Mostly Voices [0:00]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. A different drummer.

Mostly Mary [0:19]

And now, coming to you from dead center on your dial, welcome to Risk Parity Radio, where we explore alternatives and asset allocations for the do-it-yourself investor. Broadcasting to you now from the comfort of his easy chair, here is your host, Frank Vasquez.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:37]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to 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 foundational episodes for this program. Yeah, baby, yeah! And the basic foundational episodes are episodes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Some of our listeners, including Karen and Chris, have identified additional episodes that you may consider foundational. And those are episodes 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 56, 82, and 184. And you probably should check those out too because we have the The finest podcast audience available. Top drawer, really top drawer. Along with a host named after a hot dog.

Mostly Voices [1:34]

Lighten up, Francis.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:37]

But now onward, episode 244. 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 Portfolio's page.

Mostly Voices [1:54]

But before we get to that, I'm intrigued by this. How you say? Emails. And?

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:03]

First off, we have a series of emails from Drew about the same topic. Oh, I didn't know you were doing one. And so we will read them all together. Yes.

Mostly Mary [2:20]

Andrew writes, Thank you for your speedy response on the podcast. I conducted more research. Your podcast taught me how to fish and want to clarify a few points for your audience about the construction of BLNDX and Managed Futures in general. The way these managed futures program work is that if, for instance, an investor allocates $100,000 to the fund, Only 10,000 to 15,000 is needed to obtain full exposure to the futures program. The rest is used as collateral. Usually, the collateral is held in T-bills. I believe this is the case with KMLM. But BLNDX holds about half of this collateral in global equities, 60/40 US and international, and half in T-bills. This makes it a more efficient use of the space for those not wanting to reduce as much of their equity allocation to add and manage futures. This is the novelty of BLNDX compared with other funds. Essentially, no matter what managed futures fund you select, a large portion will be sitting on the sidelines in T-bills. Technically, in the example of $100,000, BLNDX will allocate $33,000 to $66,000 to global equities, either scaling up or down depending on the trend. Then the rest will be allocated to T-bills. the best way to understand leverage and managed futures is per unit of volatility. A typical managed futures fund has a volume of 10 to 12%. KMLM juices it up a bit to about 15%. Technically, BLNDX managed futures program is 50% equities used as collateral and 50 managed futures at 20% volatility. Mathematically, it wouldn't be incorrect to say it's 50% equities plus 100% typical managed futures programs. And that is indeed how most people speak about BLNDX. Also, BLNDX trades approximately 70 markets. KMLM trades about 20 markets. You're getting more diversification bang for your buck there. My first takeaway from your podcast was that you wouldn't allocate to this fund. Though you did say that 1.27% might be reasonable if it was just a managed futures fund. you would still have added complexity of accounting for the other components. But maybe, given this new information, would you consider it? One more thing.

Mostly Voices [4:44]

Oh, listen, there's one other thing I wanted to ask you about.

Mostly Mary [4:47]

I've heard you speak about not allocating just because a fund has done well in past. That's performance chasing. Wouldn't it be different for trend following? Maybe we can assume a reversion to the mean in equities, but trend is going to ride winners and cut losers. Maybe you'd instead want to look at the trend to decide when to allocate. Or, if you're holding for long enough, forget about timing. Just jump in if the process and fun make sense for your goals. Thanks, Uncle Frank. One more thing. Oh, there's one more thing, sir. You can hear Eric Crittenden talk about this for BLNDX on this podcast at minute 56. Oops, left this out. Oh, one other thing. I think my BLNDX follow-up email also relates to your golden ratio swap idea in this latest episode. Trend following can do well as long as the trend is strong. And so I'm not sure it has the same reversion to the mean. Therefore, wouldn't any time be appropriate to allocate towards it? One more follow-up. No more, I promise. Surrounding performance chasing or replacing REITs with managed futures. Just one more thing, please.

Mostly Voices [5:55]

I thought you had a clock to punch. I do. I'm leaving right now.

Mostly Mary [6:02]

One way to make sure you aren't performance chasing is to buy in when the trend is flat. Right now, according to Top Traders Unplugged, it's flat.

Mostly Voices [6:09]

I hate to bother you. Could I borrow a dime? A dime? A dime, sir.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:20]

Well, this is a follow up to what we talked about in episode 228 about this fund BLNDX, which is a relatively new fund that mixes strategies and includes managed futures in it. And I will answer your question, but before we get to that, I should note that Drew gets to go to the front of the line here because he is one of our monthly donors on Patreon. Yeah, baby, yeah! And all that money goes to the Father McKenna Center, which is our designated charity for this podcast. The best, Jerry, the best. And so if you would like to go to the front of the line, too, for your email, You can donate on the support page at www.riskparityradio.com and either do it through Patreon or do it directly. Let's do it. Let's do it. However you do it, it's very much appreciated.

Mostly Voices [7:18]

Groovy, baby. And thank you for that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:22]

All right, Drew, you seem to be really obsessed with this fund, BLNDX. and I did go listen to that podcast that you suggested and we'll link to it in the show notes. It is an interview of one of the people that runs the fund. So anyway, he describes this fund as essentially half equities and half managed futures. At least that's what I got out of his description. And I'm going to disappoint you again because I still don't see any particular reason to invest in this particular fund. And the short answer for this is if I want a portfolio that is half equities and half managed futures, I'm not going to buy something that has that combined and charges me 1.27% for the privilege. What I'm going to do is buy a couple of equity funds, ETFs that are very low cost, like a large cap growth fund and a small cap value fund, and then pair that with a fund that invests in Managed Futures so I can reduce my costs and essentially get the same kind of output for it. And so I did a couple of modeling exercises to confirm that there's no magic here. It's just a particular way of constructing something. So what I did is I took this fund BLNDX, went over to Portfolio Visualizer, plopped that in, and then combined it, or rather ran it side by side with another portfolio that I made 25% a large cap growth fund, 25% a small cap value fund, and 50% a managed futures fund. And I just use DBMF because we've been using that. Now, BLNDX only goes back to the beginning of 2000 in terms of existing. So this doesn't tell you a whole lot. But if you look at a comparison between that fund and the construction I just made since the bottom of the pandemic trough essentially starting in April 2020. You see that the construction I just made outperforms this BLNDX fund. Now, if you go all the way back to before the pandemic to January, the BLNDX fund does outperform the thing I just slapped together. But their graphs and performances look very similar over time, and I would not expect them to differ all that much. And so what that tells you that unless there is some other magic sauce here in terms of management techniques or something else, just paying extra to have somebody combine funds like this is not worth your money. The other thing you should recognize about this is that because it's half managed futures and managed futures happens to have one of the best performances in the past couple years that it's had in over a decade. It looks a lot better than other things. And to confirm that suspicion, I ran another back test. And this back test was of a portfolio like I just described that is half equities and I use a large cap growth fund and a small cap value fund 25% each and then half a managed futures fund. And I used MFTFX, which is a decent managed futures fund that goes all the way back to 2010 for the purposes of comparison. And I ran that against a simple golden ratio style portfolio. And so this back test goes back to May of 2010. And you'll see that these two portfolios perform very similarly. The golden ratio style portfolio performs a little bit better. But what you see is the golden ratio style portfolio performed a lot better earlier on, and then In the past couple of years, this other portfolio with half managed futures in it performed a lot better and so caught up. And so what does that tell you? That tells you that over weighting managed futures in a portfolio is probably not a great idea because it will cause the portfolio to underperform for long periods of time and you may not be able to stomach that. Now, of course, in other periods like we've had the past couple of years, it will be A great thing to hold and a great thing to have, but you can't count on the last couple of years as being indicative of a very long term performance. So where I come out on it is, I don't want a portfolio that is 50% managed futures. So if I were going to use something like this, I would have to cut it back itself. And then if I'm cutting it back itself, I might as well just use a managed futures fund for that portion. and not have to overpay essentially for the equities portion of this fund. Because if half of it is just equities ETFs and you can buy equities ETFs for less than 10 basis points as an expense ratio, you do not want to buy a fund that is effectively charging you over 1% for the same funds for half of the portfolio. Forget about it. What I really would like to see this outfit put out is something that is just the managed futures portion of this without trying to muddy it up with something else that I can get for cheaper elsewhere. And maybe they will do that. Frankly, I will be surprised if this fund lasts more than a decade, unless this is just a great decade for managed futures in particular, because it's going to be expensive and cumbersome to use given other available alternatives.

Mostly Voices [12:51]

Forget about it. I'm going to your last couple comments.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:55]

You were referring to the last episode where I'm talking about how to transition a portfolio from one particular allocation to another particular allocation by switching funds. And you're noting that you think that and others think that this is a good time to get into managed futures because they've recently cooled off and gone to flat in some of their Trend following strategies. Will Laddie Frickin' Die? Now that very well may be true, but I'm not interested in market timing. And as for what we are doing with that transition of the portfolios as a learning experience, as I described in the last episode, I'm trying to make that as a generic learning experience for swapping one kind of asset, asset A for another kind of asset. asset B without getting enmeshed in the peculiarities or particularities of either of the assets. Because I think that will make a more generic and generally applicable experience. So I would decline the opportunity to jump into managed futures on a market timing basis. Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Voices [14:13]

So sorry to dampen your enthusiasm for all of this. What am I in the Colombo episode all of a sudden? I don't know, I don't know any Timor. Why is it you all look alike and you have or on the end of your name? I am not related to anyone. And you all say splendid. You all say splendid. Splendid all the time. They say splendid. Who doesn't say splendid in their life and in their wife's life? We don't say splendid. We never say splendid.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:38]

We live in my life. But I hope you can see how I've approached this as a process, figuring out what's in a fund and then going off to model it based on its individual components. Because I think that's the way you want to approach these questions whenever you've got a fund like this that you're thinking about or want to analyze. Break it down to its components, analyze the components in combination, see how far back you can do a back test with it. using similar components, and then you can hopefully draw some conclusions from that if you have enough data. And the other caveat I would make is simply if you've got a fund that's only a year or two old, it may be interesting, but it's probably something you would want to wait on even if it's something you ultimately want to use for something. Because there are new funds coming out all the time. You are correct, sir. Yes. Hopefully that helps, and thank you for that email. Lieutenant Columbo, you're remarkable.

Mostly Voices [15:42]

You have intelligence, you have perception, you have great tenacity.

Mostly Uncle Frank [15:49]

You've got everything except proof. Since that was kind of extended, we're only going to do one more today. And so... Last off.

Mostly Mary [16:08]

Last off, we have an email from Anonymous and Anonymous writes：I was re-listening to episode 142 on tips after I came across a post in the Rational Reminder community about risk parity radio. I shared your thinking in that episode with the Rational Reminder community and received a few responses. I'm trying to understand the arguments for and against tips more clearly. I'd like to share one of the pro tips in decumulation opinions with you and hear your response. The purpose of tips is to provide a stream of defined, i.e. known with certainty beforehand, real, i.e. inflation-adjusted cash flows. They do this in all environments, inflationary or deflationary, and have consistently done exactly this. Inflation in the second half of 2020 was powerful enough that that from April through December of that year, LTPZ outperformed long-term nominal treasuries by nearly 19% and then outperformed them for the full period of 2021 by 11.5%. If that's not an asset that has done really well in an inflationary environment, I don't know what is. Sometimes markets give you multiple forces at once. Real rates can go up at the same time as inflation happens. The dollar can weaken when disinflation is occurring, etc. the first step in any financial plan is identify is to identify your goals. And for many investors, that goal involves some form of future consumption. Because goods and services are generally subject to the effects of inflation, it usually makes sense to design the portfolio to provide cash flows that are at least partially inflation adjusted. In many ways, tips are the ultimate all weather asset in the sense that they provide the investor with an invariant and predictable level of consumption no matter what is happening in the economy or the financial markets. Thoughts? I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice. Well, my thoughts on this one is it looks like a spot the fallacy exam.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:26]

so let's go through some of the fallacious reasoning in this post that you've quoted. And the first one is this defining the goal posts or moving the goal posts problem. And you can see that when you see where the writer says, because goods and services are generally subject to the Effects of inflation, it usually makes sense to design the portfolio to provide cash flows that are at least partially inflation adjusted. Really? Okay, I agree that a portfolio that you design for long-term retirement purposes needs to keep up with and exceed inflation as far as its return characteristics, its overall return characteristics are concerned. But that's the entire portfolio, and that's the total returns of the entire portfolio. It is not limited to this limited goalpost of providing cash flows that are at least partially inflation adjusted.

Mostly Voices [19:30]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:34]

That is a subset of the actual problem, which is to have a portfolio that's total returns are inflation adjusted and beats inflation on a total return basis over long periods of time. And you really miss the point and do stupid things if you're only focused on cash flow or income. Stupid is as stupid does, sir. That is how to create a suboptimal portfolio. You care about total returns, not just about cash flows and income. And the reason for that is we live in the 2020s, and so there are no transaction fees for selling a piece of your portfolio. This is not the 1980s, where we have high transaction fees and are trying to get income out of a portfolio. We live 40 years later in a different environment that is much more favorable to do-it-yourself investors. And so it behooves us to use a total return approach if we want the best approach for constructing a retirement portfolio that has the highest safe withdrawal rate. That is what our goal is, to get the highest safe withdrawal rate, not to get some inflation-adjusted cash flows that are a subset of the whole picture. So we don't redefine the real problem, inflation-adjusted total returns over a long period of time with some other problem that just happens to fit this product that we want to promote. Here are tips. So what do we use primarily to get good inflation-adjusted returns over time? That's why we invest mostly in equities in these portfolios because equities do the best job over long periods of time in terms of generating an inflation-adjusted return. That's the real return and the real return rate of equities over long periods of time is in the 7 to 8% range. Meanwhile, if you're comparing that to bonds and TIPS are bonds, that's what they fundamentally are. If you look at the history of TIPS, the real returns on those over the past 20 some years of their existence have generally bounced between about negative 2 and positive 2. They're at a higher rate now, but they certainly do not Give you the kind of long-term inflation adjusted returns that you want out of an overall portfolio. One or two is not cutting it. It's got to be 5-6-7. And so as we've said before and as is reflected in all of the data that we actually have, not the stories we tell ourselves, the data we actually have, tips do not make a good inflation hedge. All they hedge is themselves. All they hedge is a comparison between a TIPS bond of similar duration with a nominal bond of similar duration. If you're going to hedge your portfolio, you've got to hold things like equities. You may need to hold things like commodities and managed futures. Those are hedges of an entire portfolio against inflation. TIPS are bonds and don't forget it. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Which leads us to our next point. What is the difference between the way normal bonds, nominal bonds deal with inflation and TIPS deal with inflation? Nominal bonds do have inflation built into them. It is just current markets estimation of future inflation. That's why a nominal 10-year bond is yielding 3.0 something today versus a TIPS 10-year bond is yielding 1.0 something today. The difference between that is the market's estimation over the next 10 years of what it thinks inflation is likely to be. And if inflation is less than that, you're better off holding the nominal bond. If inflation turns out to be greater than that, you're better off holding the TIPS, which leads to the next big fallacy in this thing you sent me, which is the cherry picking. Of course, you can prove a lot of things if you cherry pick data to match what you're trying to show and don't look at the whole data set. And so this person looked at the second half of 2020, and then 2021 as his data set to prove that TIPS were going to be great things to hold in inflationary environments. All this proves is what I just told you.

Mostly Voices [24:29]

I told you, what did I tell you? Didn't I tell you? 'Cause I told you. Mm-. And when did I tell you? A long time ago.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:44]

And what did I say would happen when I told you? Exactly what just happened? That TIPS outperformed nominal bonds in that period because the expectation of the market was for less than inflation turned out to be. And why was inflation less in that period than what it turned out to be? There was something called a pandemic and everybody thought the world was going to shut down and that there was probably going to be deflation. It didn't turn out as bad as everybody thought, and vaccines came along a lot quicker than anybody thought. And so, as it turned out, inflation or lack of deflation was more in that period of late 2000 and 2021 than what was anticipated in early 2020. Which leads us to 2022. which this person did not include. I wonder why they didn't include that. You can't handle the truth. TIPS actually underperformed nominal bonds in 2022. And why was that? Although the inflation rate was much higher, the expectation of inflation was actually even higher than what inflation turned out to be. So both a TIPS fund like LTPZ, which is a long-term TIPS fund, and long-term bonds performed badly in 2022, and the tips performed even worse. Now, how can we see what's really going on here? How can we know who's right? Well, we need to stop telling stories and start looking at data. Now go to Portfolio Visualizer. I'll do this for you and link to in the show notes. We'll do a nice little back test of LTPZ, that long-term tips fund with TLT. Now they're not quite the same duration, but they're close enough for comparison purposes. And this backtest goes back to the existence of LTPZ, which is around 2010, I think, is when it came into existence. But what you'll see is these things track together. They perform about the same. They just cross each other over periods of time because they're both long-term bonds. You expect them to perform about the same. and the only differences come across in periods where inflation is either more or less than what the market expected. But that is not a big component of the performance of either of these funds. These funds are driven by the fact that they are long-term bonds, and neither one of them looks like an inflation hedge. That's the fact, Jack. That's the fact, Jack. So looking at these two things and seeing that they're very similar in performance, how would you pick which one you would want in a portfolio? Well, I would suggest that you go look at the market correlation number, which is on the far right of this presentation from Portfolio Visualizer. And what that tells you is that the TIPS fund has a positive correlation with the stock market, and the nominal bond fund has a negative correlation with the stock market. So if you have two things and you are putting them in a portfolio, do you want them more correlated with what you already have in your portfolio, or do you want them less correlated with what you have in your portfolio? You want them less correlated so the overall portfolio is better diversified, and that is why the Nominal Bond Fund is a better choice than the TIPS Fund when you are talking about constructing A entire portfolio not looking at a vacuum, not talking about some inflation adjusted cash flow that's at a 1% rate. We should be defining the actual problem we have coming up with the best solutions that we can come up with because we are trying to get to the highest projected safe withdrawal rate in a portfolio ultimately. Then let's look at another couple of these comments from this thing. This person wrote, if that's not an asset that has done really well in an inflationary environment, I don't know what is. Well, it did terrible in 2022. That was the inflationary environment. The truth is you're just wrong. That statement is just wrong. Wrong! Wrong! Right? Wrong! As I've said, all TIPS do is perform better than nominal bonds when actual inflation ends up being higher than what the market had predicted for that period. But they are still bonds, and that is still their primary characteristic, which makes the last statement very laughable. He says, In many ways, TIPS are the ultimate all-weather asset in the sense that they provide the investor with an invariant and predictable level of consumption no matter what is happening in the economy or the financial markets. That is not a characteristic of an all-weather asset. That is a characteristic of bonds, a characteristic of all bonds and bond ladders. And yes, you could create a portfolio, and people do this in theory, if you took your entire portfolio and created a bond ladder from here until the time you die. That is one way to create a portfolio. Now, since we don't know when we're going to die, usually people pick an age like 100. And so you could take your entire portfolio, if you're 50 years old, divide it into 50 parts, then you invest it on a bond ladder. And this is a theoretical bond ladder since you can't fill all those holes. But you can do something like that. And believe it or not, whether you constructed that of nominal bonds or of tips, you are projected to have the same outcome. And the reason for that is because the nominal bonds already include a measure of what the market thinks future inflation is, whereas TIPS simply adjust to it as it occurs. And so you would not know what was the better ladder until the end of the period when you knew whether inflation for that period happened to be lower or higher than what the market had predicted. You will get predictable cash flows out of any bond ladder, whether it's adjusted for inflation or not. You will get better returns out of the nominal bond nominally, and whether TIPS underperform or outperform that in the future depends on whether the current market prediction for inflation is higher or lower than what actually happens. Hopefully that clears some of this stuff up, but I'm sure it does not because people want to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the data says. And they will go cherry pick some data to support whatever story they want to tell. This is actually the typical behavior of people in the financial services industry who are selling you things. You know, whenever I see an opportunity now, I charge it like a bull. Ned, the bull, that's me now. They take a product. Tell me, have you ever heard of single premium life? Because I think that really could be the ticket for you. And look at it and say, okay, this product can solve these problems. Now let's take these problems and convince the person buying this that that is really their problem. It's backwards. A good financial advisor should be looking at what is the actual problem we're trying to solve. and then go look at products to solve that problem or portfolios to solve that problem. But this person is treating tips as if it's a product to be sold to solve this particular inflation adjusted cash flow problem, which is not the real problem that most people have. And that problem can be solved in other and better ways that do not involve tips. And generate inflation adjusted returns that are superior to tips. Bing again. But I think that's far more than we need to hear on that. And thank you for that email. And now for something completely different. And the something completely different is our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. Just looking at the markets this week, it was another Ugly week that harkens back to 2022. And what did we see? Well, pretty much everything was down except for the US dollar, which is rising and resuming its wrecking ball status. So the S&P 500 was down 2.67% for the week. The NASDAQ was down 3.33%. It was the big loser. Small cap value stocks represented by the fund VIoV were down 3.15%. Gold was down 1.8%. Long-term treasury bonds represented by the fund VG L T were down 1.44%. Rates represented by the fund REET were down 2.95%. Commodities represented by the fund PDBC were down 0.91%. and preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were down 1.03%. And finally, managed futures represented by the fund DBMF were actually the big winner this week. They were only down 0.18% for the week, so we're basically flat. Now moving to these portfolios, the first one is the All Seasons. This one is 30% in stocks, 55% in bonds, Intermediate and long-term bonds and the remaining 15% divided into gold and commodities. It is a reference portfolio. It was down 1.74% for the week. It is up 1.44% year to date and down 6.73% since inception in July 2020. Moving to our three kind of bread and butter portfolios. First one's golden butterfly. This one's 40% in stocks divided into an Total stock market fund and a small cap value fund, 40% in bonds divided into long and short term treasuries, and 20% in gold, GLDM. It was down 1.94% for the week. It is up 2.96% year to date and up 10.39% since inception in July 2020. Next one is this golden ratio. It's 42% in stocks, 26% in treasury bonds, 16% in gold, 10% in a REIT fund, and 6% in a money market fund. It was down 2.24% for the week. It is up 2.97% year to date and up 5.56% since inception in July 2020. And next is the Risk Parity Ultimate. I won't go through all 15 of these funds in here. It was down 2.43% for the week. It was up 3.35% year to date and down 2.33% since inception in July 2020. Now moving to our experimental portfolios. These involve levered funds. We do hideous experiments here so you don't have to. First one is the Accelerated Permanent Portfolio. It's 27.5% in a bond fund, TMF 25% in a stock fund, Upro, a leveraged stock fund, and then 25% in preferred shares, PFF, and 22.5% in gold, GLDM. It was down 3.8% for the week. It is up 4.03% still year to date and down 20.71% since inception in July 2020. Next one is the aggressive 5050. This is the most levered and least diversified of these portfolios. It is one third in a levered stock fund, UPRO, one third in a levered bond fund, TMF, and the remaining third divided into preferred shares and an intermediate treasury bond fund. It was down 4.41% for the week. It is up 4.22% year to date and down 27.79% since inception in July 2020. And going to the last one, our newest one, it's the levered golden ratio. It's got 35% in a composite fund called NTSX, that's the S&P 500 in Treasury bonds, levered up 1.5 to 1. Then it's got 25% in gold, 15% in a REIT, O, 10% each in a levered small cap fund, TNA, and a levered bond fund, TMF, and the remaining 5% in a volatility fund and a Bitcoin fund. It was down 2.98% for the week. It is up 3.25% year to date and down 20.95% since inception in July 2021. So all in all, a horrible week on threats of more interest rate hikes in the future. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. Just one announcement. I will be presenting a workshop at the Economy Conference next month on March 17th, the weekend of March 17th, in Cincinnati, Ohio, a conference run by my friend Diana Merriam, and there's all kinds of other speakers and things to do as well. So, I'll link to that again in the show notes. In the meantime, 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 into the contact form and I'll get it that way. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to your favorite podcast provider and like, subscribe, give me some stars, a review. That would be great. Okay. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio.

Mostly Voices [39:07]

Signing off. Don't you think you ought to cover yourself with a towel first, Mr. Brown? We're out of towels, and I'm too old to go diving into lockers.

Mostly Mary [39:19]

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.