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 [0:20]

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 have just stumbled in here, you will find that this podcast is kind of like a dive bar of personal finance and do-it-yourself investing.

Mostly Voices [0:53]

Expect the unexpected. It's a relatively small place.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:57]

It's just me and Mary in here. And we only have a few mismatched bar stools and some easy chairs. We have no sponsors, we have no guests, and we have no expansion plans. I don't think I'd like another job. What we do have is a little free library of updated and unconflicted information for do-it-yourself investors.

Mostly Voices [1:25]

Now who's up for a trip to the library tomorrow?

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:29]

There are basically two kinds of people that like to hang out in this little dive bar.

Mostly Voices [1:33]

You see in this world there's two kinds of people my friend.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:37]

The smaller group are those who actually think the host is funny regardless of the content of the podcast. Funny how, how am I funny? These include friends and family, and a number of people named Abby. Abby someone. Abby who? Abby normal. Abby normal. The larger group includes a number of highly successful do-it-yourself investors, many of whom have accumulated multimillion dollar portfolios over a period of years. The best Jerry, the best. And they are here to share information and to gather information to help them continue managing their portfolios as they go forward, particularly as they get to their distribution or decumulation phases of their financial life.

Mostly Voices [2:39]

What we do is if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Put it up to 11. Exactly.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:44]

But whomever you are, you are welcome here.

Mostly Voices [2:48]

I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:55]

So please enjoy our mostly cold beer served in cans and our coffee served in old chipped and cracked mugs, along with what our little free library has to offer.

Mostly Voices [3:14]

But now onward to episode 214.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:19]

Today on Risk Parity Radio, we're finally going to begin answering the emails that accumulated in September.

Mostly Voices [3:27]

Well, Laddie, frickin' da! Sorry for the delay.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:35]

The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.

Mostly Voices [3:42]

But without further ado, here I go once again with the email. And?

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:46]

First off, we have an email from Harvey.

Mostly Voices [3:50]

And now, Aunt Ethel, I'd like you to meet Harvey. Harvey, you've heard me speak of Aunt Ethel Chauvenet. She's one of my oldest and dearest friends. Who's Harvey? A white rabbit, six feet tall. Six feet? Six feet, three and a half inches. Now let's stick to the facts. Hey Frank, hope all is well.

Mostly Mary [4:14]

I've been listening to your podcast for a month so far and have really enjoyed it. I personally have found the top of risk parity as very interesting. I took a look at some of your portfolio types in your website and was wondering if you had ever come across the Dragon Portfolio and if so, what your overall thoughts were on it in terms of risk parity. Harvey.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:37]

And the answer is my large furry friend, why yes, we have talked about the Dragon Portfolio here and we've been talking about it for quite a while. If you want to go back to episode 53 and also episode 55, 98, 110 and 168, all of those talk about the Dragon Portfolio. The first two are much more detailed and have links in the show notes to that. Now, what the Dragon Portfolio is, is a creation of Artemis Capital, who's a hedge fund. And what they have done is take the basic risk parity concept of diversification and then added two additional macro asset classes, namely managed futures and volatility. And so they've created a portfolio that is about one-fifth Stocks, one-fifth treasury bonds, one-fifth gold, one-fifth managed futures, and one-fifth volatility related investments. Shirley, you can't be serious. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley. And if you go back and look at their materials, you see they've reconstructed a hundred years of data and showed how this would perform. And it performs quite well, given how diversified it is, at least in theory. So I do think, and I would say that this is likely the direction that diversification is going in for do-it-yourself investors. The problem we've had with these kinds of asset classes like managed futures and volatility is they're really not very investable for the average do-it-yourself investor. Because at best, they would require a lot of active management of options and futures contracts. And that's really not something most of us want to be engaged in. Now, shortly after I talked about the Dragon Portfolio back in episodes 53 and 55, I talked about a new at the time ETF called DBMF, which was an attempt to create essentially an index fund for managed futures using an algorithm that recreated what is called the SocGen Society Generale index. for that. And it seemed to me at the time, I guess it's about a year and a half ago, that if that was in fact a viable way of investing in managed futures, that could be something we would want to add to our risk parity style portfolios. And as it turns out, that fund, DBMF, has been a huge success over the past year and a half, has grown from holding assets of about $60 million to over $1 billion now. and has become very popular with the registered investment advisors who are the fiduciary advisors that advise very wealthy people essentially. And it's also up 25 or 30% this year in this bad environment for just about everything else, which has led to its attractiveness. There was a nice interview last week of the founder of that fund, Andrew Beer on the Top Traders Unplugged podcast that I will link to in the show notes. What's really nice about that is he talks not only about the fund but the evolution of trying to use this asset class and how the prior funds or attempts were really kind of failures because they cost too much and they did not deliver on their promises essentially. And so now we have at least one fund that seems to be able to do this. There are two other funds out there, KMLM and CTA, which are trying to do the same kinds of things but are relatively newer. We still don't have a good fund to invest in volatility, really. The funds that are out there still have decay problems or other problems that make them difficult to use. But I do also have listeners who are working on that problem.

Mostly Voices [8:36]

Yeah, well, the do the binds.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:39]

And we will be talking about some of what they've been doing in future episodes. Take it easy, dude. Oh, yeah. I know that you will. Coming back to your original question and summing up, and I will include your links in the show notes for others to take a look at, the idea of risk parity should really just be thought of as an evolution along a path of diversification that goes back to the original Markowitz paper back in the 1950s. And this was also the theme of the recent book by the professor Andrew Lo, who interviewed all of these famous financiers and academics like Fama and Markowitz, and determined that the one thing that they had in common about a recommendation for Portfolio construction was diversification not only within asset classes, like having different parts of the stock market, but also across asset classes. That is the straight stuff, O Funk Master. And so I view things like the Dragon Portfolio as perhaps the next step in evolving how we go about diversifying portfolios as do-it-yourself investors. Good stuff, Maynard. Good stuff, Maynard. And something we look forward to developing more in the future.

Mostly Voices [10:07]

Do you know what you've done? You've allowed the psychopathic case to walk out of here and roam around with an overgrown white rabbit. And so thank you for that email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:14]

Second off. Second off, we have an email from my contact info.

Mostly Voices [10:21]

Oh, I didn't know you were doing one. Oh, sure.

Mostly Mary [10:25]

And my contact info writes. Frank, Episode 202 was outstanding. The best, Jerry, the best.

Mostly Voices [10:32]

Especially enjoyed the commentary around soft conflict of interests.

Mostly Mary [10:36]

In my humble opinion, this is a major issue. Thank you for discussing. Also, as you eloquently and astutely mention, there are various ways to rationally approach portfolio construction. But there are key mistakes to avoid, such as high costs, taking on uncompensated risk, lack of diversification, etc. Perhaps you could dedicate a podcast to the key mistakes to avoid. Finally, although reverse mortgages are theoretically a viable alternative for some, costs and lack of transparency like many annuities are perhaps reasons to avoid until competitive forces work their magic. Apologies for the long email. Thank you. Well, you know what Mary has to say about long emails. Real wrath of God type stuff.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:23]

Mary, Mary, why you buggin'? I'm glad you enjoyed episode 202. And while I'm not going to elaborate on that too much, soft conflicts of interest are really kind of a form of groupthink, where people in a field like personal finance all gravitate towards the same kind of ideas and repeat each other's stuff. Now, that's highly appropriate if you're talking about peer-reviewed scientific methods in fields like medicine or physics. I am a scientist, not a philosopher. It's much less so in the soft sciences, and I include economics in that. Forget about it. And even less so in fields like personal finance. Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys? Which tend to devolve into dogmas and marketing materials given their consumer focus. Forget about it. All right, moving on to your next topic here, key mistakes to avoid, such as high costs taking on uncompensated risk, et cetera. I won't devote a whole podcast to that because it would largely be saying things that you probably already know.

Mostly Voices [12:41]

That's the fact, Jack. That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:50]

Such as using index-based fund products and reducing your costs. Well, let's talk about a couple of variations on those themes and then a big one that I think afflicts many long time do-it-yourself investors. One thing I see do-it-yourself investors engaging in that's probably not a very good practice is getting stuck on branding of various products and then wasting a lot of time on trivial decisions. And a lot of this surrounds the obsession with Vanguard mutual funds. Now, historically, those funds have been the low-cost leaders and the easiest way for do it yourself investors to come up with nice portfolios that weren't costing them a lot of money to hold or manage. But in the past 10 or 15 years, the rest of the world has caught up with and often surpassed what Vanguard has done in terms of offering low cost focused funds for people to use. And so relying solely on Vanguard mutual funds is really not a best practice anymore. given what else is available out there, especially ETFs, exchange traded funds. Those are in most part superior products to mutual funds and is the direction that the industry is going. And now that you can buy those with no fees and fractional shares and they are more tax efficient, they are really the best practice. If you're talking about starting from scratch today and they're available to you, For most common solutions, there are multiple good solutions for a particular fund or asset class. And I see amateur investors wasting a lot of time fixating on which one is better when they're all doing about the same thing and their efforts should be spent elsewhere learning about other things rather than fixating on the differences between some of these products. A good example is total market index funds. There are many that are available now that include VTSAX, VTI, FSKAX, SCHB, ITOT, FZROX. And if you are fixating on which one of those might be better or on the differences between their minuscule fees or on the differences between them and say, An S&P 500 fund. You're really wasting your time. I like to say these are all just different brands of tissue. And VTSAX is like Kleenex. Doesn't mean that the other ones don't work or another brand is not fine. But I do see amateur investors wasting a lot of bandwidth on those sorts of questions, which are like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in theological terms. Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. Which also leads to the mistake of thinking that just because something's been around much longer than some other fund makes it intrinsically better. That may be true of specialized funds, where it's difficult to determine what their future is likely to be, but it's really not true of index funds. People know how to construct these things. They have known for quite a while. and so to be fixated on whether one is five years old or 15 years old is not a good use of your time and it's not a good thought process. And that also goes for things like ETFs. So now we have a Vanguard fund that invests in long-term treasuries, VGIT, that didn't exist back when the first one, TLT, came out. VGIT is actually slightly better. in terms of cost structure, although not as good as in terms of liquidity. Or take a look at the gold funds that are now offered. The oldest one of those is GLD, which had originally a expense ratio of about 0.4. It's down to 0.25, but if you look at its sister fund GLDM, that now has an expense ratio of 0.1. So you can see as things evolve and as more providers of funds get on these bandwagons for do-it-yourself investors, more and more products become available and there's no reason not to use a newer product provided it has sufficient liquidity to it because the underlying construction methods are all the same. All right, moving on to another issue I see that is a mistake to avoid or at least to manage is using overly complicated structures. And what is an overly complicated structure? Well, it could be something like a target date fund, which is a fund of funds, or it could be any fund that combines multiple asset classes into it. So now you can buy things like S&P 500 and Bitcoin or S&P 500 and Gold. in addition to S&P 500 and Treasury bonds. If you're going to be using things like that, you need to do the work to actually pull them apart to see what's inside of them and to see how that is going to affect the overall macro allocations of your entire portfolio. And that's why it's preferable to use single ingredient funds. So as I often say, don't use total bond funds. use the specific kinds of bond funds that you want or need for your specific needs in your portfolio. So if you want a long-term treasury bond, buy that. If you want a short-term bond fund, buy that. If you want an intermediate corporate bond fund, buy that. If you want a municipal bond fund, buy that. Don't buy some big mishmash of all kinds of stuff, which is not tailored to your specific Circumstances or needs. There's no reason to do that in the 2020s when we have so many other options. We have the tools, we have the talent. I think in some respects, people are thinking, well, if I just buy this, it will take care of all of these things and I can reduce my numbers of funds to two or three. The truth is, if you're going to construct a really diversified portfolio amongst multiple asset classes, you probably need at least five funds to do it with, including whatever you're putting your cash or short-term bond allocation into. So you should try to avoid mishmashes or composite products to the extent you can. And if you do use them, you need to go through the process of actually looking inside them, pulling apart what's in there, and then balancing that out with whatever else you have in your portfolio. So they will make your job actually harder than if you were to simply use single ingredient kind of funds. All right, now let's get to that other big bugaboo I mentioned, which is summarized as changing strategies at the wrong time. That's not an improvement. First of all, I don't think it is wrong to change your overall strategies because you can't just be stuck holding something just because it was the best thing to do in the past. when it no longer becomes the best thing to do. But then that leads to the question, well, when and how do you go about changing strategies or adding some other asset class or something else to your portfolio, or perhaps doing your transition from an accumulation portfolio to your retirement portfolio? Because oftentimes the change in strategy is not so much dictated by some new shiny object you see, But a simple change in your own life circumstances that results in you needing to change your strategy to make your portfolio more appropriate to how you're living your life. Now, one way to approach this would just be to simply just do it whenever it seems like the right thing to do at the time. Let's do it. Let's do it. That's probably not the best way to approach this because it will incentivize you to do too much tinkering or fooling around with things, which in its worst case form ends up being fund chasing. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Or you find out about some fund that's had a good run for the past few years and you think, well, I need a piece of that. And then you go off and buy some of it and then it tanks. I suppose the experience over the past couple of years here with ARK funds taught a lot of people a lesson about that. Are you stupid or something? Honestly, as stupid as a stupid does. That the best thing in the recent past is often the worst performer in the near future. But I think you can mostly get around this problem with a simple rule of thumb, which is this：the best time to change strategies is when your current strategy or current portfolio is at or near an all-time high. And the worst time to change strategies or go from one horse to another is when you're in the middle of some kind of drawdown or downturn. It's like trying to jump horses midstream. It's better to do that when you're standing on the banks and there's nothing chaotic going on around you. As a management technique, it often also makes sense to make these changes around the time you're doing rebalancing anyway. way, because then you're going to have fewer transactions. So here's a good example of that that relates back to something we already talked about today, which is the evolution of this managed futures index fund, DBMF, as a viable way to diversify a portfolio. So the next question is, if you've decided you wanted to add something like that to your portfolio, when and how would you do it? The answer is you probably wouldn't do it right now because that has had a very big run-up this year, which you have to attribute somewhat to luck, as you would attribute a good run by the stock market in any particular year. If it's over 20%, you're going to think, well, it was a lucky year for that. So the most sensible way to approach this would be to simply wait. until your current portfolio has recovered and is back at or near all-time highs, which may occur in six months or may occur in a couple of years, for all we know, and then make whatever changes you thought were appropriate. And in the meantime, you can continue to study other potential changes that you might want to make to a portfolio for whatever reason, but just hold those thoughts. until your current portfolio is at or near an all-time high, because that is the best time to make changes in your portfolio. You're essentially selling high because if you sell in the downturn, you're selling low. And you can see how following this rule also avoids panic selling of things. Now, I should say what I'm talking about here is portfolios made up of things like index funds, that tend to go up and down and that you would expect to recover due to their past histories over long periods of time. This thought does not apply to specific investments. If you are going to invest in specific companies or narrow sectors or businesses or projects, the calculus needs to be different. because you're not talking about an index group of things. That's what I'm talking about. You're talking about an individual investment. And when you're talking about that, the procedure ought to be when you buy something to have a plan as to when you might sell it. Because generally, if circumstances change for a company such that they are not the same as when you bought the thing, it may be time to just dump it. and hopefully you've made that calculation up front when you bought the thing so that you are not just following it all the way down to a bankruptcy, which actually happened to a lot of people who were long time holders of General Motors stock during the great financial crisis. They kept buying it as it went down and then it went into bankruptcy. So be mindful of that and be careful out there with it. You could ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Do I feel lucky? And now finally, reverse mortgages. I've read a lot about these products over the years and they keep changing all the time. I think they are becoming better, but I can't be sure about that. They still don't look terribly attractive, although I'm not an expert for sure in any of these sorts of things. Unfortunately, I think the whole concept of a reverse mortgage and why you might need one or want one, to me represents kind of a failure of investment strategy prior in life. And unfortunately, this is where most middle class Americans find themselves, is that they get to retirement and find out that they have way too much of their net worth tied up in their residence. Oftentimes over 50% and so they need to extract that value in order to have money to live on because you can't eat shingles. Oftentimes the best practice there is simply to sell the big old house and buy something smaller and then use the rest of the proceeds to be invested to live on. But a reverse mortgage is another option. It still seems like a very murky, expensive area to me, but hopefully they will become more efficient and more commoditized in the near future because I think there's probably a large demand out there for these kinds of products. That is the straight stuff, O Funkmaster. Today's interest rates are not very attractive though, folks. So I'd be careful because you can still run out of money even with a reverse mortgage, and you might run out of money quicker than using the alternative of selling the house to begin with. But as always, thank you for that email. Class is dismissed. Last off.

Mostly Mary [27:57]

Last off, we have an email from Mark, and Mark writes, Hey, Frank, appreciate all you do. I've benefited enormously from your wisdom and insight.

Mostly Voices [28:04]

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

Mostly Mary [28:12]

It seems to me that there may be a difference between your style of risk parity and the seemingly textbook definition that I would hope for you to comment on. The textbook definition seems to be about designing a portfolio where each asset contributes equally to the portfolio's overall volatility. In other words, you calculate an asset's weight based off an asset's volatility after you've selected your mix of assets. I contrast this to the approach I think I hear you advocating, which is something closer to first choosing your equity weight based on desired aggressiveness, as this determines most of your return per macro allocation principle, and then pairing it with uncorrelated assets. I would love to hear your thoughts on how to choose weightings for any given asset class. Feel free to correct all my erroneous statements. Thanks again for all you do, Mark.

Mostly Voices [29:05]

Well, what can I say, Mark? You are correct, sir, yes! This actually goes all the way back to episode five and the links in the show notes there.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:13]

You will find an article there that is in the CFA Institute manual on multi-asset strategies. And it's an entire chapter about risk parity and how it developed, what it is, and its theoretical underpinnings going back to the efficient frontier, so on and so forth. And so you are correct that the original idea was to take asset classes and then make them proportional to their volatility or risk weighting in a portfolio. However, what you end up with here then is a portfolio that is generally 70% or more in fixed income. And although it has a much lower volatility than a standard portfolio, it also has a significantly lower return characteristic, usually about 2% less than, say, a 60/40 portfolio. And so to compensate for that in its original format, the idea was to add leverage then to the portfolio. This is the original idea from Ray Dalio and others. And so you would take this very conservative portfolio and then lever it up to make it have the same return characteristics as a more standard portfolio. So while that can work fine for hedge funds who are usually managing this through some combination of options, futures, and loans. It is not really attractive or practical for do-it-yourself investors or retirees who want to hold a set group of funds and then rebalance them annually or in accordance with some other plan and are taking income off them every year. So it makes more sense for us do-it-yourself investors to take a more standard looking retirement portfolio that has between 40 and 70% in stocks and then use risk parity concepts to diversify that better than these standard old portfolios that are commonly referenced. Because we still do want to have portfolios that are mainly driven by the stock market returns within them. as opposed to a theoretical risk parity style portfolio, which is driven largely by the fixed income component in it. But that is one of the reasons we keep the reference portfolio, the first sample portfolio, which is called the All Seasons portfolio. That is based on a classic theoretical risk parity methodology. But what it's really lacking is the leverage. that a hedge fund would apply to that kind of a portfolio to give it better return characteristics. Now, as for choosing weightings for any given asset class, there's probably more art there than science, but it's informed by doing extensive back testing and looking at the various works of others. So the idea that, for instance, A portfolio with 40 to 70% in stocks or stock market related assets will give you a higher safe withdrawal rate, which is really our goal here to get a higher safe withdrawal rate. I should have said that to begin with. Yes. That comes from Bill Bengen's work, that original safe withdrawal rate stuff, and it's been confirmed by many others, including Wade Pfau, Wages of Sin, I think says it's between 35% and 80%, but you all end up with things that are within that kind of range. The percentage of gold in a portfolio is based on research that goes back 100 years. If you go back and listen to episode 40 of this podcast, we talked about one analysis done by Big Earn at earlier retirement now it appears as Blog post number 34 in his safe withdrawal rate series, in which he determined that holding between 10 and 15% of gold in a otherwise stock and bond portfolio is likely to improve its safe withdrawal rate characteristics, and others have made similar findings. So you have a couple of broad consensus on those two asset classes in particular. There is not as much consensus on what else you put in there other than it needs to include some treasury bonds. If you look at something like that Dragon Portfolio we were talking about, it is approximately 1/5 stocks, 1/5 treasury bonds, 1/5 gold, 1/5 managed futures, and 1/5 volatility with a slight tilt towards the stock component of that. I think it's more like 24% and that's based on their 100-year analysis. But whenever you are looking at a particular asset class and trying to think about, well, how much of this belongs in a portfolio, you do need to take into account two particular characteristics. First, what are its overall correlation numbers over long periods of time to the rest of the portfolio? To the extent you can know that. And then what is its relative volatility compared to the rest of the portfolio? And so, if you look at something like cryptocurrency, although its volatility is decreasing over time, its historic volatility has been about 10 times more volatile than most of these other assets. And so, you would only want to put a very small portion of that in a portfolio, because if you put an extremely volatile asset in a portfolio and put a lot of it in there, it will essentially dominate the performance of the portfolio. which is probably not something you want in a portfolio you're drawing down on, that you do want the performance to be dominated essentially by your broad-based stock funds and then moderated by the other assets in the portfolio. The same is true of funds that invest in volatility, at least things like VXX or VIXM, as they also tend to have very volatile characteristics, which tells you that you want a smaller proportion of those sorts of things in any portfolio, so it's not dominating the performance of the portfolio. So the upshot is I'm not aware of any magic formulas for doing this, but we have some pretty good rules of thumb for some of these assets, and then we can use back testing and other considerations like volatility, to choose the allocations for the other ones. But if you have any other methodologies or methods that you found have been effective, I would be all ears to hear about them.

Mostly Voices [36:09]

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this：never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. I think this is Actually a hotly debated topic by the hedge funds that play mostly in this kind of sandbox.

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:34]

And I'll be happy to crib off their work, as we always do here, because my goal here is not to invent wheels, but to find the best wheels that are available out there and put them to use.

Mostly Voices [36:47]

I have people skills. I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:54]

Hopefully that helps and answers your question, at least in some respects, and thank you for that email. Bow to your sensei. Bow to your sensei. And 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 put your message into the contact form and I'll get it that way. Just a little program note. The podcast will be going on hiatus probably for about two weeks. We'll see. Which means I'll probably get further behind on the emails. But that's life in the retirement lane.

Mostly Voices [37:40]

You haven't got the knack of being idly rich. You see, you should do like me, just snooze and dream. Dream and snooze, the pleasures are unlimited. I will endeavor to update the website and the sample portfolios regardless.

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:56]

If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to your favorite podcast provider and like, subscribe, give me some stars, follow, a review. That would be great. Okay. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio. Signing off.

Mostly Voices [38:16]

You know, I thought you decided to stay with Dr. Chomley. You're part? You... Well, thank you, Harvey. I prefer you, too.

Mostly Mary [38:34]

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.