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 [0:36]

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. There are basically two kinds of people that like to hang out in this little dive bar. You see in this world there's two kinds of people my friend. 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?

Mostly Voices [1:20]

Abby normal. Abby Normal.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:30]

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 [2:01]

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 [2:09]

But whomever you are, you are welcome here.

Mostly Voices [2:13]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:17]

But now onward, episode 253. Today on Risk Parity Radio, we're going to do what we do best here, which is work on our backlog of emails. We have some interesting ones today, some interesting topics to talk about.

Mostly Voices [2:37]

And so without further ado, here I go once again with the email and

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:42]

First off, first off, we have an email from my contact info.

Mostly Voices [2:49]

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

Mostly Mary [2:53]

I think I've improved on your methods a bit, too. And my contact info writes, Frank, perhaps a critique or analysis of this article may be a worthy subject for a podcast.

Mostly Voices [3:06]

You are correct, sir. Yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:12]

All right, this is a good follow on actually to what we talked about in episode 251. And one of the things we did in that episode was define what are the elements of a withdrawal strategy, a comprehensive withdrawal strategy. And we broke it down into three elements. The first one was your asset allocation. And that element also includes rebalancing rules and reallocation rules going forward. The next component was a base withdrawal rate, which could be expressed as a flat percentage, a range, or something similar to that. And then the third component was a method of adjusting the base withdrawal rate. And that could be based on some external metric, like the CPI or a modification of that. or it could be based on the performance of the portfolio itself, or some combination of those things. Now this article you've linked to is from the CFA Institute. It's by an author named Krisna Patel, who is a CFA, and it is called Retirement Income Six Strategies. Now as you'll see as we go through it, it's actually only talking about five strategies and one kind of pudo strategy, which it appropriately describes in that manner. But what's nice about the classification or taxonomy that is going on here is this really does cover almost all of the potential withdrawal strategies that somebody might have. And obviously they can be combined in various ways. But let's just go through them and talk about how they are comprehensive withdrawal strategies and how we can know that by applying the three elements that we talked about in episode 251. And by combining what is in this article, which with what we talked about in episode 251, you can get a good sense from a really macro or big picture standpoint as to what your advisor might be recommending you doing and how to take in all of these strategies that people talk about and put them into this framework so you can understand what they are and how they fit in and whether they fit in in your particular situation. Now, the first one I want to talk about from this article is actually the sixth one listed. It is called the Insuring Strategy. And this is the strategy of buying an annuity. And we're going to talk about these in their simplest and most pure form. So in this form, we're talking about taking all of your retirement money and buying one big annuity and then living off that for the rest of your life. Now, how do we know this is a complete strategy? First of all, let's apply those three elements we talked about in episode 251. It does define what the asset is, an annuity contract. And since the payments are fixed, there is no rebalancing strategy and there is no reallocation strategy. You get what you get in the contract. How much is the base rate of withdrawal? Well, it's whatever the payout ratio of the contract is. And then as to the third element, what are the adjustment rules? and the rule is there will be no adjustments. So you can see just by taking this strategy and putting into that framework, A, that it is a comprehensive strategy, and B, you can see its benefits and drawbacks. Now the benefits are it's completely predictable, at least from a nominal perspective, you know exactly what you're getting, assuming the company does not go under. And the second advantage, the main advantage of this is that it's longevity insurance. It will last for your entire life. so you don't need to worry about running out of this money at some point in time. Now you can also see then the drawbacks that it's a very inflexible strategy. You cannot make any adjustments to the strategy. You cannot reinvest the money in something else at some point unless you don't spend it. And there is no adjustment for inflation. So you can also then see in what circumstance would this be a good strategy and what circumstances would it be not so good of a strategy. It would be a good strategy if the payout is high enough, and since that is dictated by how old you are, and in part what gender you are, it may make sense for older people. That also solves the second problem that it is a strategy that you would not want to have over a lifetime of inflation, but 20 years of inflation might not be so bad. if the payout ratio is high enough. And then you can also see that it would be advantageous for somebody who is in good health because they are likely to live longer and get more money out of the contract. That also tells you then by flipping that over who this is probably not a good strategy for. It's not a good strategy for somebody who's young, who may live a long time and experience a lot more inflation over time. It's not a good strategy if the payouts are particularly low. and lower than what you could achieve with other investments. And it's not a good strategy if you are in bad health or have a genetic history of bad health outcomes. Now let's move to the next strategy, which the article calls the certainty strategy. It's the first one in their list. Now, what is the certainty strategy? Essentially, it's an endless bond ladder or a bond ladder from now until you die. In its simplest form, the way you would construct this is take all of your retirement money, estimate when you're going to die as best you can, and suppose that's in 40 years. You're going to be 60 and say you're going to die at 100. You would divide up all of your assets into 40 parts and then invest them in one big long bond ladder. Now, this is something that TIPS are good for. Surely you can't be serious. I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. At least if you believe that inflation will be higher in the future. TIPS would actually be worse than nominal bonds if you thought inflation would be lower in the future. But in any event, you can construct this bond ladder with or without TIPS to cover all of your expenses over that period. So, let's now put this into the three component rubric that we talked about in episode 251. What are the assets here? The assets are this endless bond ladder or this 40-year bond ladder. What are the rebalancing rules for that? Well, there's not going to be any rebalancing because what you're going to do is just spend the money as it comes off the bond ladder, and that's going to be the money you spend for the year. What are the reallocation rules? Well, there are no reallocation rules if you are going to see this through to the end and use it as it was intended. Because if you thought you had better investments to make for year 20, you'd be making those investments now and not putting it into this bond ladder. So it's not designed to have any reallocations unless of course you did not spend the money in one year, then you could put it anywhere you'd like. Forget about it. So what is the base rate? The base rate you're getting out of this is, in this case, 1/40 of your total assets. So that's 2.5%. If you divide 100 by 40, that's what you get. So that is your safe withdrawal rate. And then now we move to how is that going to be adjusted over time? And that just depends on which kind of bonds you buy. If you buy TIPS, then it's going to have an inflation adjustment over time, but it's going to have a lower nominal rate. And if you buy nominal bonds, it will have a higher nominal rate, which also incorporates inflation as estimated today. That is the difference between nominal bonds and TIPS. The nominal bonds already have an estimate of future inflation incorporated into them, and that's why they pay a higher nominal rate. But the adjustments in your income will be dictated by the interest rates provided by these bonds, and there won't be any other adjustments. So now let's talk about what are the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy. Well, the first advantage is its certainty. It's called the certainty strategy for a reason because once you set the thing up, you know fairly predictably what your income in any given year is going to be just by looking at your ladder and seeing the projections. It can also account for inflation, and in an emergency it does at least have the flexibility that you could change the allocations to something else at some point if you really wanted to. It would defeat the purpose of what you're doing, but you could do it. You can also set it up in a way that it will account for future inflation if you believe that future inflation will be greater than it is now, or there's a chance it will be greater than it is now. Now, if it's not, you'll probably get less money out of the strategy, but if it is, then you'll get more money out of the strategy. And if inflation comes in exactly where people would have predicted it today, then you're going to get the same thing whether you buy the TIPS or you buy the nominal bonds. That's something people have difficulty wrapping their heads around. What are the disadvantages to this? Well, I'll just read from the article. I think it sums it up pretty well. It says, For all its certainty, this strategy has some drawbacks. To ensure the client doesn't run out of money, we need to determine how many years to fund an almost impossible and morbid task. The strategy also requires a large initial capital commitment that most Americans don't have. Forget about it.

Mostly Voices [13:39]

And that seems to be the biggest problem with it since you actually do

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:43]

not know when you're going to die. It's impossible to construct with any accuracy because you're either going to run out of money because you're going to live too long or you're going to end up with money that you're not going to spend, which defeated the purpose of the strategy. strategy because you want it to spend all the money in a given time period. And then that initial capital commitment that most Americans don't have, that just gets at the fact that this is a very inefficient strategy if you're actually trying to maximize your withdrawals and your safe withdrawal rate. Because as I said, if you're doing a 40-year retirement, you're essentially committing to a 2.5% safe withdrawal rate. I'm gonna end up eating a steady diet of government cheese and living in a van down by the river. And that would get worse as you got younger. Now, it wouldn't be so bad if you were a lot older, but in that case, the safe withdrawal rate for many portfolios is going to be a lot more than four or five percent. I really think that it's very important to understand this strategy, though, to compare it to whatever else you are doing. Because I hear a lot of people talking about having their portfolio strategy with all kinds of bells and whistles attached to it and then saying, well, I'm only going to take 2% out of it, just to be sure. Well, if you're only going to take 2% out of your bells and whistles strategy that you've carefully constructed with all kinds of things in it, you might be better off just going with this kind of bond ladder strategy. Because basically you're saying you are so conservative in your beliefs and your ability to invest that you think you are going to underperform the most conservative strategy you could possibly construct, which is this bond ladder strategy. What that's telling you is you probably want to rethink whatever your strategy is, unless your goal is to end up with lots and lots of money at the end of life. But this does give you a good reality check to determine whether in fact what you are planning on doing is rational or irrational, because it is fairly irrational to construct a complicated strategy that pays less than a simple bond ladder. You're pretty much wasting your time. The other observation I'll make about this strategy is that this is often favored by economists. this idea. And why do theoretical economists favor this? The reason they favor this is because they are laboring under a couple of assumptions. One of their assumptions is that the goal is to do consumption smoothing and basically spend about the same or the same amount of money throughout the period of your life. That's why they like bond ladders and annuities. But the other implicit assumption they're making is that you know today what your preferences will be 10, 20, 30 years in the future. And that's where that way of reasoning or thinking about retirement and investing in the future goes off the rails, because that's just not true for almost any person. We're not automatons who can look up at age 45 or 50 or 55 and determine what our preferences will be when we're 75. That's just not very realistic. And so for most people, using something that is so fixed that can't be undone or is difficult to undo, like an annuity or this kind of bond ladder, is not ultimately going to be a good idea because you do want that flexibility as you grow older. So let's move to the next strategy on this. list, which they call the static strategy. It's number two in the article. This one will be very familiar to you. And I'll just read you the first sentence. It says, if clients lack the capital to fund the ALM strategy, which is a certain strategy we just talked about, or can't estimate how long their retirement will last, an alternative approach is to determine a safe, unquote, portfolio withdrawal rate. And then it goes on to talk about the work of Bill Bengen. A couple things you should glean just from that sentence. The strategy which we've been talking about are inefficient in terms of withdrawals because you need to have more capital to engage in a bond ladder strategy or an annuity strategy, particularly if you're younger. I should go back and clarify that that certainty strategy, the bond ladder, also includes anything that is involving asset liability matching over time because that's why you would set up bond ladders to bring out specific assets at specific times for specific expenses. Anyway, going back to the static strategy, the reason this is called a static strategy is because once you set it up, you don't really change anything. And so what is the setup for this? Obviously it's an asset allocation. It's some kind of traditional retirement portfolio that usually has between 40 and 70% in stocks and then bonds and other things to fill it out. Now the original portfolio that Bill Bengen was using was simply the S&P 500 for the stock component and intermediate or 10-year treasury bonds for the Bond component, and he determined that had a 4% safe withdrawal rate. I just heard him on a podcast today, the Money with Katie Show, where he said that if you diversified that portfolio better, he would calculate a 4.8% safe withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement.

Mostly Voices [19:35]

Yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:39]

And based on his work and the work of others and the work that we've done, I believe that's highly likely to be correct.

Mostly Voices [19:45]

That is the straight stuff, O Funk Master.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:50]

But the main reason this is called a static strategy is the third component. Because we know what the asset allocation is, we assume there are rebalancing rules once a year. The reallocation rule is that there are not going to be any reallocations other than the rebalancings. The withdrawal rate is set. by prior historical research or other research. And then the adjustment rate here is the static part. It is set by the CPI that the person using this static strategy statically adjusts their withdrawal by the CPI, regardless of what else is going on in the world and regardless of their actual expenses. They're forced to spend more money every year based on that metric. Now two of the other strategies in this article are very similar to this, so let's talk about those. We can talk about all three of them together. The first one listed here is called the variable strategy, and the difference between this one and the static strategy is that you are actually making your adjustments to the withdrawal rate based on your actual expenses or something having to do specifically with you and your expenses. And the example given is to use the retirement spending smile assumptions wherein your actual inflation rate is less than the CPI. So your adjustments to your withdrawals can be lower. And if that's the case, then you can raise the base rate of your withdrawals, usually by about 0.5 to 0.6%. and that last calculation comes from Morningstar, it doesn't come from this article. The third strategy in this trio is called the dynamic strategy. And in that strategy, instead of looking at your expenses or the CPI to decide what your adjustments are, you're actually looking at the value of the portfolio itself. And the example they gave is you could run a new Monte Carlo simulation each year and then make an adjustment in your withdrawal amount based on that new Monte Carlo simulation. This would also include things like the Geitner Clinger strategy or anything involving a ceiling or floor where you are looking at the actual performance of the portfolio and making an adjustment to your withdrawals based on that. So you can see all three of those strategies are similar. The static strategy, the variable strategy and the dynamic strategy in that they start with a particular portfolio. And we've assumed for this that they have consistent rebalancing rules and no reallocation rules, although you could come up with variations of this that actually vary the holdings of the portfolio, for instance, based on its past performance. And that could be part of a dynamic strategy, if you will. And then they have a base rate for withdrawals, and then they have a adjustment strategy. The interesting things to think about with respect to these are how the allocation, that first component, and the adjustment strategy, the third component, can affect or will affect what that base withdrawal rate is, the second component. Because that's really what we're trying to do here on this podcast in particular, looking at what we can do for that first component, the asset allocation to get a higher base safe withdrawal rate. As a practical matter, that third component can also be used as kind of a buffer. And what I'm saying about that is the most conservative assumption you can make for the purpose of withdrawals is actually Bengen's assumption that static CPI adjustment with these other strategies, you are changing that adjustment, which is going to give you a higher base rate. So if you calculate based on CPI, that actually can be a kind of buffer because you know you're not going to spend that much or hopefully you're not going to overspend or over adjust your personal withdrawal rates. But now let's think about how you might mix or match these five different ideas, which really collapsed more into three different ideas, one being the annuity, one being the bond ladder, and one being a classic portfolio and portfolio management based strategy that you can see that you might want to segment off something to be paid on a bond ladder. For instance, suppose you had a mortgage with 15 years left and it's at a low rate of 2 point something and you realize just looking at today's interest rates on a bond ladder you can get more from that. You could take that amount of money put it in this bond ladder and have it feed or pay off that mortgage and that would be an example of specific matching. The reason those things tend to work better for that is unlike trying to predict the end of your life You can easily predict the end of college expenses or the end of a mortgage payoff or the end of any number of other kinds of expenses and then construct bond ladders to pay those things off. And I'm not saying that because I think it's the most efficient way to do something, but psychologically it can be very attractive. And in terms of managing certain expenses, it can be very attractive. even if it's not the most efficient in terms of getting the most withdrawals out of your accumulated assets. And you can also see how you can augment your base portfolio management strategy with annuities at some point, particularly as you get older and they become more attractive. And if you are in good health, they just become more attractive. And so a lot of recommendations from financial advisors are along those lines that they'll take your base expenses, look at those, look at your social security, and then recommend you plop an annuity on top of that to cover those baseline expenses.

Mostly Voices [26:11]

Because only one thing counts in this life. Get them to sign on the line which is dotted.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:18]

And that's a perfectly acceptable strategy. The one thing you need to recognize about it is that when you are younger, it's going to be much more inefficient and much more risky in terms of the inflation risk than it will be as you age. But that is something you certainly want to look at, particularly after you start taking Social Security and then you're getting into your 70s when you're going to have RMDs anyway, that maybe you can take some of that by a QLAC or something else that will serve double duty of dealing with the RMDs and also providing you this Stable income for life. But to me, those are extra ideas that may be good at some point. I would not make that the basis of your withdrawal strategy. Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Voices [27:11]

But that's because I'm a do it yourself investor. Groovy, baby.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:18]

If you have enough money, and that is the key issue, do you have enough money To take a certainty strategy or an insurance strategy. If you have lots and lots of money and don't mind spending less of it to get the certainty, then you can certainly do that. You will not be maximizing the use of your funds though. And that's the trade off you make. And you won't be angry. I will not be angry. But it's interesting how people do mix and match these sorts of things. Sometimes, and a lot of it does depend on their personalities.

Mostly Voices [27:55]

Secondary latent personality displacement. Oh, great one. Yes, sir.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:02]

For instance, Alan Roth, the financial writer and financial advisor, has decided to take a million dollars of his retirement assets and put them in one of these extended bond ladders. And part of the reason he did that is because his burn rate is so low anyway compared to his accumulated assets, that he's probably going to be able to take more out of that million dollars over time than he would have had he left it in a regular portfolio, because he's very pessimistic about the future. I think the last article I read from him, he seemed almost injured or hurt by the fact that Morningstar had substantially revised its projections of returns in the future and revised them upward. But I do see that as a frequent occurrence for people who are very pessimistic often get a little irked when somebody like that comes out with a more optimistic forecast that then they want to fight about.

Mostly Voices [29:02]

Gentlemen, welcome to Fight Club.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:06]

But that's neither here nor there. You do not talk about Fight Club. Now the real question you've also been waiting for is wondering, well, what is this sixth strategy that they mention in this article. You do not talk about Fight Club. I'll give you three guesses and I think you only need one. It is in fact what is called the bucket strategy. And what do they say about the bucket strategy? Fight will go on as long as they have to. Well, they say this approach Leverages the mental accounting cognitive bias or our tendency to assign subjective values to different pools of money regardless of fungibility, like a Christmas account. Then they say the bucket strategy will not eliminate sequence of return risks. And they also say that by separating the buckets, clients may be less prone to irrational decisions. And what they're talking about there is reallocating a portfolio to a lower risk portfolio in a bear market. In other words, rebalancing in the wrong direction. So they basically kind of poo-poo the whole thing in a nice way, as they should, being it's the CFA Institute.

Mostly Voices [30:25]

Someone yells stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:29]

But I think the real problem is it's actually not a complete strategy. and that it may complicate the other strategies you are actually employing. So how do we know it's not a complete strategy? Well, if you look at those three components from Episode 251, just saying things are in buckets does not tell you what their allocation is going to be. And if you organize your allocation by buckets with no other considerations and then run what a safe withdrawal rate is for that particular portfolio, chances are it's going to be lower Then 4% and maybe even as low as 3%. So it's kind of defeating the purpose of portfolio construction. That's not an improvement. But where it really becomes complicated is when you're talking about those two other subcomponents of your asset allocation, which are your rebalancing strategy and your reallocation strategy. Because depending on how you are pulling from these buckets, you may in fact be reallocating your portfolio as you do that. And it could screw up any rebalancing that you're doing. So you need another layer of rules on top of your bucket strategy to even figure out what your rebalancing and reallocation strategies are. Because just saying, well, do this for two or three or five years does not answer all the questions about, well, what if you're still down after five years? Which is historically something that happens every few decades. Hello. Hello, anybody home? Think McFly, think. So you get to the next component, the baseline withdrawal rate. Having things in buckets really doesn't tell you what that is. That's not how it works.

Mostly Voices [32:17]

That's not how any of this works.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:21]

It may if you run some simulations of that overall portfolio. But in my experience, what people who use bucket strategies actually do is just make that base withdrawal really low. And if it's really low, 3% or less, then it kind of doesn't matter whether you put things in buckets or not. As long as you have 30% inequities in your portfolio, you're probably going to be fine. That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Voices [32:47]

That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:55]

But again, then why bother with the buckets? And then it also does not tell you anything about what your adjustment strategy is. So you can see that to the extent it's a strategy at all, which it really isn't. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. It is just going to be a subcomponent or management technique applied to one of the other strategies. Because as the article says, it's just mental accounting and does not affect the sequence of return risk, which is dictated by the overall contents of the portfolio, not how they are arranged. And you can see how this could get very complicated and incoherent depending on how these strategies are combined or how these ideas are combined. But look at what has been done with hearts and kidneys.

Mostly Voices [33:38]

Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys. I'm talking about the central nervous system. But sir, I am a scientist, not a philosopher. One common idea I hear is, well, I'm going to keep Most of my portfolio just in all these random equities I've accumulated over the years.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:59]

And then I'm going to bolt on some kind of CD ladder in front of that for five years or something like that, which is effectively using a little piece of your portfolio to do a short term bond ladder, combining that strategy with a more standard kind of withdrawal strategy. Now, those portfolios, if you analyze them, typically yield safe withdrawal rates of around 3.5%. But more importantly, it begs the question of, all right, so what are you going to do with this five-year ladder you've constructed? Are you planning on spending the money as it comes off? In what circumstances would you reinvest that money? without establishing all of those rules which go to reallocation and rebalancing, you don't really have a comprehensive strategy.

Mostly Voices [34:53]

Are you stupid or something? Stupid as a stupid does, sir.

Mostly Uncle Frank [34:57]

What you have is a hodgepodge or mishmash of strategies and ideas that unfortunately does not have comprehensive rules for management. And so when you get some kind of strange year like last year, You may be wondering what to do next. And then what that leads to is ad hoc decision making, decision making on the fly, which is a very poor method of managing your retirement portfolio. Disgrace to you, me, and the entire gym state. So this just leads me to my final observation in this, that whatever strategies or combination of strategies or management techniques or mental accounting you're choosing to do, you want to take all of that stuff and then go back to those three components, asset allocation, base rate of withdrawal, adjustment strategies, and make sure that all potential imaginable or conceivable futures are dealt with by whatever the rules you have for that are. Inconceivable. Because you can have something that's very complicated and yet still is not comprehensive in that it's incomplete and doesn't answer all of the questions, as in what if it's the 1970s again? Or what if it's 2008 again? After having a recession six years before that. Because more complications usually do not lead to better outcomes. They either lead to very uncertain outcomes or just very inefficient outcomes where your real decision is to just not spend very much money. If your decision is to not spend very much money, Then you shouldn't be spending lots and lots of time on an a withdrawal strategy in retirement. In fact, you could probably just go buy the Vanguard Wellington Fund, add some kind of cash holding on the front of that, and be completely done with it. And not need any buckets or ladders or pies or anything like that. Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise. But that's probably way more enough on this topic for now again. I will link to the article in the show notes. And given how long we've taken, I really think we only have time for one more email. You can't handle the dogs and cats living together.

Mostly Voices [37:13]

And so, Last Off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:17]

Last Off, we have an email from Chris.

Mostly Mary [37:21]

And Chris writes, Frank and Mary, I've been meaning to do this for a while. No question right now. Just wanted to send support for the value I receive from your podcast. 18 months into retirement and all is well. Keep up the great work, Chris. All right.

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:39]

What Chris is talking about when he said, I've been meaning to do this for a while, is to make a donation to the Father McKenna Center, which is the charity we support with this podcast. And I want to thank you very much for that and for your kind words. The best, Jerry, the best. I'm glad you enjoy the podcast and tolerate my amateur podcast stylings. You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind. But we do like to keep costs down here. And I have to say I get a lot of value out of the listenership that we have, because you always have such great questions and bring such interesting information to my attention. Top drawer, really top drawer. I'm glad we can all share that here. So anyway, besides my undying gratitude, the other benefit you can get by donating to the Father McKenna Center is that your emails do go to the front of the line. So make sure that you mention that in your email if you do send me one so that I can move it to the front of the line. because it's hard to keep track of all the donors sometimes. And there are a couple different ways to donate. You can join our patrons on Patreon, who are on the monthly plan, or you can donate directly. But you can see all of that on our support page. And thank you for your support. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. Sorry I didn't get to some of the other emails today. We do have a couple More very interesting ones coming up. But 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. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to your favorite podcast provider and like, subscribe, give me some stars or review. That would be great. Okay. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off. You are not your job.

Mostly Voices [40:03]

You're not how much money you have in the bank. Not the car you drive. Not the contents of you're the one with the khakis. You were the all singing, all dancing crap of the world.

Mostly Mary [40:26]

The risk parody 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.