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 [0:18]

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 Risk Parity Radio. If you are new here and wonder what we are talking about, you may wish to go back and listen to some of the first episodes where we did our introductions of the various topics. And those episodes are episode one, 3, 5, 7 and 9. And so if you go back and listen to those, it will get you up to speed. But now onward to episode 144. Today on Risk Parity Radio we are going to try to catch up on some more emails. They keep piling up. We have some very interesting ones to look at today and consider. But before we get to that, I did want to thank our two latest patrons on Patreon. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers who have donated some money that will be going again to our designated charity, the Father McKenna Center. And you can do that if you like at the support page at www.riskparityradio.com For full disclosure, I am on the board of that organization. And so our two new patrons are Andrew and an anonymous patron who will go by the moniker Harry for the purpose of this. You're a dinosaur, Callahan. And since Harry did donate and sent in an email, his email goes to the front of the queue here, and so we will be addressing that email first. And so without further ado, here I go once again with the email. First off, and first off, we do have an email from Harry. We actually have two emails which we will read together. A short one and a long one. You're a wizard, Harry.

Mostly Mary [2:37]

I'm a what? You're a wizard, Harry. I'm a what? And so Harry writes, After managing my own portfolio for the past several years, my portfolio has shifted embarrassingly off course from my original allocations. I'm looking for some insight to right the ship in the midst of what feels like unpredictable, economical times where equities feel overvalued, uncorrelated to reality, and heavily manipulated. I'm starting with episodes 1, 3, 5, and 7. Thanks. You're a wizard, Harry. I'm a what? Hello, Frank. Thank you for offering your wisdom in such a clear, Frank way. I'm sure you've heard that one before. I really appreciate the content and you have helped me gain perspective and clarity with my investments and just having a strategy moving forward is helping me sleep at night. And yes, I love the sound effects.

Mostly Voices [3:25]

I gotta have more cowbell.

Mostly Mary [3:29]

This is a follow up to my original help email, which you may have fun picking apart or you may decide not to touch it. But being this is a 44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and will blow your head clean off. After listening to at least 30 more episodes of your podcast and exploring the portfolio charts and portfolio visualizer tools, I have more clarity on where I want to go with my out-of-balance portfolio. I am three to four years from retirement and I am transitioning to the golden ratio portfolio since I have a start on the real estate and the gold portions of this portfolio. But as you'll see in my current portfolio, it won't happen anytime soon. I have most of my previous email questions answered from listening to your podcasts, but I still have some confusion as to the next steps. A correction from my previous help email is that my Bogleheads portfolio was 48% US stock, 32% international index, 16% US bond index, and 4% international bond index. I originally mistakenly noted 10% bonds. None of this really matters since I went completely off track, sold all of my bonds, and bought approximately 55% of my net worth in Bitcoin. There's got to be a soundtrack for that, perhaps Lunatic Mind. Forget about it. To provide you with some details, I'm 51 years old and I hold 53% Bitcoin, $500,000, 6% Gold Coins, $60,000, 8% Commercial Property, $75,000 in equity, plus it is cash flowing 8 to 10,000 per year. 33% stocks, ETFs, and mutual funds, $305,000. $167,000 in taxable accounts and $138,000 in retirement accounts. The total portfolio balance is approximately $940,000. The irony here is thinking I can fit this current portfolio into a risk parity portfolio. It's like singing Mary had a little elephant. Mary, Mary, why you buggin'? The elephant in the room is Bitcoin, which I realize at 53% does not fit into any type of risk parity portfolio. But can you compromise and help me lower the overall volatility while growing this portfolio's value? When I am retired at 55 years old, I will begin drawing down from my Bitcoin holdings. I also hold Bitcoin in my Roth account and have the option of buying PAX Gold in this Roth. This trade might be a way to stabilize the overall volatility and add to the gold portion of the golden portfolio ratio without incurring additional capital gains taxes. What do you think? I'm also going to open a new Vanguard Roth account outside my Bitcoin Roth IRA in which I will contribute $580 a month. I'm currently saving $28,000 a year, $7,000 in my Roth, $16.5 in a simple IRA, and $4.5,000 in a taxable brokerage account. I live frugally on a $65,000 a year salary. My wife's income also contributes to household expenses. How do you suggest I allocate my current savings in order to move towards a golden ratio portfolio? I'm thinking of buying Treasuries, VLGSX, and adding to my equities with the small cap value fund, VSIAx. My shift to a risk parity style portfolio will take several years and will definitely be a volatile ride, especially with Bitcoin at the center of it. Much of my current stocks are down and I don't want to sell at a loss. A move I can make right away is 70,000 of the 300,000 of equity investments that are held within retirement accounts I can trade for long-term treasuries without a loss or any tax implications. As you eloquently explained, risk parity investing is not about timing the market, but with the Fed announcing a 3-4% interest rate hikes this year, does it make any sense to trade 70,000 in equities within my retirement accounts for the long-term treasuries in the form of VLGSX. Or do you have another suggestion? Buying 70,000 in treasuries would shift the percentages to 25% stocks, 8% long-term treasuries, 6% gold, 8% commercial realty, and 53% Bitcoin. Obviously this will all fluctuate as the market dictates and is still nowhere near the golden ratio. Another piece of the puzzle. I have heard you mention that you have a BlockFi account, so you are familiar with interest-bearing crypto accounts. There is a savings account, L-E-D-N-I-O, that offers 9.5% interest on the US dollar coin. I see this as another option to rebalance and sell some of my Bitcoin portfolio towards a golden ratio, but would incur capital gains tax. Are stable coins a stable asset? I know stable coins are on the SEC regulators minds. What do you think of holding 6% of my portfolio in US dollar coin as the 6% cash portion of the golden ratio portfolio? To avoid most capital gains taxes, I plan to wait to sell my Bitcoin and other equities that are in taxable accounts until I retire and capital gains are minimal. Do you have another strategy that might be worthwhile to consider? What am I missing? Where are my blind spots? And thank you for providing me the opportunity to give to the Father McKenna Center charity. Yes!

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:46]

And so that's quite a portfolio you have there. Harry, you have a gambling problem. It does remind me of a professional gambler's portfolio. If you were a professional poker player, you would keep almost all of your money in cash, knowing that your source of income was extremely volatile and that that volatility was going to dominate the rest of the portfolio. And that's the situation you have really here, that regardless of what else you have in your portfolio, right now, your performance of your portfolio portfolio is going to be completely dominated by the performance of Bitcoin because of its extreme volatility. It's almost irrelevant as to what those other things are when you look at how the numbers play out. And so if you want to move away from that to a less volatile portfolio, you will have to begin selling off the Bitcoin to get its proportionality down to something under 10%, I would say. Even then, it's still going to be dominant as to the Performance of the whole portfolio. It looks to me like you guys might be in the 0% tax bracket. It's unclear from the way you described your income. I'm talking about the 0% tax bracket for long-term capital gains purposes. And that occurs when you have a couple filing jointly that's earning less than about $100,000 a year. But even if you're over that amount, you're still only going to be in the 15% tax bracket for the purpose of long-term capital gains. So your taxes on selling Bitcoin are actually going to be relatively low. Now if you are in that 0% tax bracket, then you want to tax gain harvest up to where that 0% tax bracket ends. You'll have to do some calculations as to how that would work, but you would definitely want to sell each year to take advantage of that because you'll pay 0% capital gains taxes on whatever that sale proportion is. But even in the 15% long-term capital gains tax bracket, that's not going to be so bad. That's not a high tax rate. There's another thing you could do. You mentioned that you have some stocks that currently are down, so could be tax lost harvested against the gains in the Bitcoin if they are in a taxable brokerage account, which is unclear from this, but that would be another thing I would consider and you could simultaneously simply buy something that is similar or the same. For example, if you had a bunch of tech stocks that were down, go find a fund that holds those tech stocks in addition to other things, sell your losers there so you get some way to set off your gains in the Bitcoin when you sell that, and then you can rebuy a fund that has similar qualities to your stocks. And that way you won't be out of the market, if you will, and you can recover from there. Now, that's completely irrelevant, of course, if these things are in retirement accounts. But I would first focus on seeing how you can reduce your exposure to the Bitcoin without paying too much in taxes. And given what your income is, it might not be that difficult. But until you reduce your exposure to that Bitcoin, these other moves you might make buying other kinds of assets to build closer to a golden ratio portfolio just aren't going to matter that much. So let's talk through some of these other ideas. One of the things you mentioned was selling some of the Bitcoin in a Roth account and then buying Pax Gold to substitute for that. I do hold a little bit of Pax Gold as an experiment just to see how it works. It seems to work a lot like a gold ETF, but instead of holding shares in the ETF, you're holding these tokens which are representative of the gold that Pax is holding. And so far, which I mean by a few months, it does seem to accurately track the price of gold. I don't know if that will be the same in the future, but it seems to me the way it's set up, it ought to track the price of gold just as well as an ETF. And then the only question is expense fees or transaction fees, if you will, to get in and out of it. So you definitely could do that if that's most convenient, or you could transfer that Roth set up, and I don't know how much that is costing you in fees to maintain that kind of self-directed Roth account. You could simply transfer the assets in there to an ordinary Roth, but I would check the annual fees you're having to pay to maintain a Roth that invests directly in crypto. I think your plan as to how to allocate your current savings makes sense to me. If you're trying to move from one kind of a portfolio to another, the easiest thing to do is to simply start buying the things that you're missing. in your portfolio. There are no tax consequences to that. If you can sell some of your Bitcoin every year and live on that money, that will also speed up your ability to transition your portfolio. But again, that goes back to what I said initially about what long-term capital gains tax bracket you are in, whether you can fill that up and whether you can balance that out by tax loss harvesting some of the things you're losing money in. Now, as to whether long-term treasury rates are going to go up or down in the near future, I have no idea. We don't know.

Mostly Voices [14:37]

What do we know? You don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:40]

I will tell you the arguments for both sides of that. One argument is simply that all of the interest rates are going to rise as the Fed increases its interest rates. The counter argument to that is that, in fact, that has not been happening yet. What's been happening is a flattening of the yield curve, that the rates at the short end are rising faster than the rates at the long end. So if you look at the rate on a 30-year Treasury bond, it is actually significantly lower than it was last March. That was weird, wild stuff. I did not know that. And the argument those prognosticators are making is that as the yield curve flattens, it will tell the Fed that it can't raise interest rates as much as it wanted to because once the yield curve inverts, that has been a signal that you are heading into a recession. And so you would end up with a situation like you saw in 2018 going into 2019. where yields topped out, I think, in September of 2018. And then the Fed realized that what it was doing was going to eventually crash the economy. I do remember vividly at that time around September 2018, the most famous pundits out there, like Jeffrey Gunlock of Double Line, were insisting that rates were going to continue rising. to 4, 5, 6% and they said that right as the thing turned around and went the other way. So you can find prognosticators to support whatever narrative you want to tell yourself, whether that is that rates are going to continue rising throughout the yield curve or that rates are going to begin to fall very soon. at least on the long end of the yield curve. And then the yield curve will invert, which will cause a recession, which will cause the Fed to stop raising interest rates. At least that's the narrative that people are spouting these days. One of the narratives. And this is why I really do not try to predict these things and do not believe that anyone out there is really capable of predicting something. They can only say, oh, I was correct in hindsight, or I was wrong in hindsight. Although you'll never hear them admit that they were wrong in hindsight. What they would generally say is that I would have been right if such and such would not have happened, which just means they don't have a model that can predict the future.

Mostly Voices [17:25]

Forget about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:28]

In terms of what you have going on, is it still more important for you to get out of the Bitcoin than it is to get into long-term treasuries or something else? Simply because of the volatility of the Bitcoin. So even if you went from Bitcoin to just cash, that's going to lower your volatility, whether you go straight into long-term treasury bonds or not, or do it over time. And now let's talk about stable coins. These are an interesting thing to hold. And, you know, I've been trying to think of what would be analogous to holding that for something in the past. and what I believe these things are like is when there were unregulated banks in the United States between around 1837 and 1873. And these new DeFi platforms are essentially like unregulated banks. So your deposits are not insured by anybody, which means that they are subject to bank runs. Essentially, if everybody were to try to cash out their stable coins or other things at the same time, a DeFi platform like a bank of old would experience a liquidity crisis and things may freeze up. And if that happened to one of the popular ones, chances are it would spread like a contagion to other banks and there'd be other runs on other banks. And by banks, I mean DeFi platforms in this case. So that is the risk you have there is this counterparty risk and the possibility of there being runs on these platforms. What that tells you is you don't want to put all of your eggs in those baskets and if you do have your eggs in a DeFi platform basket you would want to spread it out amongst other DeFi platforms. Your best bets if you are a US citizen would be to keep or to use the DeFi platforms that are headquartered in the US and licensed by the state of New York because they have the possibility of being sued or being sanctioned by various governments and so are more likely to mine their P's and Q's, if you will, with respect to their liquidity and their holdings. But the problem here is, of course, while we can identify what that risk is, It's almost impossible to identify how much of a risk it is because it's going to be connected with some kind of black swan event that we can't predict. So I guess where I come out with that is you could hold part of your cash in that kind of a holding and not be too worried about it, but I wouldn't hold all of your cash in that kind of a holding, particularly if you are actually retired and living on the money. And then of course you're going to make your life a bit more complicated if you've got some of these cash equivalent assets and a stable coin, some of them in something like I Bonds, some of them in a savings account or a checking account. And I don't know that it will ultimately matter all of that much because we're talking about a very small proportion of your entire portfolio anyway. But I think those are the basic considerations you have going on there with those. And I just had a couple more thoughts here. One being the easiest way to model your rental property in terms of a drawdown portfolio is simply to look at what its net income coming out of that is not the cash flows themselves, but the net income that you get out of that. Subtract that from your annual or monthly expenses. and then that gives you a figure that needs to be covered with the rest of your portfolio. And it looks like you have assumed that your capital gains tax rates are going to be significantly different after you retire than they are now. I'm not sure that's true. It's probably not true because you're looking at either the 0% bracket or the 15% bracket for long-term capital gains in either event. But you're going to have to look at your specific numbers to determine How true or not true that is. But I would have to say you have a very interesting situation. You can't handle the gambling problem. I'm hoping it works out for you well. Uh, what?

Mostly Voices [21:52]

It's gone. It's all gone. And thank you for that email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:56]

Boy, Harry, didn't you ever wonder where your dad learned it all? Second off.

Mostly Mary [22:06]

Second off, we have an email from Anderson and Anderson writes, Uncle Frank, a few simple questions for you. One, when you have a portfolio that rebalances based on bands, is the band based on how much it changes relative to the portfolio or itself? I guess I am more confused with smaller funds that have a smaller allocation percentage. For simplicity, if you had a 90/10 portfolio of fund AB and your rebalance band was 5%, Would Fund B have to decrease to 5% or increase to 15%, which would be close to a 50% change in the fund, correct? Two, you have mentioned having a flexible withdrawal rate, i.e. 3% for keeping the lights on, 4% and 5%. I think that is a great idea, but unsure on the decision making on how to implement it. Do you have some rules or guidelines of when you or what would make you adjust up or down? Do you evaluate the progress of the portfolio at a set time, for example, yearly, and adjust according to that? All right, let's talk about rebalancing bands first.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:16]

Now, what you are talking about is the difference between absolute deviations and relative deviations. And you can set up your bands either way. I will be linking again to an article about optimal rebalancing strategies from Michael Kitces in the show notes that will further elaborate on these concepts if it doesn't come off clear in this podcast because it's often very confusing to hear orally without looking at stuff. So in your example, you are talking about an absolute deviation of 5% but a relative deviation of 50% in your fund B. And what the article I've referred you to says is that absolute deviations work well when you have similar proportions of your assets in your portfolio. So if you had, say, four things that were 25% each, they don't work as well when you're talking about something where your portfolio is mostly one thing and there are small proportions of other things in there. so the baseline recommendation you get from this article, which is linked to other studies and things, is that a ballpark figure for optimal rebalancing is 20% relative. In a case where you had something that was only 10% of the fund, that would mean just a 2% deviation before you'd rebalance in and out of that. I think that might just give you too much rebalancing going on. But that's why this is not an exact science, that nobody has actually applied this to all kinds of different portfolios and all kinds of situations and come up with an optimal strategy for these rebalancing. In practice, and what we do in our sample funds, is to use the absolute deviation for these calculations just because it's easier to calculate. I may have just said that backward, excuse me if I did. You can actually see the difference between these two things if you look at a back tester like they have at Portfolio Visualizer. If you set that to rebalance on bands, it will ask you what you want as absolute deviation and as relative deviation, and maybe that's the easiest way to understand it is to actually play with it a little bit, because these concepts are difficult to understand in your head or orally. Hopefully this will be helpful and if you look at the article you'll get this more straightened out into your head. As to the flexible withdrawal rate question, just to give context to this, what I've said in other episodes on this podcast, is that it makes more sense when you're drawing down to really manage to your expenses as opposed to using some theoretical device like you might find in the 4% rule or other guidelines which are focused on the size of the portfolio as opposed to what your actual expenses are. And that you can break your expenses down into what you need to keep the lights on with, things that will make you comfortable in life, and then money for fun. And the way I look at it is if you keep the lights on expenses are less than 3%, you're in good shape and you could spend up to 5% using those other categories. The comfort category would include things like personal trainers and massages and paying people to clean your house. All those things that make life on a day-to-day basis more pleasant and give you more time. And then those fun expenses would be like doing a big remodeling or buying a boat or paying for some round the world trip that's huge. That is probably not going to come up every single year but will be a big expense that you will plan for in particular years. As for how this works in practice, it is something you are doing in real time. So you're sitting down and doing a little review of your situation on the annual basis or maybe on a quarterly basis. you'd like to look at it more often. But all you're really doing is saying, okay, how much of my expenses are these sort of keep the lights on expenses? And how does that compare to my overall portfolio these days? Because if it's greater than 3%, then you're going to be wanting to cut back perhaps on the other kinds of expenses you may have. If your portfolio is growing, which in most cases will be the case, then you will be seeing your keep the lights on expenses actually decline as a percentage of your portfolio over time, giving you more leeway to spend more money in the other categories. The idea here is just to kind of stay in the ballpark and know when your overall expenses are essentially going down because your portfolio is growing. you can feel free to expand your expenses. And when that's not happening, then maybe it's not time to buy the boat or take the round the world trip. And I'm sorry if that advice is not cookie cutter enough, but I think the point here is that your life is not going to be that cookie cutter in most circumstances, and that you will want to vary your expenditures from year to year just to keep yourself in these ballparks. Now, if you find yourself with declining expenses versus your portfolio, you may want to start thinking about other things as to how you want to dispose of your excess money. One of the ways or thoughts to do with that has to do with giving it to the people that are going to get it when you die anyway. because they probably are children or people that have room in retirement accounts to fill those things up so that is a better place for future growth than keeping it in your own name. So you may want to transfer some of that wealth while you are alive as you go because it's going to be more efficient overall if you're talking about the whole family's finances at one big go. But hopefully that answers your questions. Surely you can't be serious. I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. At least for now, I'm sure there'll be more variations of this in the future and it varies from person to person of course.

Mostly Mary [30:06]

But now moving on to our next email. This one is from Brian and Brian writes. Hey Frank, have you covered stable coins yet as a somewhat separate asset class from other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum? The reason I ask is I'm beginning to see other investors convert their cash positions in their portfolios into stablecoin positions earning 9-12% interest on them. Crypto is outside my circle of competency, but I know you are no stranger to the asset class. I would be interested in your perspective on the benefits and risks of stablecoins and if you see them as having a place in a portfolio. Some of my questions are about if there are risks other investors are glossing over. For example, My understanding is that the interest earned on stable coins is from lending out the asset. So does that mean like Lending Club there's a counterparty default risk? Do you see the government sponsored digital coins like Fed Coin and the digital Yuan as potentially disrupting the stable coin market? I suppose another risk would be if the underlying currency for the stable coin weakens. Similarly, I am also seeing some investors I follow move out of the short term treasuries into stable coin quoting the better yields. I guess another question would be, is there any liquidity concerns when moving in and out of stablecoin positions? Welcome hearing your perspective on the topic. Thanks, Brian.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:26]

All right, I have not talked about stablecoins before other than answering the first email, which we talked about, that the biggest risk I see here has to do with counterparty risk and the possibility of some kind of digital bank run on these platforms of a whole bunch of people trying to cash in their stable coins at once. And so yes, there is that counterparty risk and it's kind of unquantifiable as to what precisely it is. Now, as to your question, do you see the government sponsored digital coins like Fedcoin and a digital yuan as potentially disrupting the stable coin market? And the answer is, I don't know, but I think They're almost used for a couple different things. Well, first of all, governments may just regulate your ability to use these things at all. And I'm thinking particularly of China. They seem to have a kind of stranglehold as to what sort of digital currencies the population is going to be allowed to use within their country. And I know they're rolling out their digital yuan, your sovereign currency. so that's one restriction. But I see the digital currencies in the form of stable coins more being used as just a way to get in and out of these platforms easily, that it's much easier to go and buy some stable coins at one of these platforms and then figure out what you're going to do with them later in terms of staying within that platform's other digital environment. In effect, these stable coins act like grease in the wheels for the networks that they are on, so people don't have to be jumping in and out of actual dollars when they're living in these networks doing transactions. So where I come out is I'm willing to hold a little bit of money in these stable coins, mostly just to see how they work. I would not be comfortable putting all of my cash into one of these kind of stable coins precisely because if there is a crisis, I might not be able to have access to it. And if I had a lot of money in stable coins, I would put it on various different platforms to lessen the counterparty risk of one counterparty. This is why we can't have nice things. So be careful out there. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. 'Cause you wouldn't want this to happen to you. Great.

Mostly Voices [33:59]

We can just put that into your retirement account and make it go to work for you and it's gone. What's all gone? The money in your account. It didn't do too well. It's gone.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:06]

And thank you for that email. Last off.

Mostly Voices [34:10]

Last off, we have an email from Alan and Alan writes：

Mostly Mary [34:15]

Please consider doing an in-depth podcast on transitioning an existing portfolio to a risk parity style portfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:23]

Well, this is an interesting question and interesting idea because in theory there isn't much to it that you simply sell the things you no longer want anymore and buy the things you do want. There is a timing question, but that just has to do with how close you are to accumulating what you believe you need to accumulate based on your projections of your own annual expenses. that's the key driver of that kind of decision. In practice, this becomes much more complicated and the reason it becomes much more complicated is that it depends on what you're actually holding, what accounts it is in, and what are the tax consequences of the moves you plan to make. As we saw with the first email on today's podcast, this can be very different. for different people, depending on what they're holding. But if you want to know what the basic steps of the process are, the first step is to determine how much you feel like you need to accumulate to support your future lifestyle. Step two would be to subtract off from that expense level any income you anticipate coming in, either from pensions, real estate rentals, some other business, anything else you have out there that is going to be available on a constant basis to pay your expenses. And then you have that gap with the expenses that are left over to be covered by financial assets. The second step is to decide what sort of portfolio you want to move to in retirement. Now we talk about risk parity style portfolios here. That doesn't mean you want or need to move to that kind of portfolio if you would prefer to move to something else. But you do need to decide what exactly that portfolio is so you know what your target is. Then the next question becomes timing. When do you need to make these moves? Generally the answer to that is based on the answers to those first few questions. How close are you to actually accumulating what you need to accumulate to support your lifestyle going forward? If you have accumulated that much already, you can and probably should make that transition as soon as practicable because then you are all set up and ready to go. You've already taken your chips off the table and so when you are ready to pull the plug on your regular income at any time. In the meantime, you still may accumulate more money. You're gonna want that cowbell. Which you could simply put into your new setup as a retirement portfolio or you could Put it somewhere else for some other purpose. Yeah, baby, yeah. But the point being you'll already have lined up your assets to cover your expenses going forward. And then after that, you do get into the mechanics of it, which are dictated largely by where your current assets lie and in what form, whether they are in traditional retirement accounts, Roth accounts, taxable brokerage accounts or some other form. Because sometimes that can have serious tax consequences and sometimes it can't and then there are accessibility issues depending on how old you are and when you can get at some of these funds without penalty. So you quickly see that this has to be done on an individual by individual basis because it also depends on what tax brackets you are in, as in are you somebody that's going to be in a 0% long-term capital gains tax bracket in retirement? Are you going to be in the 15% long-term capital gains tax bracket? Are you going to be in the 20%? Are you one of those people that is going to be having over $500,000 a year of income because you have a very large portfolio? Each of those people is going to have different concerns, a different strategy for that purpose. And that's what makes things much more complicated, at least for the people with the higher tax brackets to deal with. If you are in that 0% long-term capital gains tax bracket, things are probably going to be pretty easy for you to manage. I will link to a nice article by Go Curry Cracker Let's never pay taxes again and it shows you how easy it is to avoid a lot of taxes in retirement if your income keeps you underneath that or in that 0% long-term capital gains tax bracket. So I will say this is something that we will certainly explore in the future. I'm not sure there is any way to do it in a one size fits all format though. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that email is frank@riskparityradio.com or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio.com and fill out the contact form and send me the message that way. We'll be picking up this weekend with our weekly portfolio reviews, and I've got another pile of emails to go through. I'm also hopefully going to put out a tutorial on the Monte Carlo simulator over at Portfolio Visualizer pretty soon here, if I can sit down and get that done one of these days. But I think that'll be interesting to a lot of people. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to your podcast provider and like, subscribe, give me some stars on a review. That would be great. Mmkay? Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off. You're a wizard, Harry.

Mostly Voices [40:31]

I'm a what? Harry. You're a wizard. I'm a what? A wizard, Harry. I'm a wizard. Yes, Harry, you're a wizard. But I'm just Harry. Well, just Harry, you're a wizard. But I'm just Harry. No, just Harry, you are a wizard. Listen here, Harry, I'm just Harry. No, Harry, you are a wizard. I'm not a wizard, Higrid, I'm just Harry. Listen, Harry, you're a wizard. No, Higrid, I'm just Harry. Harry, for God's sake, you're a wizard.

Mostly Mary [41:14]

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.