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 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. Lighten up, Francis. But now onward, episode 291. Today on Risk Parity Radio, we're just gonna do what we do best here. We're mutants.

Mostly Voices [1:47]

There's something wrong with us. Something very, very wrong with us. Just answer your emails.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:54]

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

Mostly Voices [1:58]

email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:02]

And first off, first off, an email from Graham.

Mostly Mary [2:09]

And Graham writes, Dear Uncle Frank, John Williamson of Optimized Portfolio Fame posted a two fund portfolio that I think deserves some attention. 60% AVGE and 40% RSBT. Using the return stacking principles, this comes out to a 60/40 stocks bonds portfolio with 40% managed futures stacked on top. Not only that, but by using the Avantis Fund, we incorporate some small and value tilt. You're going to want that cowbell. as well as some international exposure for those who like that kind of thing. I know, these funds haven't been through an entire economic cycle, so do you award me no points? Do I have a gambling problem? And may God have mercy on your soul. And I know you like to work with individual ingredients, but the simplicity factor of this two fund portfolio could be appealing to many. Is the rebalancing that naturally occurs within these ETFs good enough? As always, please send my regards to Mary. Sincerely, Graham. Well, first off, Graham is going to the front of the line here because he made a generous donation to the Father McKenna Center, our sponsored charity. Yes!

Mostly Voices [3:31]

He did it the old-fashioned way, which is directly, and sent

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:35]

me a screenshot of the receipt. But I also received an email from the Woman in charge of the fundraising department there, or I should say the woman who is the fundraising department there since we only have one person involved in fundraising at this small organization. Anyway, she sent me an email about your donation and was very excited about it. She sees a reference to Risk Parity Radio in there and she's like, whoa, risk parity money, manna from heaven. Yeah, baby, yeah. And she was very happy and I am very happy. And we thank you very much for your support.

Mostly Voices [4:13]

It's time for the grand unveiling of money.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:17]

For those of you interested in going to the front of the line, I should also mention at this juncture that we are in our fundraising season for the Father McKenna Center and have our main event, the Walk for McKenna, occurring on September 30th. This is in Washington, DC, if you are interested, and I will link to that in the show notes. And if you're interested in going to the front of the line like Graham, you can just give directly or give through Patreon on our support page. In any event, it's very much appreciated. Now, getting to your email. I think that's an interesting construction of those two funds. Just so people know, AVGE is a new fund from Avantis And it's a composite fund. It's a fund of funds that incorporates many of their general offerings, both on the domestic and international side, and some real estate and some value and small cap value. I could have used a little more cowbell. It ends up playing kind of like a large cap blended fund with a value tilt to it. But you would compare something like that to a fund like VT, which is Vanguard's worldwide. fund. RSBT, which is the 40%, is a new fund from Corey Hoffstein's outfit, and that is a fund that combines managed futures and bonds together. It now has a sister fund, RSST, which combines stocks and managed futures that we talked about in the last episode. So yes, I think that's an interesting construction, although there's no real way to back tested at this point, other than creating a bunch of proxies. Now, as for what I think of it, I do think it's too simple by half in a way, because while the simplicity principle is important, it should not override other considerations. And here, you want a few more funds or a couple more funds to ensure that you can do some rebalancing in an optimal way. There is a good way to do that with these Avantis funds though because there is another fund that is a fund to fund called AVGV that is all value. If you're feeling particularly feverish.

Mostly Voices [6:45]

Guess what? I got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:53]

So what you could do is create a portfolio that for the stock portion combines AVGE and AVGV, and I don't think it would be exactly a 50/50 split, but that would give you an opportunity to rebalance those two things against each other. But that is also why I really prefer to have all my growth in one set of funds and all my value in a different set of funds, because they work better for rebalancing purposes that way. the other thing I think you'd want to have in this portfolio you're constructing is some allocation to short-term bonds or cash. And I know there's probably some embedded in RSBT, but again, you can't use it or rebalance it when it's inside the fund like that. So you would probably want a allocation to short-term bonds, money market CDs, whatever that's fine. 5 to 10% of this portfolio. But this is all very interesting. I do think that this is kind of the wave of the future as we get more and better constructed ETFs for truly diversified investing. We are going to be able to vastly improve on the old style two and three fund portfolios by using these sorts of things. Which ones will be the best combination? I cannot say at this point in time because all of these things are Too new as you've observed. Forget about it. But I do think within a decade we will have a better concept of which ones of these and which combinations are going to be the best.

Mostly Voices [8:31]

The best, Jerry, the best.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:36]

I will link to a couple of pages from Optimized Portfolio about AVGE and AVGV. And he's got some little videos there that you can check out. This may also be something I would kick over to my friend Justin at Risk Parity Chronicles for some more detailed reviews and discussions in blog form. Seems like a fertile area given what's coming out here. So we're all looking forward to further developments here and thank you for your email. Second off, we have an email from Hydromod. And this is probably the longest email I've received so far, which puts Mary beyond buggin.

Mostly Voices [9:25]

Mary, Mary, why you buggin?

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:29]

In fact, I believe she may be counting to three.

Mostly Voices [9:33]

I've spoken my piece and counted to three. She counted to three. She counted to three.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:41]

But Hydro Mod writes, Frank, I've been listening to your podcast for

Mostly Mary [9:47]

a while, and I thought I'd share a somewhat different but maybe related approach that you might find interesting. I recognize that it may be out of bounds for your audience. You can't handle the gambling problem. I have an extensive engineering background with lots of computational programming experience.

Mostly Voices [10:09]

You know, like num-chuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills.

Mostly Mary [10:13]

Which opens certain approaches to me that are straightforward mathematically, but complex to most DIY investors. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. I started really getting into DIY levered portfolio construction in 2019, as I was intrigued by a thread on the Bogleheads forum called Hedge Fundies Excellent Adventure. related to a risk parity strategy using 3x leveraged ETFs. Hedge Funde's original approach was a 4060 UPRO TMF portfolio rebalanced quarterly. After further analysis, Hedge Funde switched to a 5545 UPRO TMF portfolio. This has become famous in certain circles as HF EA. I've used the HF EA portfolio as a leaping off point for further exploration, partially with tools such as Portfolio Visualizer and Portfolio Charts, and partially with a lot of custom code. Some of these explorations are documented in two Bogleheads threads, Refinements to Hedge Fundy's Excellent Approach and Hydro Modes OK Adventure：Leverage, Momentum, and Risk Management. I've been testing approaches with the small part of my portfolio that has access to LETFs, and I will say that 2020 and 2022 were breathless rides that inspired me to dig further and start including assets other than equities and bonds. The second of the links describes the resulting portfolio approaches that I have settled on, with minor tweaks as I learn more. I have implemented this strategy in two portfolios, a taxable account and a Roth account. The taxable account seeks to reduce turnover and taxable events, while the Roth account is not limited in this way. Combined, these are only a small part of my portfolio, but I would be comfortable with converting a substantial fraction of my portfolio to the approach once I have the option of transferring funds from my primary retirement accounts. Yes, Kat, now I should be ruler of the world. To me, risk parity portfolio construction essentially uses historical data on volatilities, correlations, and perhaps returns to determine an asset allocation, which is then held for some period of time. In standard approaches, the allocations are based on long-term estimates and are held for long periods of time. In this buy-and-hold approach, the moving risk for each asset changes over time based on recent market behavior. In my portfolio construction approach, the principle is to try to maintain a steady partitioning of risk among the assets, allowing the asset allocations to vary over time based on recent market behavior. The transient adjustment seems to be increasingly important as the level of leverage increases. The approach seeks to take advantage of two market aspects that appear to have some statistical predictability. one volatility and two momentum. Historically, volatility clusters so that near future volatility is correlated to recent past volatility. Momentum also appears to be somewhat predictable in the sense that the overall performance of the recent top performing part of the market tends to continue performing better than the recent worst performing part of the market, although it would be a mistake to try individual assets are poorly predicted. I use these tendencies to nudge the portfolio in two ways：1. Reducing allocations to high volatility assets, and 2. Including the high performers and dropping the worst performers. In general, I track around two dozen assets, mostly three times LETFs, but usually I'm invested in roughly half of them at a time. I think of a levered portfolio as having two major classes：1, the risk class, and 2, the ballast class. The risk class consists of equities and things like cryptocurrency. The ballast class consists of things like bonds, managed futures, currencies, and commodities. In my taxable portfolio, I use TMF, TYD, KMLM, PDBC, and YCS for ballast. In the other, I use TMF, TYD, and TYO. an inverse three times intermediate Treasury fund. With the levered portfolio, performance is primarily from the risk class returns and rebalancing of volatile assets, while any performance boost from the ballast returns is gravy. I set the risk budget for the risk class of the budget at four times larger than the risk budget for the ballast class to balance equity returns against portfolio stability. At the heart of the approach is a risk budget minimum variance model that seeks to minimize the portfolio variance given a set of assets, their recent correlation structure, and the fraction of the risk budget assigned to each asset. This naturally gives a bias to lower allocations to assets with higher volatility. For example, in the HFEA model, the UPRO allocation may average 55%, but range from 20 to 80% of the portfolio, working out to an average S&P 500 allocation of 165%, but ranging between 60 and 240%, depending on market volatility over complete business cycles. In backtesting, this approach tends to cut average portfolio volatility considerably and somewhat boost CAGR by leveraging down during periods of turmoil and leveraging up during trending markets. The momentum part of the algorithm is intended to winnow out around half of the assets, and it is less dependent on luck and thresholds when there are a reasonable number of assets. Normally, assets tend to be persistently included or excluded for extended periods, but sometimes they drop in or out for short periods. This part of the algorithm seems like peering into a crystal ball when looking at individual assets, Crystal Ball can help you. It can guide you. But remember that the overall equity and ballast allocations are set according to the risk budget targets, so the overall portfolio balance between the risk and ballast class allocations doesn't change that much, even though the mix of assets may change considerably. In general, all assets would be included in the portfolio, but some may have very small allocations. For practical purposes, assets are pruned until all remaining assets have at least 2% allocations. Very low volatility assets tend to hog allocations constructed based on minimizing variance. So low volatility ballast assets are only allowed into the portfolio when they are doing relatively well compared to the other assets, i.e. most assets are crashing. In my taxable portfolio, I recalculate the asset weights and rebalance at the end of each month. In my Roth portfolio, I recalculate the asset weights and rebalance weekly. I will also rebalance if there is a significant market move to try to harvest fluctuations. Buy low, sell high. Buy low, sell high. Fear, that's the other guy's problem. I can backtest simple versions of these approaches to the 1980s and more complex versions to the 1990s or mid 2000s. These approaches backtest to have CAGR in excess of 20% and Sharpe ratios approaching 1, including the 2000 and 2008 crashes, with maximum drawdowns on the order of 40% to 50%, often after a spike. It is difficult to backtest extensively before the 1980s or 1990s, but all indications suggest that the HF-EA portfolio would have a great deal of difficulty in the 1960s and 1970s, because of the poor bond performance. I was concerned about all of that historical information since hearing about HF EA. The recent bond crash combined with that historical information motivated the ballast diversification and inclusion of TYO as an asset option. One can only approximately backtest with Portfolio Visualizer or Portfolio Charts. I am not recommending the linked test. It just gives a hint of the approach. I personally find this approach to be aligned with my lack of faith in predicting the future market movements. Predicting the past is hard enough and market winners for extended periods of time. It tends to be aligned with better performers while reducing portfolio volatility, both with some realistic statistical edge. At the end of an interval, the average allocations over the interval usually would have been reasonable in hindsight. The approach tends to do better in a trending market and tends to go defensive otherwise. I will be entirely surprised if the approaches do as well in the next decade as they would have over the last four decades because I don't anticipate a trending market and I don't expect the boost from long-term bonds that has been experienced since the 1980s. Limited testing suggests that tax bites from reallocation and rebalancing in a taxable account may be on the order of a few percent a year on average. I will say that these strategies tend to produce very conservative unlevered portfolios. To tie it back to the DIY investor, the risk budget approach can be used with an Excel spreadsheet when only a few assets are included, e.g. LETF assets for components in the golden butterfly. In this case, I would neglect the momentum aspect and focus on something like a risk budget inverse volatility approach.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:39]

Well, now it seems like we have a lot to talk about here, although I will try to be reasonably brief. First, we first discussed this hedge fundy's excellent adventure portfolio. That's H F E A. in episodes 82, 110, and 116. And this is actually a very similar construction to the sample portfolio that we call the aggressive 50/50, although with even more leverage in it than that one. The drawbacks that I always saw with that portfolio were simply that it was only stocks and bonds and did not have any other diversifying assets in it. And so I believe I said at that time that if we approached a period like the 1970s, it would probably not do so well. And in fact, it had a very rough 2022. But I think it's clear you've also picked up on that and have worked to develop a much more diversified portfolio using many other asset classes. Now, as for the adjustments you're making to the allocations in the portfolio, based on volatility and momentum. That does take me back to episode 288 where we were talking about the Michael Kitces paper, which is the general description of risk parity and how hedge funds have used it. And that is in fact what hedge funds often try to do with this kind of portfolio. They set up a very diversified portfolio, but then incorporate management techniques to adjust the allocations over time. And what can we say about that? Well, we can say it's very difficult to do, and if you can do it and be more successful than dealing with a static allocation, my hats are off to you. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. I know David Stein over at Money for the Rest of Us and his little club or group there also try to do such things, although not specifically with a risk parity. Style portfolio. But that kind of timing is just inherently difficult. And for our perspective, it does kind of violate the simplicity principle because the idea that most retirees would be able to manage such a thing is probably not tenable for most people. Not going to do it.

Mostly Voices [23:05]

Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:09]

And the other question you always have in the back of your mind with any kind of management. technique is, is it sustainable? Do we have enough long-term data to suggest that whatever methodology we're using is the correct one, or does it need to change depending on what is going on in the macro universe? These are questions that nobody really has a complete answer to, but it is exactly what hedge funds try to do with these kind of portfolios. in addition to adjusting leverage besides changing the allocation to the portfolio. I think we do need to heed what Corey Hoffstein says as sort of his 15 ideas or principles, one of which is that naive diversification, the sort of thing we do set up a portfolio and then just rebalance it, tends to outperform these other kinds of strategies. Unless you're really, really good at them. And that would be consistent with what we observe in general passive portfolios versus managed portfolios, that passive portfolios tend to outperform managed ones, or 80% of managed ones, I should say. And so only a very small proportion of managed funds outperform the passive approaches. Now the fact that you are using an algorithmic approach to making these adjustments, I think, gives you a better chance of beating a passive construction because you're not relying on your own judgment every time you have to do something. And I will be interested to see how this all plays out over time. I am providing all the links that you provided in the show notes to the Bogleheads forum and the other link so that people can check this out for themselves. It's very lengthy in detail, I can tell you that.

Mostly Voices [25:03]

Everyone should do as Simon says.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:07]

It works. There is a good resource I suggest that you read, which would be the books by Aunty Ilmanen, who is the head of research or holds some title like that over at AQR. We talked about him and some of his work in episodes 209 and 241. But that is from somebody who is performing at the highest level professionally in terms of asset management and who talks a lot about alternative investments in addition to the basic stocks and bonds that most people hold. So I commend you for all your efforts here and for sharing it with us.

Mostly Voices [25:48]

No one can stop me.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:52]

And I'll just let everyone else check it out for themselves. And thank you for your email. As painful as it was for Mary to read the whole thing.

Mostly Voices [26:04]

Mary, Mary, I need your huggin'. We can thank Mary too. Put your hands in the air and give me all your money.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:13]

Last off. Last off, we have an email from Katie. Katie? Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie. Where you going? Hound on it. We just got here.

Mostly Voices [26:27]

No, Boone, you just got here. I've been downstairs for an hour entertaining some kid from Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas. And Katie writes. Hi, Frank.

Mostly Mary [26:38]

I have a question that is partially related to asset allocation. I'm almost fire, and buying a house will set back my plans many years. My partner really wants to buy a house, even at the crazy high current interest rates. Saves me from myself. You're insane, Gold Member. Is it stupid buying a house now and refinancing later? Is it stupid postponing my dream many years to fulfill my partner's dream now? Sweet dreams are made of this. Our asset allocation would be almost half tied to a single asset, and that worries me too. Sorry if this question might be a little too personal, but money is something you can't talk about with anyone in our society. It is still a taboo, unfortunately. Thanks, Katie.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:30]

Well, now you've given me a chance to play Ramit Sethi here. Getting into the couples discussion of their finances. I don't know if you listen to his podcast, but it's very informative and interesting in many ways. There's a lot of information I don't have here including relative incomes, who's putting what into this property or not, and overall goals, although it seems like your partner's goal is a house and yours is Not really or not yet. But let me just throw out some guidelines and ideas that may or may not be useful. First, let's just assume for the moment that you do agree that you both want to buy a house. Then the question becomes, well, how much house should we buy? Now how much would you pay? There are a couple of rules of thumb I kind of like to use. One is you should try to buy half of the house that the bank says you can afford. Why? Because then you know it's not going to be sucking up a big portion of your income. The other rule of thumb there actually does come from Ramit Sethi and you can look up his stuff but he comes to a rule of thumb that basically says you want to keep your fixed expenses between about 50 and 60% of your overall income. That includes not only the cost of shelter, but your food and other necessities. I should say that all of these rules of thumb are often more dictated by where you live than being able to follow the rule of thumb, because you may not be able to follow the rule of thumb at all in a high cost living area, and you may be buying way too much house in a low cost living area because the housing prices are so disparate. in the United States. Now here is the next rule of thumb that my friend Diana Merriam likes to quote early and often. And this is something I came up with by observing surveys of Americans as to how much they were worth and in what form was their wealth held. And what you learn by looking at those surveys is that most middle class Americans have half or more than half of their wealth tied up in the equity of their houses, cars are frequently a large portion of their net worth, and then they have relatively little in investments and other assets that are liquid. If you contrast that to most wealthy Americans, what does their wealth distribution look like? What it generally looks like is they only have between 10 and 20% of their net worth tied up in the equity of their residence. And a little bit in cars and other things like that, but the vast bulk of it is either in liquid investments or in some kind of a business. And so what that observation led me to conclude is that it's a good rule of thumb to try to keep the equity in your house as to less than 20% of your entire net worth and hopefully less than that because it's illiquid and your real estate may increase in value substantially in a short period of time, but it could also languish for a long period of time. And that's been our experience in owning real estate. It will do nothing for years on end and then all of a sudden double in a few years time. And the reason you should make that a goal is to avoid being in the predicament that many middle class Americans find themselves in. which is they have so much of their net worth tied up in their house when it's time to retire or do anything, they end up having to refinance or move or sell the property just to get the value out of it. And they really don't have enough growing assets to flexibly enter retirement when they want to. They end up being what's called house poor in a couple different ways. and the ways to avoid that predicament is to not spend too much on your house and then not spend all of your money paying down your mortgage instead of investing, especially if it's at a low rate. Considering what mortgage rates are now though, it may make some sense to pay it down a little bit more, but it all depends on what else you have in terms of liquid assets. ideally your liquid assets are worth four times as much as your home equity. So if you were looking for a rule of thumb, how much should I use to invest versus pay down my mortgage? You would say $4 invested, $1 extra goes to the paying down the mortgage. Okay, those are all the rules of thumb and the potential problems, so on and so forth, etc. Now, there is though a way to kind of fix this situation or hack this situation if you prefer, and it is called house hacking. The best book to read about this is called Set for Life by Scott Trench, and I have all my children read this because this is a very good strategy for a single person to apply who doesn't have a family or children to worry about, but it's also very applicable and useful for a couple who doesn't have any children. It becomes a lot messier when you start having children. What have children ever done for me? But the idea here is that you buy a house, you live in part of it, you rent out another part of it. Oh, behave. Yeah. It could be rooms, we could be talking about a duplex. There are many different ways of doing that. Now, the reason this works so well is you kind of end up with the best of both worlds from being the homeowner perspective and being the landlord. Because if you are a first time home buyer, you can often get loans with an extremely low down payment. which would be advantageous in your situation to avoid tying too much of your assets up in the home equity. So you can get into a house with something like between a 3% and 5% down payment often if you use one of those programs. You cannot do that if you're buying a rental property. They're going to make you put down 20% on something like that. But once you've got it, then you can turn it around and take advantage of rental property rules for the part of it that you are renting out, which gives you lots of deductions and depreciation and other tax advantages that can really help you. So this is actually what our eldest son has been doing the past few years. And we'll just call that one Squidward for the purpose of this discussion. I hate all of you. He graduated from college, got a job. Here's how things work.

Mostly Voices [34:52]

I order the food, you cook the food, then the customer gets the food. We do that for 40 years and then we die.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:00]

Live with three other people for a year or two to save up some money. They were all renting one house together. Another day, another migraine. Then once he had his down payment, he bought a house. And then he and his current roommates all moved into that house and they were paying him rent instead of paying their old landlord. rent. And so out of that situation, he was actually cash flow positive at the end of the month every month because he was collecting more in rent than he was paying down on the mortgage. Now that of course was when mortgage rates were a lot lower than they are now. Now he did that for a few years, saved up some more money, And then this past summer bought another house, a second house. He's moved into that house with his girlfriend, but they still have a renter in their basement who's covering part of that mortgage. And then in the meantime, rented out the entire house, the old one, to somebody else. So he's still cash flow positive there. Don't say anything, Squidward. Remember your karma. Now, if you are able to do something like that, that may give you kind of the best of both worlds here. Because even if the entire mortgage isn't covered, if you can cover a good chunk of it and also use a very low down payment, then you will not be sacrificing or tying up too much of your net worth in this house. The other questions I would have for you there is are you sure you want to remain in this location for a substantial length of time? Because if you're not going to be there for between five and ten years, I wouldn't buy a house.

Mostly Voices [36:43]

Forget about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:46]

The transaction costs on real estate are substantial. And so if you are buying and selling houses every few years, you're going to be burning up or losing any capital gains you get on them. But that's more of a lifestyle decision than anything else, whether you plan to stay put or not.

Mostly Voices [37:05]

Why is it whenever I'm having fun, it's wrong?

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:08]

As I said before, it also matters where you are buying. Our second son, and we'll just call that one Patrick for the purpose of this discussion. Hmm, I sense no danger here.

Mostly Voices [37:25]

How could they be dangerous? They're covered with free cheese! All I know is Mr. Krab said Patrick, don't do that!

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:32]

Lives in Greensboro, North Carolina, which is a low-cost living area.

Mostly Voices [37:37]

What kind of place is this?

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:41]

And he just bought a house this summer too. But now that house is relatively inexpensive. It's only about twice his annual salary, or what his annual salary will be next year. Or maybe a little more than that, but it's close enough.

Mostly Voices [38:03]

So even if he does not house hack his house, which I am recommending, For doing absolutely nothing longer than anyone else. Patrick, this trophy's for you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [38:15]

He'll be okay with that, and it will not suck up too much of his net worth or his cash flow. But he also has the advantage of having an employer that will help him sell the house at market rates if they require him to move to another location because it's a worldwide company. So those are my thoughts and my story, and I'm sticking with it, even though I could go on and on.

Mostly Voices [38:44]

You may be an open book, SpongeBob, but I'm a bit more complicated than that. The inner machinations of my mind are an enigma.

Mostly Uncle Frank [38:53]

But if you have any further questions, Please feel free to follow up at your leisure. No more flying solo. And hopefully you and your partner can come to an arrangement that suits you both.

Mostly Voices [39:08]

I wombo, you wombo, he she me wombo. Wombo, wombo, womboing.

Mostly Uncle Frank [39:16]

I wonder if a fall from this height would be enough to kill me. Hopefully that helps and thank you for your email. 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, 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, follow, give me some stars, a review. That would be great. M'kay? Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio. Signing off.

Mostly Voices [40:03]

Can you take hats in a dignified and sophisticated manner? You mean like a weenie? Okay, may I take your hat sir? May I take your hat sir? May I-- All right, I've heard enough. You've got the job. Too bad that didn't kill me. No, Squidward, I meant good for your soul. Oh, please. I have no soul.

Mostly Mary [40:31]

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.