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 129 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, it's 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 [0:58]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:07]

And we have several short emails today. First off.

Mostly Mary [1:10]

First off, we have one from Anderson, and Anderson writes, I bonds versus TIPS. Uncle Frank, I tried reading more about these, but had difficulty understanding how they performed differently. I ask you, because in previous episodes you have been fairly against TIPS, but spoke highly of I bonds. your thoughts? As always, very much thanks. Okay, good question.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:37]

Let's talk a little bit about I bonds and tips. You should consider I bonds to be like a CD because of the way you purchase them. You have to purchase them directly from Treasury Direct and you give them the money. You cannot sell the thing. You can just redeem it with them. So it's very much like going to a bank, buying a CD, waiting for it to mature, and then taking your interest payments or getting your principal back or both. TIPS are traded like, not commodities, traded like any other financial asset. So you can buy a TIPS fund. Buy low, sell high, fear, that's the other guy's problem. TIP is the most common widely traded TIPS fund. So they are bonds that will go up and down in value depending on prevailing interest rates and the duration of the bond. So they're a little bit different kind of an animal. Now, why are I bonds superior to TIPS? It has to do with their construction or makeup. The TIPS don't have a floor. So tips currently pay real interest rates that are negative based on the auctions where they are sold at. I bonds have a floor of zero so they're never going to go negative in that. I have an article here that I will link to in the show notes that explains this a lot better. It's from a website called Tips Watch where they just talk about tips and I bonds and things like that all the time. But anyway, this article came out in September of this year. And the headline for the article is I Bonds versus TIPS. What's the best bet for inflation protection? In the strange world of 2021, I bonds are the clear winner is what it says. And then it goes through pros and cons of each one. And I'll just read you the summary paragraph as to where he comes out. And where he comes out is this. He says, I bonds are clearly the better investment over TIPS. through every maturity level. A 30-year TIPS currently has a real yield of negative 0.28%. Investors interested in inflation protection should buy I-bonds first up to the $10,000 per person per year limit, then consider an investment in TIPS. And then he goes on to say, here's a strategy many investors use：buy I-bonds every year up to the $10,000 per year limit, even if the fixed rate is 0.0%. The idea is to build a large cache of I bonds to push inflation protected money into the future. And you can read the rest of the article and get a better sense of why I bonds are better than TIPS for several other reasons. But I also wanted to talk about why I don't find a use for TIPS in these risk parity style portfolios. whereas there is some use for I bonds. The main use for both of these would be in the category of a cash bucket or a short-term bucket where you have part of your portfolio that is devoted to either something like short-term bonds or CDs or cash, all of those things that have low returns and low volatility, essentially. Now, those things are useful to have some of, but if you have too much of them, they just tend to be what I call a cash drag on the portfolio. They drag the portfolio down. So you will see, thinking about our sample portfolios, one of the more conservative ones is the Golden Butterfly. It has 20% in short-term treasury bonds. And that is essentially its cash drag. That is probably the maximum I would ever go in one of these kinds of portfolios, at least if you're trying to mimic or emulate a 60/40 kind of portfolio in terms of risk profile. Because those allocations do tend to drag down the overall returns of the portfolio. That's not an improvement. With respect to I Bonds, since you can only buy a limited amount of them, it's sort of, well, you might as well use those for part of your allocation to whatever's in your cash bucket. And we can compare that Golden Butterfly portfolio to the Golden Ratio sample portfolio we have. That only has 6% in a cash bucket scenario. So it's a little bit more aggressive and can have larger components of the other assets in the portfolio that are more volatile, have higher returns, and are better diversified with each other. I think I've improved on your methods a bit too. If you have a portfolio with a lot of that kind of thing in it, What it's going to do is both drag down the returns and the volatility of the portfolio proportionally. So if it was like a 70% stock portfolio and 30% cash, it's going to have 70% of the returns and 70% of the volatility that a 100% stock portfolio would have. That is not ideal because what ideally what you're doing with diversification is trying to Reduce your overall returns less and reduce your overall volatility more. Oh, sure. So we want to have a risk parity style portfolio where we're only giving up, say, 1 to 2% or we're getting about 85% of the returns of an all stock portfolio. But we have only about 50% of the volatility. Yes. And that's what we're trying to do. If you have too much of just something that's a cash drag, it just drags down both the return and the volatility proportionally and doesn't give you the kind of bang for your buck that a really diversified portfolio will give you. The main problem I have with TIPS is they don't do anything particularly well or better than something else you can choose for your portfolio. So many people are saying, well, I want to hold these to deal with inflation scenarios, but they really don't give you that much bang for your buck in an inflationary scenario. Where we deal with inflationary scenarios in these risk parity style portfolios is on the equity side and adding things like commodities and small cap value stocks and REITs, all of those things perform well in inflationary environments and do a whole lot better for you than TIPS. TIPS are just going to be dragging your portfolio down. If you compare, say, the performance of TIP, the main TIPS fund, to PDVC, a commodities fund we use over the past year when there have been more inflation, you'll see that PDVC just kicks the pants off of it.

Mostly Voices [8:22]

Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys? And what does that mean?

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:29]

It means you can hold a lot less of those sorts of things and get the same effect. and therefore free up space in your portfolio to have other stocks or other things that are going to be your return drivers. On the bond side, remember that the main reason we have the bonds in our risk parity style portfolios is so that they are negatively correlated with our stocks. So when there's a stock market crash, those bonds will increase in value, and that's the characteristic of treasury bonds. TIPS don't do that. TIPS go down in a market crash with the stocks, so they're not very well diversified. I learned this painfully in 2008 watching my TIPS fund go down 10% while my stocks were crashing. No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die. That was not a pleasant experience and I do not intend to repeat it. I think you've made your point, Goldfinger. Thank you for the demonstration.

Mostly Voices [9:26]

So, where does that leave you? TIPS are not the best bonds to hold.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:30]

They're not the best inflation protectors to hold. So, what are they? They're just a sub-optimal asset class is basically what they are in terms of constructing these portfolios. So, if you have some in your cash bucket or your cash allocation, that's fine, but you would not want to have a large proportion of your portfolio invested in Tips. I mean, it's just not going to improve its performance. Forget about it. It really is one of those things that looks good on paper, but then when you try to actually mix it into your portfolio, you get suboptimal results compared with other allocations that you can easily come up with. Forget about it. And I will see if I can link to other episodes where I've discussed this in the show notes because we have talked about it, but it's worth talking about periodically because it comes up often. But thank you for that email.

Mostly Mary [10:33]

And second off, second off, we have an email from Bradley, and Bradley writes：Second email, Frank, I'm listening in order, so I'm way behind. Anyway, I bet you already know this, but from the same era as Hone Star Runner, there used to be some great soundboards. There was Jack Nicholson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and more. Hope to hear some Lieutenant John Kimball sometime soon. All the best, Brad.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:55]

Well, I'm glad you appreciate the humor. The inquisition! Wanna show the inquisition!

Mostly Voices [11:00]

Here we go! As my friend Arnold would say, I'm a cop, you idiot! I'm Detective John Kimball! Well, he's not feeling well these days. I have a headache. It might be a tumor. It's not a tumor! It's not a tumor at all.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:17]

And yes, I know I'm a bit silly, but thank you for a chance to be even sillier. Let's face it, you can't talk them out of anything. And thank you for this email. Now we're going to do something extremely fun.

Mostly Mary [11:30]

Our next email comes from David, and David writes. Hi Frank, I'm enjoying reading through the audio posts. I don't know if you have heard of Portfolio Builder. They put together several leverage portfolios that are uncorrelated. They charge a lot, but if you watch their videos, you can see what they use to construct their portfolios. Also, Steve Van Meter has something he is trying to sell called Portfolio Shield. It chooses among four ETFs：SPD, QQQD, TYA, and AGG. SPD, QQQD, TYA are from a company called Simplify ETS. SPD and QQQ are 95% IVV, QQQ with 5% different time frame puts for downside risk. You might be able to reverse engineer what he does. Anyway, I look forward to interacting with you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:26]

Well, I tried to find Portfolio Builder, but there's a lot of things named Portfolio Builder out there. There's a YouTube channel. There is a tool that goes with interactive brokers. for portfolio construction and various other things. But just looking at that YouTube channel, it's kind of sensational. They have a lot of trying to predict the future. I think they're predicting a market crash this November. I always like to go back and take a look at the track record for people who put these things out. So there's a nice video from April 6, 2020, which was slightly after the bottom of the crash where they are saying that There's going to be even further and more market crashes that go on for a year.

Mostly Voices [13:11]

A really big one here, which is huge.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:19]

So you have to take these kinds of things with a grain of salt. I did not find anything there that looked particularly like a portfolio construction. But if you want to email me back and tell me where it is, I'll take a look at it. I do watch Steve Van Meter's videos. They are also entertaining and Sometimes informative and sometimes not. I like it when he puts on his little paper crown and calls himself the Bond King. It's very amusing.

Mostly Voices [13:45]

It is King Arthur, and these are my knights of the round table.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:49]

And he seems to have a sort of consistently negative view on stocks and positive view on bonds, so you need to take that with a grain of salt as well. But he's kind of in the minority, which makes him more interesting to listen to. His portfolio shield thing seems to be more of a trading product. I don't know exactly how it works. I've seen him discuss it, but with all of these things, I mean, we are do-it-yourself investors, so you might get some ideas from these sorts of things, but you'd never want to pay for this sort of thing because you shouldn't have to pay for basic portfolio construction out of ETFs. The whole idea of do-it-yourself investing is to minimize that cost because that is actually the largest cost for people who are acolytes or subscribers to the financial services industry. They are essentially usually giving away about 25% of their income in retirement, assuming they are paying a 1% AUM fee and taking out 4% per year. They don't even know what's happening a lot of times. They're sitting out there waiting to give you their money! So I do like looking at these sorts of things to get ideas and think about it. But when it goes off to paying somebody to implement some strategy, particularly if it involves trading in and out of things, I'm less sanguine about those sorts of things and look at them more for entertainment purposes. These ETFs you have identified, yes there are a number more of leverage ETFs that are coming online. I did listen to a podcast by MEB FAVOR of somebody who is involved in constructing essentially leverage risk parity style portfolios about a week ago. And he noted there are maybe 10 or 12 different funds that are kind of like NTSX in a way. We use NTSX because it's a leveraged stock treasury bond fund. There are other ones that have combinations of stocks and options or volatility in them. Almost all of these are very new. They come out in the past couple years. I think there's going to be kind of a shakeout of these things as to which ones ultimately prove to be useful and which ones don't. It's a very interesting space to watch because as it evolves, there will be more options for us as do-it-yourself investors. I'm just not convinced that any one of these is really necessary or a good idea right now, but I will be watching them and reviewing them in the future because some of them could turn out to be useful. I am always reminded of the Bruce Lee quote that we have on the website, which is whenever you're given new information or ideas, you should take what is useful, discard what is useless, and add something that is uniquely your own. And with a lot of these things, I view them more for entertainment purposes only, you will find occasionally something that is useful to take out of them. But there's a lot of chaff with that weeb, in my experience.

Mostly Voices [16:56]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:00]

But thank you for that email. I think it is an example of why this is a golden age of investing and things are only going to get better for ourselves as do-it-yourself investors as we move forward.

Mostly Voices [17:12]

You are correct, sir. Yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:16]

And our next email comes from Anna, and Anna writes, Good morning. Thanks for your podcast. Hope to learn. Well, I am glad you like the podcast, Anna. I am hoping to impart some wisdom and that somebody will listen to it. Hopefully my children, but if not, other people can hopefully benefit from it in terms of Something to learn. I think that's going to take us right to our next email, which is our last email.

Mostly Voices [17:42]

Last off.

Mostly Mary [17:47]

And our last email is from Christy and Christy writes. Hello, I was just recently introduced to your podcast. I'm trying to catch up on episodes now. I am 36 and plan to be in the workforce for another 20 years. Do you have a portfolio you would recommend I start to structure around? I'm leaning towards one of the more aggressive ones or a mix of them. I just wanted to see if you had a recommendation for just starting out.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:14]

And this does get to that kind of core question is, what do I tell my adult children about investing and getting started out and building themselves a portfolio to make them financially independent at some point in the future? O, Hayyim now enters his holiness And this goes specifically to two of our principles, the simplicity principle and the macro allocation principle. Now the simplicity principle says keep things as simple as you can to meet your goals. What that means in the context of a beginning investor is you only really need one fund to start with. You can start with some total market fund. But you could also, if you wanted to, have a total market or large cap growth fund and a small cap value fund. That would be kind of my base recommendation. Or you could pick many other three or four fund kind of portfolios. It doesn't matter that much which one you pick, as long as you stick with it. And the reason it doesn't matter that much, so long as you're minimizing your fees, which is a key component of it. So make sure you're using index funds from Vanguard or somewhere like that and not using managed funds. But as to the macro allocation principle, this comes from the Book of Jack, which I recommend you read. It's Common Sense Investing by Jack Bogle, and particularly it's a consequence of what's in chapters 18 and 19. And what that says is that any reasonably well diversified portfolio that is, say, 100% stocks or 80-20 stocks bonds or 60-40 stock bonds is going to perform at least 90%, if not 94%, the same over a long period of time as any other portfolio that's reasonably well diversified with the same macro allocation. So what that says is that whether you pick one total market fund, have a couple of funds, large cap growth, small cap value, have three or four funds, take a Merriman approach or something like that, as long as it's 100% stocks, it's likely to perform 90% or better than any other one of those kind of portfolios you can pick. That's the macro allocation principle. So it means don't sweat it. Part of this is how interested you are in investing. A lot of people aren't very interested in investing and it's okay if you just take the simple path to wealth approach at the beginning and just put it all in a total stock market fund. But if you want to experiment, if you like this stuff, if you want to do research, that's fine too and you should Take that curiosity and use it. What you want to avoid doing is jumping in and out of funds because that's where people get killed or trying to read headlines and predict short-term fluctuations in markets. That's also where people get in trouble. And the amateur investors who do those sorts of things tend to underperform their own holdings, their own holdings by 2% to 4%. Whereas if you just bought it and held it, you'd be fine. But okay, that talks about a basic portfolio to start with. But let's also talk about the whole kind of experience and we'll take you as a test case. We're going to pretend that you have 20 years to make your investments and you haven't done any of it yet. In that case, what you are really sitting on is a large pile of future cash. to whether you're planning to save a million dollars over the next 20 years or $500,000, whatever it is. Let's just call it $500,000 for this illustration. What that means is you are forced to dollar cost average into the market because you don't have the cash available. You're going to get paid it every year and you're going to put it into the market. And that's why it's important to put it all in stocks to begin with, because at the end of the first year, you will have Only put in 5% of your future cash into the stock market, and you'll be sitting on a portfolio that's 5% stocks and 95% future cash. And that's not very risky. You don't really have a risk profile to worry about until you are getting to the point where your portfolio looks larger than the future cash you're going to put into it. I like to say when you get to $100,000 is the time to revisit what your portfolio looks like. Because by that time you'll have time to have learned a little bit more about investing and feel comfortable maybe buying a couple of different funds or augmenting your portfolio in some way. The other experience that you will have is the way compounding works. Now the way compounding works is very strange. and is not intuitive. At the beginning when you are investing, it is like watching paint dry. It is like going to a corner of a room painting part of a wall that's your investment in your index funds. And then you have to go away. Now you don't want to touch the paint. You're just going to mar it. You don't want to be selling it or doing other things to it. Just leave it alone. You'll paint more and you'll paint more. And eventually the thing, after you get enough paint going, it starts painting itself is essentially what happens. That's what compounding is. It's like having walls that paint themselves. But since your returns are going to be very small to begin with, you're not going to see much action in there until you've actually been contributing and investing for a few years. Because here's the other thing you need to realize when you are thinking about retiring at a certain age or stopping work at a certain age. A thought that should go through your mind is, well, when is my portfolio likely to be half as much as I need at the end? And the answer to that is probably about eight years before you retire. And it's in those last few years that you see all the gains because that's when the compounding really takes off. There is a famous quote from a Hemingway novel, I think it's the Sun Also Rises, and they were asking somebody, How did you go broke? And the answer that the character gives is, Slowly, and then all at once. And that's also the way you get rich with investing, is it'll happen slowly and then all at once towards the end of your journey. because that's when you have accumulated enough that the compounding is really taking off. The other way to think about this, and a nice way to project without using complicated calculators, is to use what's known as the rule of 72. And you can do this in your head. What the rule of 72 says, if you have a return rate of something, whether it's an interest rate or a compounded annual growth rate, If you want to know how long it's going to take that investment to double, you take that return rate and you divide it into 72. So if you're assuming an 8% growth rate for your investments, which is basically the after inflation growth rate of the stock market over the past 50-100 years, very long time, that's a good base rate to use. What that says, you divide that into 72, is that your stock market investments are likely to double about every nine years. And so you can use this idea both forward and backwards. Suppose you are thinking, I need a million dollars to retire. All right, if this was just a simple stock investment, that means you would need to have around $500,000 nine years before that. and these are already inflation adjusted. If you're going to use nominal rates, then it's only seven years. That's actual the doubling without accounting for inflation would happen every seven years. With inflation accounted for, it's about every nine years. So going back to this example, if you wanted a million dollars at age 65, that would be the same thing as $500,000 nine years before that at age 56, which would be the same thing as $250,000, make it half again, nine years before that, that's age 47, which is $125,000, nine years before that, or age 38, if I did my math right. And so you can do this kind of estimating just on with a pencil and paper on the back of an envelope. And as it turns out, it's likely to be just as good as a lot of complicated models that are assuming all sorts of different things in the future. This has very few assumptions in it, so it makes it a decent rule of thumb to use. And this also gives you what I think should be the first goal for most people. The first goal should not be to think about what is my big five number decades down the road. The first number to think about is what would be my Coast Fi number? That if I was able to put together this amount of money, say $100,000 in the stock market, and then I project out using the rule of 72, and 8% adjusted for as in adjusted for inflation, what would that give me at various points in future ages? Why that day or why that is important is because oftentimes somebody is working in a career that they're not sure they wanna stay in. But if you make your first goal, I just need to get to coast five. So if I save a bad amount of money, then I can stop doing what I'm doing and do something else. I would still need to work and make money and save money, but I wouldn't have to save money if I didn't want to. And maybe I could do a different job or do something else. Because you don't need to be all the way to financially independent to have more options in your life. And I think also thinking about coast-fi keeps people from getting discouraged because it's not a huge number to think about for most people. And hopefully you and Anna can learn something from that. if she is in a similar situation to you. That would be great. Okay? Now, I should also add that a lot of the stuff we talk about here is intended for people who are at or near retirement who need to rejigger their portfolios so that they can withdraw from them in a comfortable manner. You don't need to worry about that at this stage. All you need to focus on is growth. because you really don't care about the volatility if you're not spending the money. Your portfolio is going to go up and down a lot, and that's okay. When it goes down, you're just buying more shares. And I know some people out there are using these ideas for leveraged portfolios to try and make their journey go even faster. I think this is an interesting prospect that we are exploring. It's still kind of, well, it is experimental. So I don't think you need to have any of that in your portfolio or start out with that idea. If you learn about it and like it, maybe you devote part of your portfolio to something like that. But right now, this tried and true safe course of action is to save simply in the index funds that already exist and have been around for a long time. Well, thank you for that email. Give me a chance to pontificate as an elder statesman.

Mostly Voices [29:47]

Bow to your sensei, bow to your sensei. And now for something completely different.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:55]

And that something completely different is our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. This was another one of these weeks where not much happened in the markets and not much happened in our portfolios, which is Kind of nice to see when you're thinking about having a drawdown portfolio. So just going through the markets this last week, the S&P 500 was up 0.32%. The Nasdaq was up 1.24%. Gold was down 1.04%. We're not loving gold this week. That's gold, Jerry, gold. Long-term treasury bonds represented by the fund TLT were up 0.70%. REITs represented by the fund REET were flat, 0% move. Commodities represented by the fund PDBC were down 1.22%. Those have cooled off. And then preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were also flat for the week. And going through our portfolios, our most conservative one is the All Seasons. This one's only 30% in stocks, 55% in treasury bonds, and then the remaining 15% is divided into PDBC, that commodities fund in gold, GLDM. This was flat for the week. It was actually up three cents for the entire week. So we gained three cents for the week. It is up 13.04% since inception in July 2020. That's about as dull as you can get. I'm putting you to sleep. The next portfolio is the Golden Butterfly. This one is 40% in stocks divided into a total stock market fund and a small cap value fund. It's got 40% in treasury bonds divided into long and short and 20% in gold. GLDM. This one was down 0.66% for the week. It is up 24.01% since inception in July 2020. That was actually a big move for portfolios this week. The next portfolio and these three are kind of our bread and butter portfolios. This is the golden ratio. This one is 42% in stocks, 26% in long-term treasuries, 16% in gold, 10% in REITs, and 6% in cash. And it was down all of 0.18% for the week. It is up 25.12% since inception in July 2020. And our next portfolio is our most complex one. I won't go through all of these funds. But it is roughly 40% in stocks, 25 to 30% in bonds, and then the rest is divided into commodities, crypto, preferred shares, gold, other things. But anyway, this one was down all of 0.25% for the week. It was up 25.37% since inception in July 2020. So it was also just hanging out there. And now we go to our experimental portfolios that use leveraged funds in them. The first one is the Accelerated Permanent Portfolio. This one is 27.5% in a leveraged bond fund, TMF, 25% in UPRO, that's a leveraged S&P 500 fund, 25% in PFF preferred shares, 22.5% in gold, GLDM, It was up 0.58% for the week, actually up. And it is up 29.3% since inception in July 2020. Our next one, a big winner for the week, I think. The aggressive 5050, this is our most leveraged experimental portfolio. It is 33% in the leveraged bond fund, TMF, 33% in the leveraged stock fund, UPRO, with the remainder the ballast in the portfolio divided 17% each into PFF preferred shares and VGIT and intermediate treasury bond fund. It is up 1.05% for the week. It is up 37.29% since inception in July 2020. So it is the high flyer and continues to fly, although is very volatile, I must say. And then we get to our newest portfolio, the seventh one. This is the levered golden ratio portfolio. It has 35% in NTSX, that's a composite stocks and treasury bond fund that is leveraged 25% in gold, GLDM, 15% in O, which is a REIT. It's also got 10% in each of TMF and TNA, a leveraged long-term treasury bond fund and a leveraged small cap fund. And then it's the remaining 5% Three percent is in a volatility fund called VIXM and two percent is in cryptocurrency funds BITQ and BITW. This one was down, it's a big loser for the week, 0.82% for the week. It is up 6.7% since inception in July 1 of this year. So it's got a year's less growth on it than the other ones do. This was interesting in that we have the appearance of another Fund in this portfolio, the REIT O threw off a little spin-off called ONL, which is called Orion Office REIT. And we got two shares of that allocated to us. It was paid almost kind of like a dividend. So now we have both of those as the REITs. I mean, there's not much in there. Its current value is about $35 for that. I'm not sure what we will do with it. I mean, we can vote on it. It's not really a critical factor. What you probably do with that is just sell it the next time you were planning on selling O, or you just leave it there and see what it does. Whether it goes up or down, it might present a tax loss harvesting opportunity. But that was a little unusual thing to happen and I thought it was interesting. You have a gambling problem. And you will see it there on the Portfolios page when you look at the levered golden ratio.

Mostly Voices [36:08]

Groovy, baby! But now I see our signal is beginning to fade.

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:12]

Shut it up, you! I think we'll pick up this week with more emails. We still haven't finished October's emails yet, but hopefully we will be done with them after the next episode of this show. I am also planning to do another little tutorial videos since I only have one out there on YouTube. It'd be nice to at least have two. And I thought I would go to one of the calculators on Portfolio Visualizer and just show you how to work that and how you can use it to analyze your portfolios. Yeah, baby, yeah! So you have that to look forward to as well. If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank@riskparityradio.com the email is frank@riskparityradio.com or you can go to the website www.riskparriyradio.com and fill out the contact form and I should get your message that way. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to your podcast provider and like this podcast, subscribe to it, give it stars, a review. That would be very nice.

Mostly Voices [37:22]

I want you to be nice. Thank you once again for tuning in.

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:26]

This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio.

Mostly Voices [37:29]

Signing off. Nice baby. I'm not a baby, I'm a tumor. It's not a tumor. It's gone, it's gone, it's all gone. The Risk Parity Radio Show is hosted by Frank Vasquez.

Mostly Mary [37:44]

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.