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 [1:35]

Lighten up, Francis. But now, onward, episode 268.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:40]

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 [1:53]

It's time for the grand unveiling of money!

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:57]

But before we get to that, just a couple of things. First, I appeared last week on another podcast, the Securities Analysis Podcast, run by Value Stock Geek. We had a nice two-hour conversation about all kinds of things related to this podcast. My life is good. My life is good. You may want to tune into that for some more background and information. I will link to that in the show notes.

Mostly Voices [2:38]

No one can stop me.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:42]

And before we get to our less than scintillating presentation of portfolio reviews, which I know is always a bit pendantic,

Mostly Voices [2:50]

I'm intrigued by this, how you say, emails.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:57]

And without further ado, first off, we have an email from Jenny.

Mostly Mary [3:13]

Can I turn to? Actually, we have two emails from Jenny, which we'll read together. And Jenny writes, Dear Uncle Frank and Aunt Mary, first off, I too must express my deep gratitude for the education and entertainment you provide through your podcast. I eagerly consume each episode like some sweet treat. While my husband and I have always been discipline savers and investors, I relied on financial nannies until 2018, but no more. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Voices [4:15]

Second off, I'm not as sophisticated as the majority of your listenership.

Mostly Mary [4:20]

The truth is they're morons. As such, I have a more tactical series of questions. However, if you don't think they will be of benefit to the broader audience, feel free to ignore them. And just read the praise above. Now for our financial context. Forgive me, Aunt Mary. Mary, Mary, why you buggin'? My husband and I just celebrated our 21st wedding anniversary. He joined the Navy Reserves the year we were married, but has served four active years, so his military pension will start around when he turns 56. He's 46 now. He also has a state pension that would begin at 62. And as he now has a federal job, we may collect a federal pension too, although I'm counting on that as future icing. We will have our house and a rental property both paid off by the time we pull the trigger on retirement in four to six years. Yeah, baby, yeah! I have calculated our annual retirement budget as a keep the lights on amount, plus a nice to have amount, plus an allowance for taxes. Although I think we'll be able to manage our taxes well, given that roughly 50% of our portfolio is in Roth IRAs and after-tax brokerage accounts from an asset location perspective. Our rental property, after expenses, taxes, and insurance, will contribute 10% of that annual retirement budget figure. The Navy pension, which is COLA, will contribute 30% of that annual figure. The state pension, not COLA, will contribute 20% of that annual figure. So, our portfolio will need to contribute the remaining 40%. But wait, the pensions will start at different times. So I have divided our early retirement into three phases. Phase one is the time until the Navy pension starts. Phase two is the time until the state pension is folded into the mix. Phase three is the time when both pensions are in place. A theoretical phase four will include Social Security, but as my crystal ball is on the fritz, I'm thinking of that more as a hedge against future possible healthcare costs. I would love your thoughts on how I'm planning to meet the needs of our different retirement phases. One, risk parity style portfolio from which we'll draw down 5%, being flexible as needed, providing 40% of our income for all phases. Two, Navy Pension Income Replacement Sum, which will spend down in equal parts during phase one. and three, state pension income replacement sum, which will spend down in equal parts during phases one and two. Creating the sums needed through saving and investing to replace the respective pension income streams, given the relatively short periods of time, results in a much smaller total sum than creating a portfolio large enough to draw down all at 5%. Total FIRE portfolio equals risk parity portfolio plus Phase 1 Navy Pension Replacement Sum, plus Phases 1 and 2 State Pension Replacement Sum, plus Life is Lumpy buffersome. We may both continue working part-time after we officially retire. But, if my thinking and timeline are sound, it would create an opportunity to spend a year traveling with our son before he graduates from high school, or several full summers if that makes more sense. I think we could hit our number based on the aforementioned plan as soon as 2028 when my husband turns 50, but we have some wiggle room to capture extra family travel as our son won't graduate until 2031. Please let the commentary begin. Do you want a chocolate?

Mostly Voices [8:26]

Again, thank you both for all you do.

Mostly Mary [8:29]

Jenny, P.S. I've joined Patreon as a risk parity radio member. The best Jerry, the best. Hi, Uncle Frank. One quick follow-up detail I wanted to share after listening to episode 267 today, where you mentioned that your expenses peaked during your children's high school and college years. Because my husband completed his undergraduate degree prior to joining the Navy and his graduate degree while employed by our local university, woohoo, qualified tuition reduction, he didn't have to tap into his GI Bill money. He's since completed the necessary paperwork to transfer the education benefit to our son. So those funds, plus a little extra pot of money are allocated for those expenses. Just didn't want you to think I left that out from the planning since it's not explicitly stated in the equation below. Also, fun family trivia while I have you. My husband and I were married by my great uncle Frank, who was a Jesuit. I also have an uncle Frank, naturally, and an Aunt Mary.

Mostly Voices [9:33]

Everything that has transpired has nothing to do with my design.

Mostly Mary [9:37]

Okay, I'll stop pestering you now. Warmest regards, Jenny.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:52]

And now Mary will take a breather while we answer these questions.

Mostly Voices [10:00]

Merry Merry I need your hug.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:03]

First, I should note that Jenny has gone to the front of the email line by becoming one of our patrons on Patreon, which you can do through the support page on the website www.riskparityradio.com and all of that money collected goes directly to the Father McKenna Center, the charity for this podcast, which serves Homeless and Hungry People in Washington, DC. And we're buying quite a lot of food now through this mechanism these days, and I thank you all for it. They're not gonna catch us.

Mostly Voices [10:34]

We're on a mission from God.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:38]

But if you join our Merry Little Band, you too can go to the front of the line for your email.

Mostly Voices [10:45]

Just make sure you note it's in the email so that I do not miss it. I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:51]

Now getting to your emails, first off, congratulations on your long marriage, your finances, and your family. All those things look quite good. Just summarizing here, it looks like you say you will reach your PHI number in 2028, which I presume is the 40% you need out of your investments to cover your lifestyle or that will cover the 40% of your lifestyle. That your husband is still working now in a government position, but that will not go on forever. Four to six years, which will probably take us out close to 2028. And then your son is graduating in 2031, so he's probably about nine or ten years old right now. I think the plan that you set out looks like it should work pretty well. And it's not so much dependent on your investments since they're only covering 40% of what you've got there. The difficulty is the sequencing and timing of this. I think you need what's called a Gantt chart.

Mostly Voices [11:55]

Surely you can't be serious. I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:02]

Which is used in construction projects and other large scale projects that need to be sequenced. I wouldn't be surprised if your husband hasn't been exposed to those if he works on large projects for the Navy. But there is a free tool that you can use to help model this. If you go to Portfolio Visualizer from their front page and go down to the lower left hand corner where the Monte Carlo simulations are, there is a financial planning tool. And if you go in there and pick the multi-stage option, with financial planning, it will give you a set of inputs you can do where you are putting in various amounts of money starting or stopping at various times and then having money come out at starting and stopping at various times. And then it will model that whole thing for you so you could easily put in these three sequences to see how that's all going to play. And I will link to that in the show notes. As always, I think this ultimately comes down to what your level of expenses are versus what these streams of income look like. But if they match up well, you should be fine, particularly if this 60% is covering most of your fixed expenses and you're not going to have a mortgage left to pay. And it looks like your educational expenses for your son are largely covered as well. Having a paid off rental property will also give you a nice additional form of a reserve. Because if for whatever reason you anticipated needing a lot of money right away in the future, that could always be sold if necessary in a worst case scenario. Before we get to talking about the portfolio itself, there are a couple of other things I think that you want to think about here. one being whether your expenses are going to increase and depending on what your son's up to, they may very well increase as he gets into high school. And so a couple options there. One, you could actually just save up an extra kind of pool of money to be spent either during that time or shortly thereafter on his education or if it doesn't get spent that way, then you have another vacation or series of vacations to take. after that. Pleasures are unlimited. The other thing that you might consider is whether and when you can stop saving for retirement in terms of putting more money away for retirement. Because that's another way also just to free up cash is to stop the saving for retirement if you think that what you've got there already is going to cover your retirement. And then you can just use that money to spend right away. Okay, it's $500, you have no choice of carrier, the battery can't hold a charge, and the reception isn't very good. Shut up and take my money! Now getting to the portfolio, the advantage you have with having most of your expenses covered by pensions and other income is that you have a lot more flexibility in terms of what you can hold in your portfolio that can go more with your sort of predilections, if you will, or preferences than necessarily maximizing either the safe withdrawal rate or total returns. And the reason that is so is because if your fixed expenses are all covered by these streams of income, then you are free to vary the withdrawals substantially out of your portfolio. But I'm going to assume for the sake of this discussion that you are really interested in having a portfolio that is going to maximize your projected safe withdrawal rate, like the ones we talk about here all the time, these risk parity style portfolios. And within that discussion, I think there are two kind of factors that you probably want to think about or focus upon, at least for the next decade or so. The first one is how aggressive do you want your portfolio to be? in terms of the total stock allocation in it. Now the most conservative you would probably want to go is something that looks like the Golden Butterfly, which is only 40% in stocks. You could go as high as 70%, but somewhere probably between 50 and 60% would be kind of a sweet spot. The other question that I would have for you is how much cash or short-term investments do you want to have around? and those would include short-term bond funds, money market, savings accounts, CDs, all of those sorts of things. And that amount could be anywhere from 5% of the portfolio up to 15 to 20% of the portfolio, particularly in the early years when you think you're going to be spending more money, actually spending the money, or you could just take a portion of this and set it aside in a fund that is basically for higher anticipated family expenses, say from 2028 until 2034. So if you look at a couple of these sample portfolios, like the Golden Ratio only has 6% devoted to that kind of allocation. The Golden Butterfly has much more, has 20%, although it's all in short-term bonds. So some of that is actually in two and three year bonds as opposed to a savings account or a money market. So to maximize your safe withdrawal rate, you probably want to keep that amount at 10% or below. But as I said, there is no real necessity here, I think, to maximize your safe withdrawal rate. So that number could be whatever feels comfortable. I wouldn't certainly wouldn't make it more than 20%. I would think somewhere between 5 and 15% would probably make the most sense. Now, once you determine how much you want in stock allocations and how much you want in short-term or cash kind of allocations, then I think you can fill in the rest. First, as to the stock allocation, I would make sure that has a value tilt to it when you go into retirement. So the simplest formulation of that looks like something like is in the Golden Butterfly portfolio where the stocks are divided half into a total stock market fund and half into a small cap value fund. That is not the only formulation if you have other things you'd like to hold. I would just say that make sure overall that you have half of your stock allocation that is value tilted. And if you want to know what the tilts are of any particular fund, you can go to the Morningstar calculator, go into the portfolio section, and it will give you this nice little nine box graph to show you where it fits on the scale of large and small growth and value. I know they also have a more complicated x-ray tool there if you want to use it, but I don't think you need to do that much with it. There are similar tools over at Portfolio Visualizer, although they're not as user friendly. And then you get to the other allocations in a portfolio like this, which are going to be your treasury bonds, intermediate and long-term treasury bonds. Fortunately, those are all yielding 4% plus these days in the big funds that we talk about most of the time, at least going forward. And that's in addition to their diversification properties, which is why you're really holding them. But you probably want to hold between 15 and 30% of those, and then the rest in your alternatives. The simplest formulation of that would be 10 to 15% in a gold fund. You could also go up to 25% if you added, say, managed futures or some other more esoteric things, which I don't think are absolutely necessary, but could be an option. So I could see you doing some kind of amalgamation of what a golden butterfly or a golden ratio portfolio looks like, say something like 50% in stocks divided into A total stock market fund and a small cap value fund, 10% in cash or cash equivalents, money markets, short-term bonds, savings accounts, 10 to 15% in gold, 20 to 25% in long-term treasury bonds or intermediate and long-term treasury bonds, and then that remaining small percent, you could put it in managed futures, you could put it in another stock fund, put it in a REIT, something like that. and that would get you to a portfolio that has long-term historical characteristics of about a 5% safe withdrawal rate over a 30-year period, assuming a required adjustment every year for CPI-based inflation. But you can also run portfolios, and you should run portfolios in that Monte Carlo simulator in addition to the multi-stage adding or subtracting other income, as I mentioned. In any event, I think you're in really good shape here and you have a very flexible situation here that should work out just fine. But if you have any other questions, feel free to pop them in the queue because I know that a lot of listeners do like to hear more about these kind of scenarios and less about the vagaries of various managed futures funds. You can't handle the banter. Or the predilections of some of our listeners for leveraged portfolios. You can't handle the gambling problem. So hopefully we'll hear from you again and thank you for your email.

Mostly Voices [22:05]

867-5399, 867-5399, 867-5399, 867-5399, 867-5399. Second off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:19]

Second off, we have an email from Chris. Don't go to parties with metal detectors.

Mostly Voices [22:24]

And I'm not sure this, whether this Chris is a patron or not,

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:28]

I kind of half moved him up a little bit. It's still from May this email.

Mostly Voices [22:36]

Sure it feels safe inside, but what about all those waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one.

Mostly Mary [22:48]

But anyway, Chris writes, I've been looking at BTAL recently and noticed a small detail that was missed in episode 114. You mentioned it has an expense ratio of 2.57%, but that figure includes interest and brokerage expenses. Those costs are a part of the strategy and are present in any fund that short stocks. The amount that's being paid to the fund company, the adjusted expense ratio, is 0.45%, which is more reasonable. On the topic of alts, have you considered long dollar funds like USDU as hedges? They have strong negative correlations with stocks and gold. I don't believe long dollar has long-term positive expected return, but it can work as a hedge or a volatility dampener.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:36]

Well, you know what I have to say to you, Chris.

Mostly Voices [23:40]

You are correct, sir. Yes. Yes, I think you're correct about BTAL.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:47]

And just so everybody knows, we did talk about that fund and do a 10 question analysis of it back in episode 114. It's an interesting fund. It's a long short fund, so it goes long value stocks or low beta stocks and then short growth stocks. So it tends to do well when the stock market is doing generally poorly and also does well when value stocks are doing well. So it by itself is an alternative investment, but it also gives a portfolio a little bit more of a value tilt to it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. And I do think when we get to rebalancing in July of most of the sample portfolios we will be inserting BTAL in for the volatility fund that is currently in the Risk Parity Ultimate portfolio. Simply because those value funds just annoy me. There's no good one and this would seem to fulfill at least some of that role and also help with the value tilting of that portfolio. Now moving on to your next question about long dollar funds like USDU and have I considered them? I have actually in my personal portfolio looked at things like UUP and have held UUP at various points in time. The problem I've had with it is it just seems to occupy too much space in a portfolio for what it does. Now some of our listeners, notably our friend Alexei, the dude.

Mostly Voices [25:25]

So that's what you call me, you know, that or his dude-ness or Duder or, you know, Bruce Dickinson, if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:37]

Have solved this problem by looking at levered short funds on other currencies. So if you look at something like EUO or YCS, which are levered funds that are short the Euro and short the Yen against the dollar, those perform pretty much the same functions, but you can hold less of them and get the same kind of BANG for your buck, if you will. And we've talked about this in a few episodes. If you go back to episode 222 in particular, I think we talked about one of the dude's volatility allocations, including those funds. And those seem to be better solutions than the straight long dollar funds.

Mostly Voices [26:16]

Yeah, well, the dude to binds.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:20]

But I could be convinced otherwise. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about it, either way. At some point, maybe collectively we'll come up with the optimal solution to what we would call the volatility allocation to a portfolio that includes things that are long the US dollar and generally do well when the stock market in particular and sometimes the bond market are doing badly. Inconceivable. But that's all a road that we are continuing to go down as we go forward. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Mostly Voices [26:55]

And thank you for your email. Some of the things I've said may not apply to you. Some of the things I've said may offend you. But no matter who you are, you must remember this one thing. Man's got to know his limitations. Last off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:18]

Last off, I have an email from visitor 5622. which I may have actually already answered. It's from April, but it kind of got lost in the pile. And I thought I would put it back up there again just in case I have not answered it because I could not find it in my past episodes.

Mostly Mary [27:42]

But anyway, visitor 5622 writes, hi Frank and Mary. Totally love what both of you do, and I am a huge fan. I was curious. I have heard you often say that the reason you don't love VTI is because of its holdings of small cap growth. Given that opinion, can you explain why you chose to use VTI in a number of your portfolios? Thanks so much.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:07]

Well, yes, you will see VTI in two of our sample portfolios, in particular, the All Seasons portfolio and the Golden Butterfly portfolio. and the reason VTI is in those portfolios is because they are not our portfolios. They are brought in from the outside. And so that is what the constructors of those portfolios put in those portfolios. The All Seasons Portfolio is the brainchild of Tony Robbins interview of Ray Dalio about what a risk parity style portfolio looks like. And then the Golden Butterfly Portfolio is the brainchild of Tyler over at Portfolio Charts. And so since that is what they put in their portfolios, that's what we put in the sample portfolios. Now, I don't think VTI is a bad thing to have in a portfolio though. If you look at how it's constructed, and I would urge you to go to Morningstar and look at the portfolio construction there, because you can see it the most easiest. It is a large cap fund. Most of the stocks in it are large cap, and it is tilted towards growth. These days, it's kind of right on the border between blend and growth on that scale. Although, you'll see over time when the stock market is doing really well, it tends to track further towards growth. And then when the stock market is doing poorly, it tends to track more towards value just because that's what happens in the stock market. It really does not have any significant exposure to small caps. a very small one, and so it's not really worth thinking about as a small cap fund, whether it's small cap growth or small cap value. I think over a quarter of that fund is just in its top 10 holdings, including those companies like Google and Amazon and Microsoft. And even though it's got thousands of holdings, it's really the 66 top ones that dictate almost all of the performance of that fund. So I would really classify it as a large cap growth tilted fund overall and is similar in nature to an S&P 500 fund, which is slightly more tilted towards both large in value or a large cap growth fund like VUG would be a large cap growth fund. VOO would be an S&P 500 fund. Those are all Vanguard ETFs. All three of those are kind of interchangeable in a portfolio that has other things in it. But if you pair something like that with a small cap value fund, you do get a nice distribution over the whole market without actually having to hold the whole market. And that's why for a very simple accumulation portfolio, a good combination is something like a VTI, VOO, or VUG with something like VIoV or AVUV as a small cap value fund to a 5050 combo of those. That is Paul Merriman's current recommendation for a simple 100% accumulation portfolio. And is also something we talked about back in episode 208, which is our Wizard of Oz beginning investor episode. And so hopefully that answers your questions. And thank you for your email. And sorry if I already answered this question, but I couldn't find the answer. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. Now we are going to do something extremely fun. And the extremely fun thing we get to now is our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. I think the recent performance in markets is smashing a lot of pundits' crystal balls who were predicting mayhem and madness for 2023, which has not materialized. But looking at these markets, the S&P 500 was up 2.58% for the week. Nasdaq was up 3.25% for the week. Small-cap value represented by the fund VIoV was up 0.22% for the week. Gold was down. Gold was down 0.32% for the week. Long-term treasury bonds represented by the fund VG L T were up 0.46% for the week. REITs represented by the fund REET were up 0.96% for the week. Commodities represented by the fund PDBC were actually the big winner last week. They were up 3.68% for the week. Preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were down 0.39% for the week and managed futures represented by the fund DBMF were up 1.83% for the week. And as you might expect, this means that all the sample portfolios were also up for the week.

Mostly Voices [33:12]

Who would have thunk it?

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:16]

You're insane, Gold Member! And the conservative ones were up less and the aggressive ones were up more.

Mostly Voices [33:23]

Who would have thunk that too? And that's the way, -huh, -huh, I like it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:28]

Moving to these portfolios, first one is the All Seasons. This one is 30% in a total stock market fund, VTI 55% in intermediate long-term treasury bonds, and then 15% divided into gold and commodities. It was up 1.18% for the week. It is up 6.89% year to date. but down 1.72% since inception in July 2020. Moving now to our three kind of bread and butter portfolios. First one is this golden butterfly. It's 40% in stocks divided into a total stock market fund and a small cap value fund, 40% in bonds divided into long and short term treasuries, and 20% in gold in GLDM. It was up 0.59% for the week. It is up 6.49% year to date and up 14.18% since inception in July 2020. I suppose what's most interesting about this is it fell the least last year, but is up the least this year. So it just shows you that it's a conservative portfolio overall, which has been a good thing to be these past couple years. Groovy, baby! Moving to our next one, the Golden Ratio. This one's 42% in three stock funds. Then it's got 26% in a long-term treasury bond fund, 16% in gold, 10% in a REIT fund, and 6% in a money market. It was up 1.13% for the week. It is up 8.03% year to date and up 10.75% since inception in July 2020. It is catching up now with that Golden Butterfly portfolio, because it's a little more aggressive than that one is. Moving to the next one, our Risk Parity Ultimate. This has 15 funds in it, I won't go through, but it was up 1.55% for the week. It is up 8.62% year to date and up 2.65% since inception in July 2020. Moving to our experimental portfolios with levered funds in them. First one is this accelerated permanent portfolio. It is 27. 5% in a levered treasury bond fund, TMF, 25% in a levered stock fund, UPRO, 25% in PFF of preferred shares fund, and 22.5% in gold. It was up 2.5% for the week. It is up 13.36% year to date, but down 13.6% since inception in July 2020. Moving to our next one, the most levered and least diversified of these portfolios, the aggressive 5050. It's 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 as ballast. It was up 3.31% for the week, it was up 15.19% year to date, but down 20.19% since inception in July 2020. And our last one is the levered golden ratio. This one is 35% in a composite fund, NTSX. That is the S&P 500 and a treasury bond fund combined. It's levered up 1.5 to 1. 25% in a gold fund, GLDM. 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 up 1.37% for the week. It was up 8.34% year to date, but down 17.05% since inception in July 2021. It's a year younger than the other ones and started at the most inauspicious time. And that concludes our portfolio reviews for the week. Boring! But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that email is frank@riskparityradio.com or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio.com and 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, a follow. That would be great. Mmmkay? Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio. Signing off.

Mostly Mary [38:47]

The Risk Parity Radio Show is hosted by Frank Vasquez. The content provided is for entertainment and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Please consult with your own advisors before taking any actions based on any information you have heard here, making sure to take into account your own personal circumstances.