Mostly Voices [0:00]

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

Mostly Mary [0:18]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:37]

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 finest podcast audience available.

Mostly Voices [1:28]

Top drawer, really top drawer.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:32]

Along with a host named after a hot dog.

Mostly Voices [1:35]

Lighten up, Francis.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:38]

But now onward, episode 274. Today on Risk Parity Radio, it's time for our weekly portfolio reviews. Of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page.

Mostly Voices [1:59]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:04]

First off, I have an email from Spencer. Splendid. And Spencer writes, Good morning, Frank.

Mostly Mary [2:15]

I stumbled upon this hybrid financial independence calculator after listening to a Michael Kitces podcast where he emphasized how much earning at least some money reduces the dollar amount necessary to pull the financial independence trigger. It's pretty remarkable. Have you ever seen or evaluated this calculator before? I'm curious to know, A, if it's accurate, and B, how utilizing a risk parity style portfolio would impact its results. Respectfully submitted, Spencer S. Managing attorney at the Igor, Gregor, and Timor law firm. You are splined it. You are splined it. You.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:51]

Well, Spencer, I may have looked at that calculator before. I know I've certainly looked at calculators like it. Kind of reminds me of C-FIRE-SIM or one of those. And it does have some interesting features to play with. But I would say I have two issues with it. One is an issue that pertains to all of these types of calculators that I'll talk to you about in a minute. and then the second one has to do with just the general use or misuse of these kinds of calculators that I often see amateurs doing. For the first issue, what you're looking at here is a calculator with a very limited data set. And you know you're dealing with a calculator with a very limited data set when your options are simply something like percentage of stocks, percentage of bonds, percentage of cash. That might have been good enough in, say, 2010 when these calculators first started coming up. That is really not good enough to do a serious analysis of your portfolio, of your future, of anything anymore. It's just not up to snuff. Forget about it. You need to have a calculator with much more data, with data sets that allow you to model different kinds of portfolios with different factor allocations to stocks in particular, different bonds and different bond durations in particular, and other kinds of assets. So you really need to get to something like Portfolio Visualizer before you can do a serious analysis of anything. This type of thing is something that you would use either as a toy or as something to confirm analysis that you've done somewhere else. I am in favor of using multiple calculators that once you get a good analysis, say from a place like Portfolio Visualizer with extended data sets, and then try that same thing out at these different kinds of places, that's a good idea and hopefully it'll just confirm what you already know. And if it doesn't, then it makes you wonder whether your modeling or the data set that you were using to start with was too limited. Say it was a fund that only lasted for 10 years. That would not be a useful basis for a long-term calculation. And to put that more in terms of what we do here in terms of our three principles, this kind of calculator can get you to the macro allocation principle, whether you're just looking at stocks versus bonds, although it doesn't have any alternatives in it. But it's not going to get you to the holy grail principle, where you are looking at the correlations and the diversification within asset classes, which is also important for portfolio construction. Now let's get to my issues with these calculators in general and the overall use or misuse of them. One of the biggest problems with calculators like this and most of the calculators out there is they try to mix and match predictable things with unpredictable things. And what I mean by that is for something that is relatively predictable, like your expenses or what you're going to get for Social Security or on some pension that you can look up, you can get pretty precise details by inputting those inputs. However, for things that are not predictable, which would include the returns of a portfolio, Things like inflation, those are not very well modeled if you're trying to get to something that is very precise, because what you really want to model there is a range of outcomes. So that's why you would do a Monte Carlo simulation, so you get this whole range of outcomes, because that is dealing with the reality of these things not being that all that predictable. So what I find that is more useful is to separate out these two things. For instance, if you're looking at your overall situation, you would first look at your current expenses, then try to project that in the future by taking off things you're not going to be paying for, making some estimate of what you're adding on later, and then you are going to be subtracting or adding other sources of income or expenses. hopefully it's income. And those things can be put into one basket because you can come to realistically firm numbers as to what those are or put in different numbers if you want to make a range out of those. And that's a very simplistic calculation because you're just adding up things. But then separately and apart from that, to the extent you are having a certain amount of expenses covered by a portfolio, that should be a separate calculation that relies on a Monte Carlo simulation or something similar to that to get you this range of outcomes. And that's why you would want to keep that thing separate. If you mangle and mungle all these things together, what you get is something that is going to be precise but is going to be precisely wrong. That's not an improvement. And typically it'll be precisely wrong based on whether you were trying to use conservative inputs or aggressive inputs. Because if you're using inputs into a system that compounds or relies on compounding to do its calculations, putting in conservative or aggressive inputs puts you way off the scale in terms of reality. It gets you results that are meaningless because what you really need to start with is the most accurate or most realistic or average predictions that you can come up with and then look at the range of outcomes. That's the way to do this. Most people do it the wrong way. They take some, I think the stock market is going to yield 6% over the next 40 years and shove that in there with some estimate of inflation that's probably wrong as well. And you have a garbage in, garbage out kind of thing. And a lot of people do a lot of calculations like that. Forget about it. That is also why you are better off if you have sufficient data to use historical data. And the reason you're better off using historical data both in terms of the returns and estimates of inflation, for example, is that it eliminates personal bias. So you're not allowed to take out your crystal ball. My name's Sonia.

Mostly Voices [9:33]

I'm going to be showing you the crystal ball and how to use it or how I use it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:40]

and put things in there like PE ratios or whatever and come up with these so-called predictions or projections based on your crystal ball. Now, the crystal ball has been used since ancient times. It's used for scrying, healing, and meditation. So it takes the personal bias out of things. The other thing is it matches up performance to economic environments. So, for example, you would never predict that commodities are going to do poorly in an environment with high inflation. That doesn't make any sense, nor does it make any sense to say that treasury bonds will do poorly when there is a recession or a depression. That doesn't make any sense either. That historically has never occurred.

Mostly Voices [10:27]

Now you can also use the ball to connect to the spirit world.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:31]

But if you use historical data in particular the real returns, which already subtract off the inflation for that period, then you are going to have much more realistic estimates to use as opposed to randomized predictions that you might come up with from some crystal ball.

Mostly Voices [10:49]

You can actually feel the energy from your ball by just putting your hands in and out.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:56]

A good example of how this can kind of go off the rails when you're trying to use a crystal ball is if you compare what Morningstar was predicting for returns in its report in 2021 versus its report in 2022 on the state of withdrawals. And they are completely different. The 2021 estimates are very low. The 2022 estimates are high but closer to averages. And in a world that makes sense, your estimates of future returns over a long period of time should not vary that much year to year. That is an indication that the model of prediction they are using, the crystal ball they are using, is too focused on current returns because you shouldn't have that kind of variation. And if you are going to use crystal ball inputs for returns, you at least also need to put in a standard deviation for a variation of those returns over time. Because another error that I see people commonly make is applying some kind of rate on an annual basis to a portfolio investment. And that makes no sense at all because you almost never get average returns out of a stock and bond portfolio. You get things that are all over the map. Now, what I'm saying here is not unique to financial markets or financial calculators. This is also just a general observation of any kind of complex adaptive system that does not follow the rules of normal distributions. So where do I come out on this?

Mostly Voices [12:35]

Some of the things I've said may not apply to you. Some of the things I've said may offend you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:42]

I would say, as just sort of some general principles for using financial calculators, first, rely on the calculators the most that have the best data sets, the biggest data sets, the most data. The best, Jerry, the best.

Mostly Mary [12:57]

And to the extent you're using calculators with limited data sets,

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:01]

use those as ancillaries or to retest what you've learned from the calculator with the better data set. My second suggestion would be to use multiple calculators because typically some will have very broad data sets that don't go back very far and then other ones will have Data sets that are not very broad, but go back 100 years or something. My third point would be to use the most unbiased estimates you can find and avoid using crystal balls that try to predict the future.

Mostly Voices [13:32]

A really big one here, which is huge.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:36]

Because as our friend, Aswath Damodaran, the guru of all things valuation says, you cannot use those metrics to predict future outcomes. The correlations just aren't high enough. So make your inputs boring and average, not special based on whatever you believe.

Mostly Voices [13:56]

Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:00]

And then my fourth suggestion and recommendation is to separate out what are fixed, predictable numbers that you can put into something like this. like expenses, like what your Social Security payment or pension are going to be, like what rents are you getting on the properties you already own, those sorts of things. Put those in one category or one calculation and then separate out things that are not predictable or have low predictability, like portfolio outcomes, like when you are going to die, because for those sorts of things you should be looking at a range of outcomes in a separate calculation from the ones that are relatively predictable. And I suppose my final observation would be that if you do not understand the mechanics of how the calculation is done within the calculator, then you really don't understand whether it's useful or not. And most people do not understand how these calculators work. They use them as black boxes and fling things in them. Stupid is as stupid does, sir. So just be wary and do go back and recalculate periodically based on where you are now. Because as your situation changes, the outcomes of these things are also going to change. And if you're in retirement, that may give you a big clue as to whether you need to cut back on expenses or make some other kind of adjustment. Or if you were before retirement, it'll give you an idea of whether you are actually close to having enough money or not. or have oversaved. So sorry to turn that whole thing into a bit of a rant.

Mostly Voices [15:38]

Always be closing.

Mostly Uncle Frank [15:41]

But I think it's a interesting topic that bears a lot of discussion because people rely too much on these things without understanding how they actually work. And thank you for your email. Do you know Igor?

Mostly Voices [15:57]

Okay, I don't know. Who are these people that I'm supposed to know? Igor From Prosper, Timor, from Kukor. What am I in the Colombo episode all of a sudden? I 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 all the time. They say splendid, they say splendid. Who doesn't say splendid in their life? I never say splendid. Never in my life. Nobody else says splendid. People say splendid at least twice a day. it is fact. Second off, we have an email from Russell. And Russell writes, hi, Frank.

Mostly Mary [16:38]

I have a question for you about something you don't talk much about in the show, sequence of returns risk. I'm about to reach my financial independence number, and I'm spending lots of time using the Portfolio Visualizers Monte Carlo simulator. However, Every time I think I'm there, I activate the option to simulate the sequence of returns risk, that one where you can pick the first X years of retirement that would be the worst in terms of market return, and the results are so worrisome that I just keep working a year more. Will I need to work for 10 more years to compensate for the worst 10 years that could happen? Is that the only safe answer? Keep in mind, I'm a very, very risk-averse investor and a 50% stock 30% Treasuries, 20% Gold Portfolio in my late 30s. I wonder what you have to say about the tool and the sequence of returns risk in general. Thanks, Russell.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:36]

Well, Russell, this is a good follow-up to the discussion we just had about calculators because it shows how easy it is to misuse them in such a way to get you ridiculous results.

Mostly Voices [17:48]

You can't handle the crystal ball.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:52]

And one thing that's interesting about that Portfolio Visualizer Monte Carlo simulator is yes, you can take the worst results for any number of years and pretend that those occurred first. Now, while you could say that that's a possibility to say that that is a useful thing to use as a model would be falling into the cognitive bias of what is known as the possibility effect. That possibility and probability are not the same. You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension.

Mostly Voices [18:23]

A dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:31]

Now to illustrate this, I think the easiest way is to go look at the heat map over at Portfolio Visualizer. And I went ahead and put a portfolio like yours in there that was 25% total stock market, 25% small cap value, 15% long-term treasuries, 15% intermediate treasuries, and 20% gold. And since 1970, you never have seen multiple bad years in a row like the ones you're modeling. And that, I can tell you, is also true going back 100 years. So in particular for risk parity portfolios, it is not realistic to be assuming that you're going to have sequence of returns of the very worst outcomes for the past 50 or 100 years, all occurring in a three-year time span or even a two-year time span. Now, you will have problems like that if you do not have a very diversified portfolio. For instance, if you're using a simple 60/40 that is total stock market and intermediate treasury bonds, that could have a drawdown sequence of up to 10 years or more, but you're not using that.

Mostly Voices [19:42]

Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:46]

So to me, this is just an example of how easy it is to misuse these calculators and get results that are not making any sense unless you're talking about nuclear wars or zombie apocalypses or something like that. Real wrath of God type stuff.

Mostly Voices [20:02]

In which case, I don't think you're going to be worried much about your portfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:05]

Rivers and seas boiling.

Mostly Voices [20:09]

40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:12]

So the basic answer is yes, you are just being unrealistically conservative in terms of your projections here. I think it also would be useful for you to go listen to the interview of Tyler from Portfolio Charts that the Value Stock Geek did on his podcast, the Security Analysis Podcast. I'll link to that in the show notes. What's interesting about those two people is they both have these kind of portfolios. Tyler holds what he calls the Golem Butterfly, which we know about. Value Stock Geek holds what he calls the Weird Portfolio, which is also a risk parity style portfolio. They are both still accumulators. Well, I'm not sure Tyler is anymore, but they have held this kind of portfolio, a conservative portfolio, through their accumulation Simply because they are conservative and they didn't want to deal with the kinds of volatility that you would have out of these sequence of return risk possibilities that you're talking about. But I think what you'll learn from that is they do not have any issues with thinking that you're going to have worse than ever what they are holding and worrying about the future precisely because they're holding one of these kind of portfolios that is not likely to have lengthy sequence of return risk problems. But this is one of the fundamental reasons why you would want to hold a risk parity style portfolio, because its sequence of return risk is a lot lower than your standard ordinary stock bond portfolios. It just is.

Mostly Voices [21:42]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:46]

Now I think the other thing you need to think about is the big picture or putting your finances into the context of the rest of your life and evaluating probabilities that way. Surely you can't be serious. I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. Because the truth is, you don't know how long you're going to live and you don't know what's going to kill you, and it's probably going to be some random disease or event. So a lot of what is involved in living a good life, a successful life, whatever you want to call it, is what is known as regret avoidance. And people have studied this and they are the top five regrets of dying. I'll read them to you. I'll link to a little article in the show notes from the book by a woman named Bronnie Ware. And the five most common regrets that people have is I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me. I wish I hadn't worked so hard. I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends. I wish I had let myself be happier. I'll teach you to be happy. I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Do you want a chocolate? What you'll notice not on this list is I wish I would have saved a whole lot more money than I needed. and I wish I would have worked extra days, hours, and years to achieve this saving more money than I needed. So when we fixate too much on finances and being oversaved, we end up increasing the probability that we are going to be experiencing these other regrets when we finally do get to death, because we spent too much time on that activity and not enough time on the things that are actually more valuable.

Mostly Voices [23:44]

It's a trap! Now it's sure I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want, or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do. And I tend to look at this probabilistically, that the more time I spend accumulating wealth is the less time I have for these other things.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:07]

And the more probable it is that I'm going to regret what I spent my time doing. So this is another antidote for a myopic fixation on finances and being worried about finances is to pull back, look at the big picture, recognize that your life is limited, that you have certain things you want to do and if you don't know what they are, it's time to start making lists of those things. I'm not taking the hobbits to Isengard. What did you say? And then you need to ask yourself, well, what's it gonna cost for me to do these things? And that's really how much money you need to have. But I do realize it's hard to think about this kind of stuff in your 30s, 'cause you're very young and the end of life seems very far away, and it probably is. But I can tell you, if you're not thinking about them now, you will think about them later. And the older you get, the more likely you're going to think of them in terms of I wish I would have, as opposed to, okay, what do I need to do to avoid wishing I would have? Could I come home and think that I've been fishing all day or something? And if you're analytical, I suppose the other thing to look at would be the list of cognitive biases. I'll link to that in the show notes from Kahneman and Tversky. But you are falling prey to a number of them, including narrative fallacies, possibility effects, and things like that. And for some people, just knowing that and thinking about it some more can be helpful.

Mostly Voices [25:45]

And I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo, okay?

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:48]

Now that probably wasn't the answer you were expecting, at least the second half of it. But hopefully it was useful and thank you for your email. Last off we have an email from My Contact Info.

Mostly Voices [26:19]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:23]

And my contact info writes.

Mostly Mary [26:27]

Frank and Mary, thank you for your explanation of ergodicity. You would be an awesome professor. I recall that you have referenced Aswath Damodaran. I find his work very compelling. Below are his thoughts from a recent article on the link between AI and market efficiency. I thought you might find this interesting given the fundamental importance of one's view on market efficiency in relation to investment philosophy. From the below article, for those who are active investors, individuals as well as institutions, I believe that AI will make a difficult game delivering excess returns or alpha from investing, even more so. Any edge you have as an active investor will be more quickly replicated in an AI world, and to the extent that AI tools will be accessible and available to every investor, By itself, AI will not be a sustainable edge for any active investor. Thank you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:23]

Well, I'm glad you liked my presentation on ergodicity. It was back in episode 270, if anybody's looking for it.

Mostly Voices [27:30]

Boring.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:34]

It is funny, Mary and I actually are professors in our spare time, although not professors of finance. We teach trial practice at Georgetown Law School, off and on. I've been doing that for about 25 years now. That's a little more fun to teach than ergodicity, I can tell you that. Bow to your sensei.

Mostly Voices [27:56]

Bow to your sensei.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:59]

But I did read this article that you referenced from Aswath Damodaran. It was kind of a deep dive into chip makers, the history of them, and how Nvidia fits into all of that, which I found was interesting but kind of mind-numbing in a way. But I will tell you that if you are going to invest in individual stocks and companies, that is exactly the kind of analysis you need to be doing. Because it's not enough just to be reading a few press releases and information. You need to understand what kind of industry this company is in. how that has functioned, and then how this company functions within that industry, which is way too much work for most of us. I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. Certainly too much work for people like me, but I do respect it when I see people do it, because that is the way you decide whether to invest in an individual company or not. If you're not doing that, you're doing it wrong. I just sort of space out for about an hour. And I do agree with this statement that you quoted, which simply gets at the idea that market efficiency is driven by multiple players or people having the same information or the same tools. Because once everybody has the same information and the same tools, they are going to compete to an efficient outcome in any kind of market. And as a corollary, if you want to beat the market, you need to have some kind of an edge, either in terms of information or in terms of tools. We have the tools, we have the talent. Artificial intelligence will tend to level out that playing field for more people and make it even more difficult for individuals to succeed in a marketplace where everybody has the same information and the same tools. So it should make active investing more difficult. On the other hand, my personal observation in playing around with these AI tools, Bard and ChatGPT, is that they are actually not that well informed and that I think is because of what they are fed. And if you think about it, most of the information that they are likely fed if it just comes off the internet and it's dealing with things like personal finance is actually marketing material.

Mostly Voices [30:31]

Am I right or am I right or am I right? And most marketing material is fairly superficial.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:39]

Do you have life insurance? Because if you do, you could always use a little more. So the kinds of answers you get from ChatGPT and barred about personal finance are fairly superficial and they almost always invariable end with you should go hire an advisor to help you with this.

Mostly Voices [30:58]

Always be closing. I don't think that's an accident.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:02]

I think it's because these things are being fed marketing materials and that may ultimately limit some of their usefulness for anything that's important in life. Because the inherent problem with all marketing materials is that their purpose is not necessarily to inform, but to convince you to take some kind of action or buy something. Because only one thing counts in this life. Get them to sign on the line which is dotted. So at least artificial intelligence as we know it today is more about giving popular answers to these kinds of questions than it is about giving the best answer for your situation. I'm sure that'll get better over time, but I think a lot of it is also going to be dependent on who is writing up the query and how they are presenting it.

Mostly Voices [31:56]

A guy don't walk on the lot lest he wants to buy. They're sitting out there waiting to give you their money or you're gonna take it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:07]

It's all a brave new world out there and we shall see. And thank you for your email.

Mostly Voices [32:11]

Bing again! And now for something completely different.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:18]

And the something completely different is our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. It was a bad week. The worst week since March, I'm told, but not terribly disastrous. Anyway, looking at the markets last week, the S&P 500 was down 1.16% for the week, the NASDAQ was down 0.92% for the week, small cap value represented by the fund VIoV was down 1.17% for the week, gold was a winner last week, gold was up 0.18%, Long-term treasury bonds were the worst performer last week. Our representative fund, VG L T was down 3.54% for the week, which is probably the worst performance of the year, I would think. REITs were up last week. Our representative fund, R E E T was up 0.22% for the week. Commodities were actually the big winner last week. Our representative fund, P D B C was up 1.4% for the week. Preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were down 1. 13% for the week and our managed futures representative fund DBMF was down 0.54% for the week. Moving to these portfolios, as you can imagine they were all down based on just that. First one is this All Seasons reference portfolio. It's only 30% in stocks and a total stock market fund, 55% in treasury bonds and intermediate and long term and the remaining 15% in gold and commodities. It was down 1.61% for the week. It's up 5.11% year to date, but down 3.36% since inception in July 2020. Moving to these 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 treasury bonds divided into long and short. and 20% in gold. It was down 0.96% for the week. It is up 5.42% year to date and up 13.03% since inception in July 2020. Moving to the next one, the Golden Ratio. This performed similarly last week. This one's 42% in stocks divided into three funds, 26% in long-term treasuries, 16% in gold, 10% in a REIT fund. and 6% in a money market fund. It was down 0.95% for the week. It is up 6.79% year to date and up 9.47% since inception in July 2020. Next one is the Risk Parity Ultimate. This one's 15 funds. I won't go through all of them. It was down 1.3% for the week. It's up 7.49% still year to date. and up 1.59% since inception in July 2020. And now we move to these experimental portfolios involving leveraged funds. We do hideous experiments here, so you don't have to. First one is the Accelerated Permanent Portfolio. This one is 27.5% in a leveraged bond fund, TMF. 25% in a leveraged stock fund, UPRO. 25% in a preferred shares fund, PFF, and 22.5% in gold, GLDM. It was down 3.78% for the week, still up 9.63% year to date, but down 16.44% since inception in July 2020. Next one is the aggressive 5050, our least diversified and most levered sample portfolio. This one's 33% in a levered stock fund, UPRO, 33% in a levered bond fund, TMF, the remaining third divided into preferred shares and intermediate treasury bonds. it was down 4.72% for the week. The big loser still up 10.76% year to date but down 23.27% since inception in July 2020. That's what all that leverage will do to you. And the last one is our levered golden ratio portfolio. This one is 35% in a composite levered fund NTSX that's the S&P 500 and Treasury bonds, 25% in a gold fund, GLDM, 15% in a REIT, O, 10% each in a small cap fund, TNA, and a bond fund, TMF. So both levered. And the remaining 5% in a volatility fund and in a Bitcoin fund. It was down 1.56% for the week. It was up 6.4% year to date, but down 18.54% since inception in July. 2021, a year younger than the rest of them. And there's really not much more to say about those today or this week. We will be rebalancing four of them later this month, and won't that be fun?

Mostly Voices [37:19]

It does sound like fun. I can't wait to start poohing through my garbage like some starving raccoon.

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:26]

But in the meantime, 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, 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. Mkay. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off. Hello boys and girls. This is a song about being happy. That's right.

Mostly Voices [38:15]

It's the Happy Happy Joy Joy song. But you didn't believe it. Why didn't you believe me? Ha happy da happy happy da Happy da Ha happy da. da happy da.

Mostly Mary [38:44]

be happy I I happy The risk securityity radio show is hosted a by elect economicronicals A con provided is for entertainment and information of 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.