doing the best I can trying to keep up with the younger generation. I'm putting you to sleep.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:20]

Well, thanks for that email, Peter. I hope you're able to do that a different way, or maybe we'll get some instructions here at some point. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. We'll pick up this weekend with our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparriyradio.com on the portfolios page. I suppose now that I have one video, I ought to try and make some more. We'll see if that happens and when it happens, but there will be more in the future. I just can't promise when. They are much more effort and much less fun to edit than these podcasts. If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that email is frank@riskparityradio.com that is the best way to contact me. Or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio.com and fill out the contact form there and I should get your message that way. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please like, subscribe, give it a review, give it some stars to this podcast wherever you get your podcast. And now that I have a video channel with one video on it, you can go over to YouTube and subscribe to that as well and leave likes and comments there. That would be great. Okay. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio. Signing off.

Mostly Mary [36:57]

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.