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 [0:36]

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 153. Today on Risk Parity Radio, it's time for our weekly portfolio reviews. Of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. I'm putting you to sleep.

Mostly Voices [1:28]

But now, before we put you to sleep with that, I'm intrigued by these, how you say, emails. And?

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:32]

First off. First off, we have an email from Justin, and Justin writes. Hi, Frank.

Mostly Mary [1:40]

Just listened to episode 148. YouPro had a stock split on January 12th. That's why the emailer saw it down 50%. It was then down 14.7% for the month on its own terms. So, yep. that would give one quite a startle. That new tool is so cool. I can't wait to try it out. If you have a way to thank that guy on my behalf, please do. I really liked episode 148, by the way. I like the philosophizing and the book recommendations. You have been using clips of Dan Pink's motivation talks, and I always get a kick when you drop that in there. What's going on? Why are people doing this?

Mostly Voices [2:14]

Why are these people, many of whom are technically sophisticated, highly skilled people who have jobs. They have jobs. They're working at Jobs for Pay doing sophisticated technological work. And yet, during their limited discretionary time, they do equally if not more technically sophisticated work, not for their employer, but for someone else, for free.

Mostly Mary [2:42]

I show the RSA animated version to my students, by the way, and the whole mantra of autonomy, mastery, purpose is one of my core beliefs.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:48]

Well, yes, we had a couple listeners who figured that out that Upro had a stock split. Yes. Sorry, I really wasn't paying too much attention that week. I usually don't actually look at these things necessarily every day and may only look at them at the end of the week. But, but, but. Upro did go up to $170 or something like that. And so they split it. So it's, back down to less than 100 bucks now. It doesn't really matter for the purpose of how much you hold. It's just more of a convenience, I think, for the traders who trade in that because it changes the scale of the options and futures that are on the particular security. Now that new tool, what he is talking about is the tool provided by Mark in episode 148. And I need to get that up somewhere on the website, as well as in the show notes for that episode. So thank you again, Mark, and Mark, if you do want to get in touch with Justin directly, just send me another email and I will connect the two of you. Because I think you may have some things to talk about. Surely you can't be serious. I am serious.

Mostly Voices [4:01]

And don't call me Shirley.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:05]

You did correctly identify that clip from Drive, Dan Pink's speech and the RSA animated version of it, which I am also very fond of as well as that book. I use those components, autonomy, mastery, and purpose, to decide whether a particular activity is valuable enough to pursue. And as you can imagine, things like this podcast, do check all of those boxes for me. It might be a tumor. It's not a tumor. Especially the autonomy part, because I get to do and say what I want. No one can stop me. But here are another couple book recommendations that you might want to look at. I'm very fond of some of the work that Stephen Kotler does. He studies flow states and how people get into flow states.

Mostly Voices [4:55]

Oh, sometimes I get a good feeling. Yeah. Yeah.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:03]

So take a look at a book called Rise of Superman, which is all about that. Came out five or six years ago. And then he's got a new one called the Art of Impossible, forget about it, which combines the research on flow states and getting into flow states with some of this other research about autonomy, mastery, and purpose, for example. And these all go to methods for selecting activities and then doing well in those activities and getting the most out of them, whatever they happen to be.

Mostly Voices [5:34]

You need somebody watching your back at all times.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:38]

But that's enough on that tangent. Thank you for that email. Second off, we have an email from my contact info. And my contact info writes.

Mostly Mary [5:53]

Frank, thank you for your recent book recommendations, such as Falling Upward. I recently finished Lawrence Kotlikoff's new book. His thoughts on the finance industry mirror yours. He likes tips. Thought you might find the book of interest, especially the section on investing and his views on tips as downside protection if held to maturity. He offers some unique perspectives, although I'm not sure I like the title. Thank you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:16]

Well, it's interesting you bring up Kotlikoff, and the book he's referring to here is the new one called An Economist's Secrets more money, less risk, and a better life. I have a love-hate relationship with Kotlikoff, but you have Kotlikoff actually to thank for me going down this risk parity rabbit hole back a decade — over a decade ago — and coming up with what I've come up with for this podcast, so on and so forth. And this goes back to a book that he wrote called Spend Till the End in 2006. that I read. And in that book he recommended as a base portfolio one-third US market, one-third international stocks, and one-third in tips.

Mostly Voices [7:04]

We got a scary 140 this week.

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:08]

And so I held something like that during the great financial crisis in 2008. And it was pretty bad, let me tell you. It was really bad because those tips went down 10% along with the stock stock market dropping 30 or 40% at the same time. It was ugly. And so that led me away from these economists' ways of thinking about investments and into more useful, shall we say, methods of portfolio construction and looking at investments that involve both the fractal mathematics and the ideas of Markowitz about making sure that your assets are really uncorrelated. But Katnikov is kind of a poster child for why a lot of academic economists make bad investors or do not construct very good portfolios. And the answer is because they become enamored with their economic models and they think that their economic models can be applied to any situation in the financial world and come out with good results.

Mostly Voices [8:17]

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:21]

So I've heard Kotlikoff interviewed many times and he honestly believes that economists can solve all of the world's problems because they have these models and if they just have enough data to put in there and if people would listen to what they have to say, then the economists models could solve the world's problems. whether they be related to individual investing or how the government handles its finances or anything else. The problem with that viewpoint is that it's really not true and it's not true from a kind of fundamental philosophical way that reality is organized. And when I say that, I'm getting back to something that's called Laplace's Demon, the mathematician Laplace. and this came out of the Enlightenment period where at that time, using Newtonian physics as an example, people were thinking if we can just come up with models and we have enough data, we can predict anything in the future. If I just have enough data and the right model, I can predict anything into the future.

Mostly Voices [9:31]

And that turns out to just be wrong because the future is uncertain and your model is never going to account for the uncertainties of the future. We don't know. What do we know? You don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:48]

So that is kind of a 19th century way of looking at the world, but it is the way that many academics still look at the world. And many intelligent people who have been educated in the sciences will look at the world. What we've learned in the past 40 years or so is that a better model for looking at the world is what is called a complex adaptive system. And this is related to fractal mathematics. A good visualization of what a complex adaptive system is is the sand pile model or rice pile model, where you have rice grains or sand piling up in a big pile. At a certain point, one of those grains is going to cause an avalanche in that pile. but you can't know in advance which grain is going to cause the avalanche or how severe the avalanche is going to be. And so many things in life, including financial markets, tend to follow something like that. It also applies to the weather. It also applies to earthquakes. It applies to many, many things that we care about in life. And so that kind of model is something that Mark Mobius uses or Nassim Taleb uses, Hyman Minsky, the economist, his ideas and models looked like that, the sandpile model, kind of avalanche. But Kotlikoff's models look more like an attempt to turn Newtonian physics into economics, which frankly just don't work very well, particularly when you're talking about investing. And the funny thing about these models and these people is that people never ask the the right question when they're interviewing somebody like this. And the question should be, why has this model not worked for investing in the 15 or 20 years that you've been touting it? Because certainly we have not had the kind of inflation that Kotlikoff and many others thought that we were going to have back in 2006. What that tells you is there is something wrong with that model. And if they're not willing to go back and admit that there's something wrong with the model, and make adjustments to it, then I'm kind of done with them. It's the same thing with cape ratios.

Mostly Voices [12:01]

My name's Sonia. I'm going to be showing you the crystal ball and how to use it or how I use it. And other crystal balls.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:12]

If something's around for 10 or 20 years and has failed to work to predict the future of financial markets, I think we can just discard it. And the purveyors of that model If they want any credibility, they need to go back and fix their model, find out what was wrong with it, why didn't it work? Because otherwise you're just perpetuating a belief system. You can't handle the crystal ball. Because often what they'll say is, oh, oh, it hasn't worked yet. It hasn't worked yet. It's gonna work someday. You just wait and see. I would place it over a candle and it's through the candle.

Mostly Voices [12:49]

that you will see the images into the crystal. That's not good enough for investing. It's just not good enough.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:57]

You end up with broken clock predictors. Which is huge. So if you have a track record like Kotlikoff has, and it's not a good track record, I'm going to discount whatever you have to say about investing unless you tell me why you were wrong in the past and what you've done about fixing it. Forget about it. But that's probably enough of a mini rant on that. Bow to your sensei. Bow to your sensei. Thank you for that email though, letting me get into those things. Cause I do think they're a bit off topic for what we do here, but they are interesting all the same. Anyway, our next email comes from Ron and Ron writes, Hi, Frank.

Mostly Mary [13:43]

In episode 148, Rory saw a 50% drop in UPRO. It was a stock split, actually on January 13th, so he must have seen it without Yahoo Finance fully updating it. Just FYI. Thanks, Ron.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:57]

Well, what can I tell you, Ron? You are correct, sir, yes. And what's funny is all of these emails came in on the same day. This is February 3rd. All the emails I'm reading today are from February 3rd, and there are even more emails from February 3rd. It was just a big email day for us. But thank you for bringing that to our attention. Feeling no pain, sir.

Mostly Voices [14:20]

And now, fourth off, we have an email from Bastian.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:28]

And Bastian writes, Dear Frank,

Mostly Mary [14:32]

thanks for all of the amazing work you are doing. Your podcast changed completely my view of investing at the stock exchange. I wonder what your thoughts are on the following ETFs and if you think they are good additions to a risk parity portfolio like the Golden Ratio. If you think so, what should they replace and with how many percent? First off, ticker symbol PICK, iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF. Second off, for my home bias as someone living in Sweden, ticker symbol EWDS, iShares MSCI Sweden ETF. Both ETFs look interesting when looking at the correlation matrix, so it feels like they could be nice additions. Thanks again and all the best from Sweden, Bastian.

Mostly Uncle Frank [15:27]

I'm always amazed by how many emails I get from listeners outside the United States. I do actually get site visitors from every continent on the planet except for Antarctica. But anyway, looking at these two funds, PICK and EWD. Now, PICK is the iShares MSCI Global Metals and Mining Producers ETF. and EWD is iShares MSCI Sweden ETF. Now, I did run these in a correlation analyzer, and I will link to this in the show notes, and you see a couple of things. They do have, you know, a relatively low correlation for being stock funds with, say, VTI or VIoV, basic US funds. So PICK, it's 0.64 with VTI. For EWD, it's 0.80. with the Total Stock Market Fund. I think the difficulty you would have with these has to do with their annualized return and standard deviations, which are not that attractive. And this is also linked to in the show notes. You can see that this mining and metals producer ETF had an annualized return of only 2.3% for the past decade or so. The Swedish ETF has an annualized return of 7.69%, which is better. Then you look at the standard deviations and the standard deviation that metal and mining producers ETF is 1.78, so it's actually larger than the deviation for something like VIoV or the stock market itself significantly larger, whereas the EWD ETF is similar. So the problem I have with PICK in particular is that it does not seem to do a job as well as a stock fund, another stock fund you might put in there, or gold or commodities themselves, if that was the angle you were holding this for. You had only one job.

Mostly Voices [17:38]

So it ends up being a little bit of an odd man out in

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:41]

terms of where you would put it or what you would do with it. Now, EWD has different issues. It's obviously a stock fund. that would go somewhere with the rest of your stocks. But I think the mode of analysis you want to take with these country funds is to start looking inside of them because just the fact they're from a different country doesn't really tell you a whole lot about what their performance characteristics are likely to be like. And that is determined by what kinds of things are in them because each country tends to have different factors in the largest stocks in their country funds. So some of the countries are more oriented to say oil and gas, some of them are, you know, emerging growth markets, and then you have something like Sweden. Now, what is inside of this? If you look at the sectors that it holds, it's 35% in industrials, 30% in financials. That's 65%. Two-thirds of this is essentially value. So it's very value-oriented. And it's also got 7% in consumer goods. So again, you expect something like this to have lower returns and lower volatility overall. And if you look at the largest holdings in it, you see things like Atlas Copco, which manufactures industrial compressors and things like that, Nordea Bank, Volvo, Ericsson, The only kind of growthy looking thing in their top 10 is Evolution Gaming at 3.52% of the fund. So looking at this overall in comparison to the funds you might otherwise hold in your risk parity style portfolio, the question becomes, do I really need a fund that is kind of mid to large cap value that I expect to have lower returns and lower volatility? And the answer for most people is probably not. because you're going to cover this with other funds already, and you don't want to have a portfolio that is over weighted in value. You also will get more bang for your buck if you focus on small cap value as opposed to mid or large cap. So I would probably not look to either one of these funds to put in my portfolio, but on the other hand, the Golden Ratio Portfolio, as we talked about in our last podcast, is a flexible portfolio with that 10 and that 6% that you could allocate to anything that you wanted to tweak the portfolio to make it more or less risky. So say if you didn't want a cash component, you didn't want your 6% in cash, you could put it in funds like these, a few percent in each might be a little bit more difficult to manage, but if you wanted to include them, that's kind of where they would go. I would not use them in the 42% in stocks, the 26% in treasury bonds, or the 16% in gold for the golden ratio. I would leave that alone. And if I'm gonna put different things into a portfolio, put them in as either part of that 10% or part of that 6% that you have to play with.

Mostly Voices [20:53]

You can't handle the gambling problem. And so that's what I would do.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:57]

And hopefully this discussion has been useful to you. I think we do in terms of analysis of investments really need to look at funds for their factor characteristics, as in are they large cap or small cap or mid cap? Are they growth? Are they value? Those sorts of things are much more meaningful in portfolio construction than the particular country where the company is headquartered. What country something is from can give you just a false sense of diversification overall. It's like whether stock pays dividends or not. That's not a meaningful way of diversifying a portfolio because it doesn't really get into these factors or sectors too of what these companies are and how they're likely to perform. But thank you for that email.

Mostly Voices [21:48]

Throw your window down and place your bets. These are the days we won't regret. These are the days we'll never forget. And now, last off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:00]

Last off, we have an email from Dustin, and Dustin writes. Hi, Frank.

Mostly Mary [22:08]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my emails the other week. Your feedback was helpful. However, one thing that I keep coming back to was your suggestion to include the REIT fund as part of the 42% stock allocation in my golden ratio portfolio. The fact that you have REITs as a 10% allocation in your golden ratio portfolio Separate from your 42% equity component suggests that you're treating REITs separately from stocks. Just curious why a different recommendation for my portfolio? Separately and unrelated, my wife and I have a joint Fidelity account that we are contributing cash to with every paycheck to save for a down payment either on a new home or a retirement home in seven to 10 years. Currently, I'm directing all new dollars into the Fidelity Freedom Index 2030 fund. In previous episodes, you have mentioned that your son is using a modified golden ratio portfolio for his new house savings. Wondering if you could compare and contrast the use of this Fidelity Target Date Index Retirement Fund versus a golden ratio approach.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:07]

Thanks again, D. All right, Dustin's talking about episode 145 in which we were analyzing a portfolio he gave us to have a look at. But you might also want to listen to episode 151 where we were talking about modifications to golden ratio portfolios. REITs are in fact part of stocks, but the reason that we keep them separate in that golden ratio portfolio, if you recall, because the basic components of that are the 42% in stocks, the 26% in treasuries, and the 16% in gold. Then you have that 10 and 6%, and so you can make your portfolio more or less Risky or aggressive by putting some more stocks in it. Why we would use REITs is because they tend to be more diversified from the rest of the stock market. But you could have used utilities or if you didn't want any more stocks, if you wanted a more conservative portfolio, maybe you just would have put some short term treasury bonds in there for that. But this gets me to another way of looking at portfolios generally. and another way of looking at portfolios generally for risk characteristics and comparison characteristics is how much of that portfolio is devoted to the stock market. And we've tried in our sample portfolios to give kind of a spectrum or range of those kinds of portfolios from a very conservative one to very aggressive ones. And so, for instance, if you look at the sample portfolios on that metric, you see that the All Seasons is very conservative only as 30% in stocks. The Golden Butterfly has 40% in stocks. The Golden Ratio, the sample version we are using, has 52% in stocks when you add in the REITs to that. Something like the Risk Parity Ultimate has 65% in stocks. It's levered up to 120%. Then you look at the levered Golden Ratio. That is more like 76 or 77% in stocks. That's also levered up. The Accelerated Permanent Portfolio has the equivalent of 100% in stocks. That is levered up to 205%. And then the most aggressive one, that aggressive 5050 actually has 116% in stocks with the leverage in it, which is half of the portfolio. It's levered up to 232% of a standard portfolio. And so that one metric does give you a nice idea of the risk reward characteristics of a portfolio. That would be the first question that you would ask about any particular given portfolio is looking at it, how much of this portfolio is invested in the stock market or stock-like things? Because then you have a basis to compare that on a risk-adjusted way with other portfolios with the same amount of stocks in them. And that gets us to what we call the macro allocation principle, which says that all, say, 60% stock portfolios should perform about 90% plus the same. And so after you get that reward characteristic, then you work on reducing the risk characteristics through diversification with other asset classes. Yeah, baby, yeah! All right, now the second part of your question, actually we can apply this information. You asked a bit about a Fidelity Freedom Index 2030 Fund FXIFX. So I looked inside of that and what it looks like, at least what it looks like today, is a portfolio that is 60% in stocks, 60% in stocks and 40% in various bonds. The stocks are divided into 40% US, 20% in an international fund, and then the bonds are all over the place. And then for comparison purposes, I ran that against a golden ratio portfolio at Portfolio Visualizer. And you can see the differences here that this Fidelity Freedom Fund, since it's in existence, has a compounded annual growth rate of 9. 14% versus 10.54% for the Golden Ratio portfolio. Its best year was 22.14%. Best year for Golden Ratio is 22.32%. Worst year -5.54% for Fidelity Freedom, -4.89% for Golden Ratio. And you get to the sharp ratios. You can see the big difference there. The sharp ratio for the Fidelity Freedom is 0.86%. for this period compared to 1.21 for the golden ratio. So what you're seeing here is you have a portfolio like the golden ratio that is actually less risky overall, but it's outperforming this 60/40 portfolio. And when you have something like that, it's obvious which one's the better one. Yes.

Mostly Voices [27:54]

Because you're getting more reward and less risk.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:58]

So while you could use the Fidelity Freedom Fund as a method for saving for an intermediate term goal, you'd just be better off using something like a Golden Ratio. The other problem I would see with something like a 60/40 portfolio like that is it could have a maximum drawdown of up to 13 years historically, whereas something like that Golden Ratio portfolio is going to have a maximum drawdown of maybe three or four years in terms of time. So I do think you're better off DIYing this with a few funds than using one of these off the shelf products, which are also composite things, so you can't control what the thing is actually invested in. And if it's one of these kind of target funds, then it's shifting its investments all the time, which gives you even less control and less predictability about where it's going to end up. So in the 2020s, I would say you should just do this yourself. with your no-fee trading and fractional shares of ETFs. We had the tools, we had the talent. And thank you for that email. Now we are going to do something extremely fun. And the extremely fun thing we're about to do is our weekly portfolio reviews of the 7 sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. Just going through the markets this week, another bad week for the markets mostly. S&P 500 was down 1.58% for the week. The Nasdaq was down 1.76% for the week. Gold was up.

Mostly Voices [29:37]

That's gold, Jerry, gold. Gold is up 2.16% for the week, the big winner. I love gold.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:48]

Long-term treasury bonds represented by the fund TLT barely went anywhere. They were down 0.05% for the week. Reits represented by the fund REET were actually up for the week. They were up 0.36%. PDBC, the commodities fund, continues on a tear. It was up 1.53% for the week. And PFF, the preferred shares fund, was up 0.50% for the week. It's also interesting to note the small cap value fund VIoV was actually up this week as well. It was up 0.55%. Well, Laddie, frickin' da! So what you see here is a lot of those big growth companies and other growth companies being sold off and some rotation into value stocks in addition to the general downturn that we're experiencing. And what did this mean for our risk parity style portfolios? Well, not a whole lot. I took the liberty of putting away something in your teeth.

Mostly Voices [30:43]

There's another snooze fest for the most part. I'm putting you to sleep.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:50]

The All Seasons Portfolio, our most conservative one, that's only 30% in stocks, 55% in treasury bonds, then 15% divided into gold and commodities, was down 0.33% for the week. It was up 7.7% since inception in July 2020. Then we moved to our bread and butter portfolios, the next three. And the first one is the Golden Butterfly. This is 40% in stocks divided into a small cap value fund and a total stock market fund. Then it's got 40% in treasury bonds divided into long and short. And then it's got 20% in gold GLDM, which helped it this week. It was up 0.17% for the week and it is up 19.55% since inception in July. This is a good example of how having a very well diversified portfolio keeps you very flat often when the stock market is not doing well. Moving to the golden ratio and our snooze fest here, this one is 42% in stocks, 26% in long-term treasury bonds, 16% in gold, 10% in a reit fund, and 6% in cash. It was down 0.08% for the week. It is up 18.58% since since inception in July 2020. And then we get to the Risk Parity Ultimate. It says 14 funds in it. I won't go through all of them. But, but, but. What do we know here? It was up $1 for the week. $1. See, I made Lewis a bet here.

Mostly Voices [32:26]

Lewis bet me that we couldn't both get rich and put y'all in the Paul house at the same time. He didn't think we could do it. I won. I lost. $1. Thank you, Louis.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:39]

And that translates into being up 0.01% for the week. It is up 16.96% since inception in July 2020. And then we go to our experimental portfolios that have some leverage in them. The Accelerated Permanent Portfolio, this one is 27.5% in A leveraged bond fund, TMF 25% in a leveraged stock fund, UPRO 25% in PFF the preferred shares fund and 22.5% in gold, GLDM. It was down 0.67% for the week. It was up 14.95% since inception in July 2020. Then we get to our most levered portfolio, the aggressive 5050. You can see this one suffered because it doesn't have any gold in it. I did want to have this as an example to show you over time the value of having some gold in a portfolio. You saw how muted the responses were for the portfolios with gold in it. This one is 33% in the leveraged stock fund UPRO, 33% in the leveraged bond fund TMF, the remaining 34% is divided into PFF, a preferred shares fund, and VGIT, an intermediate treasury bond fund. and it was down 1.68% for the week. It was up 16.71% since inception in July 2020. But that lack of gold in this portfolio does make it both more volatile and less pleasant to hold in downturns like the ones we were experiencing.

Mostly Voices [34:08]

That's not an improvement.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:12]

And our final portfolio is the Levered Golden Ratio. This one is 35% in a composite stock and treasury bond fund called NTSX. It's got 25% in gold, GLDM, 15% in a REIT called O, Realty Income Corp, and then 10% each in TMF and TNA. That's a leveraged treasury bond fund and a leveraged small cap fund. The remaining 5% is divided into a volatility fund, which was up again, and two crypto funds, which were both down. For the week, but anyway, the total portfolio was down 0.44% for the week. It is down 4.72% since inception in July 2021. And almost all of that is due to the poor performance of small cap stocks, particularly in the past three months or so. Meanwhile, gold is the leader of the pack for this portfolio so far. I love gold. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. We will pick up this week, finishing off these emails from February 3rd. I still have more of them. And then moving on to later in February so we can get a little bit more caught up to only being a couple of weeks behind. 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, put your message in the contact form there, and I'll get it that way. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go like, subscribe, give me some stars or review. It's your favorite podcast provider. That would be great. Mmmkay? Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio. Signing off.

Mostly Voices [36:09]

These are the days we've been waiting for. Neither of us knows what's in store. You just throw your window down and place your bets. These are the days we won't regret. These are the days we'll never forget. And these are the days.

Mostly Mary [36:47]

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.