Mostly Voices [0:00]

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

Mostly Mary [0:19]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:36]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to Risk Parity Radio. If you have just stumbled in here, you will find that this podcast is kind of like a dive bar of personal finance and do-it-yourself investing. Expect the unexpected. It's a relatively small place. It's just me and Mary in here. And we only have a few mismatched bar stools and some easy chairs. We have no sponsors, we have no guests, and we have no expansion plans.

Mostly Voices [1:10]

I don't think I'd like another job.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:13]

What we do have is a little free library of updated and unconflicted information for do-it-yourself investors.

Mostly Voices [1:25]

Now who's up for a trip to the library tomorrow?

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:29]

So please enjoy our mostly cold beer served in cans and our coffee served in old chipped and cracked mugs along with what our little free library has to offer.

Mostly Voices [1:41]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:44]

But now onward episode 298.

Mostly Voices [1:48]

Today on Risk Parity Radio, it's time for the grand unveiling of money!

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:56]

Which means we will be doing our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page.

Mostly Voices [2:08]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:16]

First off. First off, we have an email from Jeff, our favorite dog trainer.

Mostly Voices [2:37]

And Jeff writes, Dear Frank, Once I

Mostly Mary [2:41]

made the decision to move my portfolio to Fidelity from Empower, I contacted Fidelity directly to talk about the process.

Mostly Voices [3:00]

Since then, I've been working with a well-meaning advisor who understands I'm going to manage it myself, but how could it hurt to get their recommendations? Can't hurt, right? A, B, C, A always B, B, C closing. Well, we had that call this week.

Mostly Mary [3:07]

They recommend a business cycle investment model. They would be looking at opportunities to sell and buy every day, and I'd need to be doing so every week if I were to manage the portfolio myself. Then it came. He asked, Does that sound like something you want to be doing yourself? Always be closing.

Mostly Voices [3:26]

That's when I knew that all the helpful attitude was a sales pitch.

Mostly Mary [3:30]

I answered, Absolutely not, and he thought he had me. I also told him that I'd rather have a portfolio that I don't have to rely on a crystal ball to adjust and manage. Now you can also use the ball to connect to the spirit world. The conversation more or less broke down from there. He told me things like there's no reason to hold gold or commodities in most parts of the business cycle because they don't have decent returns. We can get into them when we're entering that part of the business cycle. I pointed out that their business cycle investing information that he sent me states that the business cycle doesn't always follow the same path and isn't always predictable. I also asked why, if this was so predictable, everybody who implements and manages that strategy isn't rich and retired already. I want you to be nice. I got silence. Until it's time to not be nice. I was respectful, but I was certainly perturbed that the helpful attitude was a sales pitch all along.

Mostly Voices [4:33]

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

Mostly Mary [4:41]

I'm still hammering out the portfolio I'll be moving into. Here's what I'm leaning toward. Total stock, 14%. Large cap growth, 14%. Small cap value, 16%.

Mostly Voices [4:54]

I'm telling you, fellas, you're gonna want that cowbell.

Mostly Mary [4:57]

Long-term Treasuries 25%, gold 16%, REITs 5%, commodities 5%, cash 5%. Obviously, a modified golden ratio. Withdrawal rates 40-year 5.7%, permanent 5.3%. That's just a tad better than the original golden ratio according to portfolio charts. Interestingly, Portfolio Visualizer shows me having a little better results using the original golden ratio with my retirement model I built. Both are around 99%+ chance for success, so I guess it's fine either way. I assume the slight difference between the two sites is due to amounts of data available for the different classes. With this withdrawal rate in mind, I'm going to implement enough in a risk parity portfolio to create, as you say, my fortress of solitude.

Mostly Voices [5:53]

That's your base, get me? That's your fortress of solitude.

Mostly Mary [5:58]

Then I'm considering sticking with more of a growth type portfolio for the rest. Just wanted to relay my experience with the helpful Fidelity guy, but certainly wouldn't mind getting your take on the other conclusions I've come to, all with your help, of course. Thank you so much again for your service to us common folk just trying to retire without being raked over the coals by those who might not have our best interest in mind.

Mostly Voices [6:21]

They're sitting out there waiting to give you their money. Are you gonna take it? Sincerely, Jeff.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:29]

Well, it sounds like you had a typical experience with retail financial services. Am I right or am I right? Am I right? Am I right?

Mostly Voices [6:37]

Am I right?

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:40]

And Fidelity's whole business model is to make it easy for people to set up or move accounts there and then try to sell them services after that.

Mostly Voices [6:48]

A guy don't walk on the lot lest he wants to buy. It's not a bad business model.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:52]

At least they are reasonably nice about it and will leave you alone if you tell them to leave you alone.

Mostly Voices [7:00]

Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys?

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:04]

So considering the no fee trading and the fractional shares and the other customer services they offer, having to deal with a pitch person or two. Needle nose Ned, Ned in the head, come on buddy, case western high. is not too high of a price to deal with. Ned Ryerson, I did the whistling belly button trick at the high school talent show.

Mostly Voices [7:23]

But you are correct that it's all about sales because that's what that

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:27]

person is paid to do in that position. Put that coffee down. Coffee's for closers only. Reminds me that Mary and I have been inundated with free steak dinner offers over the past four to six weeks. I don't know whether that's because the markets have been struggling or for some other reason. We even had one where they were gonna do the presentation on Zoom and they offered to bring the food to your house. Bing!

Mostly Voices [7:59]

I hadn't seen that angle before.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:07]

Watch out for that first step, it's in doozy! The discussion you had with them goes to a fundamental sort of philosophical choice of investing or in investing.

Mostly Voices [8:30]

And that has to do whether you are going to do what is called naive diversification or naive management, which is actually what we do, or resort to crystal balls to actively change allocations in a portfolio based on some factors or inputs coming from the outside world. Now, the crystal ball has been used since ancient times. It's used for scrying, healing, and meditation.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:43]

Now the latter approach always seems so tempting. You can actually feel the energy from your ball by just putting your hands in and out. Because it is true that there are some people in the world that have the skill and abilities to jump in and out and actively manage a portfolio and do very well with it. And it's through the candle that you will see the images into the crystal. But those people are few and far between, and they're probably not working at your local fidelity branch. Ha ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. Because they would be doing something else with a very much larger stack of money to work with if they actually had those skills.

Mostly Voices [9:32]

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:36]

We know this every year from the SPIVA report, which looks at whether fund managers can outperform indexes. The answer every year seems to be about 80% of them cannot do that. The ones that do in any particular year are likely to be below that performance in other years. There are very few people that can do better than Simple indexing by using crystal balls consistently.

Mostly Voices [10:06]

Inconceivable.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:09]

Now, the idea of naive diversification is to come up with a portfolio that has a history of certain characteristics that will never be the best thing in any given year, but will be good enough or better than the crystal ball solutions in most years. Look, it's MacGyver. And so that's what we tried to do here.

Mostly Voices [10:35]

Did you see the memo about this?

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:39]

And another important feature of that is that it minimizes the prospect of user error, just making mistakes and reading your crystal balls or whatever. It's kind of looking at the aura around the ball.

Mostly Voices [10:51]

See the movement of energy around the outside of the ball.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:55]

because what usually causes amateurs to underperform is simply making mistakes in jumping in and out of investments. But by constructing a static portfolio that is subject only to rebalancing rules that are easy to implement, you can really avoid a lot of those kinds of problems while minimizing your potential taxes as well. at least in taxable accounts. Fewer transactions means fewer taxes. Now, if you were actually running a hedge fund where you were paid for your skill in outperforming the markets, then you would be tasked with making adjustments to your allocations in a portfolio or making other moves based on your reading of economic conditions and analysis of investments. particular investments. But fortunately, we don't have to do that.

Mostly Voices [11:50]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:54]

All we need to do is come up with a reasonable portfolio that we can manage that meets our goals. And the goals we generally talk about here are using this as a decumulation or retirement portfolio that we are taking money out of over time. and that problem can basically be solved in just a couple of different ways. The most common way, in fact, is do not spend much money. That is, in fact, the most common approach that is used by people who have done well in their accumulation. And if that is your approach, then you can hold a variety of different kinds of portfolios and strategies, anything from Bond ladders to 30% in stocks to 100% in stocks to living off dividends. You can do just about anything you want if your actual strategy is don't spend money because you will just end up continuing to accumulate until you're dead and you'll die with the most money. Dead is dead. Now, if you have an AUM advisor, they are really going to like and encourage that strategy. Because the more you accumulate, the more they get paid.

Mostly Voices [13:07]

My straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:20]

And then if there's a lot there at the end, they have an option, if you will, to see if they can get the business to continue managing that money after you're dead, so they continue to get paid. based on your preference for not spending your money.

Mostly Voices [13:36]

I drink your milkshake. I drink it up.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:44]

Now, if you do want to spend your money or more of your money and your idea is not to die with your highest net worth, then you do want to do things like construct better portfolios that allow you for higher safe withdrawal rates. I should mention in passing that the GOAT or greatest of all time in spending their money in retirement, Chuck Feeney actually passed away this past week. And it was interesting. He spent about 40 years spending and giving away about $8 billion, finished that process about two years ago, kept enough to live on in his nineties, and passed away two years later. So he effectively died with zero or close to it. A couple of million versus eight billion, but he needs to leave something to his spouse. But I don't think we need to engage in this binary thinking of either dying with zero or dying at our highest net worth. That we should be striving for something well in the middle of that, and it's a big Playing field there between zero and highest net worth, and we ought to be able to achieve a healthy level of spending that will not put us in either of those two extremes. But enough of my carrying on about that. Let's talk about your portfolio. And yes, indeed, this does have the characteristics of what we would call a golden ratio type of portfolio. I think you're correct that the difference in the two outcomes you're getting on portfolio charts versus portfolio visualizer has to do with the variances in the data. And particularly if you're using REITs in portfolio visualizer, that data only goes back to 1994. So sometimes what I'll do there is just swap out the REIT data, put in something like mid-cap blend or something like that as a proxy for that just to get a longer data set to work with. Since you're only talking about a 5% exposure to that in this portfolio anyway, I don't think it's going to make that big of a difference one way or the other. And I do believe you have created a fortress of solitude based on what you've constructed here in the testing you've done. Own your house, have a couple bucks in the bank, don't drink. That's all I have to say to anybody in the social In terms of suggestions, my one suggestion would be that you take a look at the commodities allocation of this and consider whether you'd be better off with a managed futures fund or at least a commodities fund that has some kind of trend following embedded in it, like the fund COM, which we talked about back in episode 99. But that basically goes long when the commodities are going up and then goes to cash when the commodities are going down. But I do think these days a better approach is probably going to be to use one of these newer managed futures funds, whether that's DBMF or KMLM would be my two top choices there. But those are going to give you both the exposure to commodities and a few other things. A great many things. And I think we'll have a higher expected return overall, but we'll still provide you the same kind of diversification benefits you're looking for by allocating to commodities. This is an area we are seeing a lot of development in recently, with better options and cheaper funds.

Mostly Voices [17:25]

That is the straight stuff, O' Funkmaster.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:29]

And as I mentioned at the beginning of the year, we actually will be converting the sample golden ratio portfolio to include some managed futures, but only after it recovers, which still may take some time.

Mostly Voices [17:45]

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:49]

We don't want to sell out of those REITs while they're taking it on the chin, because selling low and buying high is never a good idea.

Mostly Voices [17:57]

You can't handle the crystal ball.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:00]

So I'm glad you're getting a lot out of what we do here, and you've been able to construct your own fortress of solitude without having to resort to any high priced nonsense from the peanut galleries of the world.

Mostly Voices [18:12]

You know, I got friends of mine who live and die by the actuarial tables, and I say, hey, it's all one big crapshoot, anywho. Tell me, have you ever heard of single premium life? because I think that really could be the ticket for you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:27]

Keep us posted as to how things go and thank you for your email.

Mostly Voices [18:31]

I used to be able to name every nut that there was and it used to drive my mother crazy because she used to say, Harlan, Peppa, if you don't stop naming nuts, and the joke was, of course, that we lived in Pine Nut and I think that's what put it in my head at that point. So I'd go to sleep, she'd hear me in the other room and she would just start yelling. I'd say peanut, hazelnut, cashew nut, macadamia nut. That was the one that would send her into a going crazy. She said, you, stop naming nuts.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:12]

Second off. Second off, we have an email from Jordi.

Mostly Mary [19:17]

And, Jordi writes：hi Frank, I know you despise options writing exchange traded funds, but I like them for the income. Are you crazy?

Mostly Voices [19:29]

Or just plain stupid?

Mostly Mary [19:32]

At my age, being able to not sell any shares and pay my bills with their income is the best of both worlds. I know you'll say that in the age of steel, you should sell shares, but I can't cope with the idea of having fewer shares. Jeppe is my ETF pick, but there's a new kid on the block now that intends to not cap the stock upside like Jeppe does. It's the BlackRock Advantage Large Cap Income ETF, B-A-L-I ETF. Do you care to comment on which is best? Or maybe you'll say, what is the less bad option? Thanks, Geordie.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:11]

Well, do I despise options writing exchange traded funds and options writing funds in general?

Mostly Voices [20:20]

You are correct, sir, yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:24]

And I dislike these for several reasons. First, they have a long history of becoming popular in an era decaying over time and then being phased out and replaced by something else later. and this goes back to the 1980s, that was basically buy, write, options funds 1.0, era 2.0 was in the first decade of the 2000s, and now we're in era 3.0. And they are becoming cheaper over time, fortunately. I mean, they used to be several percentage fees on these things. Now they're down in the 0.35 range, I think, for at least Bally, the new one. But their two most undesirable characteristics are they generate a lot of tax bills with all of this income coming out of them, and then the shares decay in value over time.

Mostly Voices [21:17]

You know, at my age, the mind starts playing tricks, so, AHHHHH, DEATH!

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:25]

Which just goes to show you that there's no free lunch. AHHHHH, DEATH! So that although you may not be selling any shares to get your income out, The shares you hold are going to be worth less and less over time is generally the way these things play out. Oh, where were we?

Mostly Voices [21:44]

Dead!

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:48]

And I've never really seen one that lasted a decade without having that characteristic, and I'm very doubtful these will meet that test either. Now comparing these two funds, Jeppian Bally, J-E-P-P-I and B-A-L-L-I, It seems clear to me that Valley was created by BlackRock recently to compete with something like Jeppi that has become very popular, mostly because it's been very highly promoted by JP Morgan. Am I right or am I right or am I right?

Mostly Voices [22:21]

And it's not decayed yet, if you will.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:25]

Coma. Why I go in and out of comas all the, French toast, please. Now, just in terms of a process for looking at these sorts of things or analyzing them, usually what I do first is go to Morningstar with their free screener. You can just put in any fund or stock or something, and it gives you lots and lots of characteristics to look at, including factor exposures, sector exposures, what their main holdings are, so on and so forth. And then you can also go to the fund websites and look at the fact sheets and prospectuses and things like that. And what you'll see if you look at that stuff is that these are both essentially large cap blend funds. So they're in the same category as, say, the S&P 500. JePI looks kind of like an equal weighted fund that none of its components are more than about 2%. I think they're all less than 2% of the overall fund. Bally does have concentrations. 15% of that fund is Microsoft and Apple right now, and it has a stated goal of holding lower volatility assets. I don't know exactly what their formula is for choosing their assets or how much they want to allocate to each one, but that is the major difference between these two funds is that Bally looks like something that's more cap weighted and Jeppy looks like something that's more equally weighted. even though they're holding a lot of the same things. Now, they both employ the strategy of writing options on the S&P 500 index itself, as opposed to writing options on the individual companies that they're holding. And the main idea there is to hold a set of stocks or a basket of stocks with lower volatility than the index, and then you sell the options on the higher volatility index and you're going to get a higher premium on those kind of options because the volatility is higher on the index than it is on the basket of things they're holding. It's very clever, I'll give them that, but I can't say it's any better than past constructions of these kinds of things, particularly since they haven't been around that long. Is it coma painful?

Mostly Voices [24:43]

Oh, heck no! you! relive long lost summers, kiss girls from high school. It's like one of those TV shows where they show a bunch of clips from old episodes. and it does appear they have the same expense ratio of 0.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:58]

35%, which as I mentioned is a vast improvement over what these things used to cost. Not that I would choose to hold either one of them or anything like this in a portfolio, because I really don't want things throwing off lots of income and creating lots of tax bills and other management issues. I would prefer to them to have nice total returns so they can be sold at my leisure and only have to deal with capital gains taxes, which I then may be able to harvest away against a loss and something else. But anyway, I would have a slight preference for J-E-P-I over B-A-L-I. Just looking at what they're holding right now, because I think having a broader dispersion of things is probably a better strategy for this kind of thing as opposed to having a concentration in a few things like Bally appears to have. But which one is going to perform less bad is probably close to a coin flip here. I suppose you could hold both of them if you're so inclined. Anyway, I hope you can wrap your head around the idea that having capital gains and total returns is a better idea than focusing on generating income out of your investments. As attractive as that may sound. Ooh, how convenient. Because I think you'll make better choices if you do that. And if not, best wishes to you anyway. I don't think you're in grave danger of these things going to zero or anything like that. So good luck to you and thank you for your email.

Mostly Voices [26:33]

And in those days, Nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. Give me five peas for a quarter, you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was a style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. Last off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:59]

Last off, we have an email from Eames and

Mostly Mary [27:02]

Eames writes：The links to the correlation matrix and a backtest by asset class for the golden ratio on Portfolio Visualizer are not working on your website.

Mostly Voices [27:16]

Hello! I'm cold and there are wolves after me.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:26]

Well, I checked it out, Eames. And guess what?

Mostly Voices [27:30]

You are correct, sir, yes!

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:37]

And it was odd because it seemed like the links just completely disappeared. They weren't broken, they just weren't there at all anymore. So I did at least fix those two. I do appreciate you pointing these things out because I'm a staff of one here as far as this website is concerned and I really only wanted to create enough of a website to support the podcast. podcast. Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.

Mostly Voices [28:05]

I wouldn't say I've been missing it, Bob, because ultimately

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:09]

this is all for fun and curiosity's sake. And I do not seek to be running a commercial website or podcast with this. Forget about it.

Mostly Voices [28:21]

I'd rather consider myself an amateur in the

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:25]

Victorian sense. Just as Sherlock Holmes was an amateur detective, when amateur meant skilled but unconflicted. But anyway, thank you for pointing that out. I have fixed it. You can check it out now. And thank you for your email. Now we're going to do something extremely fun. Finally, we have an extremely fun week to talk about where things actually went up instead of down. So just looking at what happened in the markets last week, the S&P 500 was up 0.45% for the week. The Nasdaq was down actually a little bit, it was down 0.18% for the week. Small cap value represented by the fund VIoV was down 0.99% for the week. Gold was the big winner last week. I love gold. Gold is up 5.21% for the week. And while it's nice to see that kind of recovery, unfortunately it was for a very sad reason, namely a terrorist attack and a new war. But that is one of the features of gold. Long-term treasury bonds also had a good week. VGLT was up 3.02% for the week. Kind of a minor recovery in what people are terming the worst performance ever for bond markets. At least that was some of the headlines I read recently. REITs represented by the fund R E E T were up 0.86% for the week. Commodities represented by the fund at P D B C were also up. They were up 3.84% for the week. And that is related to the jump in gold as well as other things. Preferred shares represented by the fund P F F were up 0.17% for the week. And the big loser last week was the Managed Futures. I think this is the first week they've been down in about eight. They were down 1.15% as represented by the fund DBMF. Moving to these sample portfolios, first one is this reference portfolio, the All Seasons. It's only 30% in stocks and a total stock market fund, 55% in intermediate and long-term treasury bonds, and 15% in gold and commodities. It was up 2.04% for the week. It's up 1.05% year to date, but down 7.09% since inception in July 2020. Moving to these three kind of bread and butter portfolios. First one's the Golden Butterfly. This one is 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, GLDM. It was up 1.54% for the week. It's up 1.59% year to date and up 8.93% since inception in July 2020. Next one's the golden ratio. This one is 42% in stock funds, three stock funds. It's got 26% in long-term treasury bonds, 16% in gold, 10% in a REIT fund, R-E-E-T, and 6% in a money market fund. It was up 1.74% for the week. It's up 2.18% year to date and up 4.74% since inception in July 2020. Moving to our most complicated portfolio, the Risk Parity Ultimate, which we use as kind of a kitchen sink. I will not go through all 15 of these funds, but it was up 1.44% for the week. It's up 2.41% year to date. but down 3.21% since inception in July 2020. And now moving to these experimental portfolios where we're fiddling around with leveraged funds. Look away, I'm hiding. They're very volatile and often unpleasant. First one is this accelerated permanent portfolio. This one's 27.5% in a levered bond fund TMF 25% in a levered stock fund UPRO 25% in PFF a preferred shares fund and 22.5% in gold GLDM. It was up 3.36% for the week but it's still down 2.62% year to date and down 25.78% since inception in July 2020. It looks like we'll be rebalancing this portfolio on Monday, and I will put those calculations in and talk about them in the next episode. But this one gets rebalanced whenever one of its components moves 7.5% from its starting allocation. And with the horrible performance of bonds recently, that has happened to the Levered Bond Fund, TMF. We look at that on the 15th of every month to see whether it's been triggered or not. But that is all described in the description of the portfolio on the website if you want the details of it. It's an example of rebalancing based on rebalancing bands as opposed to a calendar rebalancing. Now moving to our next one, this is the Aggressive 5050, our most levered and least diversified portfolio. It's 33% in a levered bond fund, TMF 33% in a levered stock fund, Upro and the remaining third divided into PFF, a preferred shares fund, and an intermediate treasury bond fund. Really there is ballast. It's up 3. 06% for the week. It's down 5.02% year to date and down 34.19% since inception in July 2020. But that's what happens when you have something that seems to move about 5% every week on an average week. And the last one, the youngest one is the levered golden ratio. This one's 35% in a composite fund, NTX, that is the S&P 500 and treasury bonds 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 Managed Futures Fund KMLM. It was up 2.35% for the week. It is down 2.6% year to date and down 25.43% since inception in July 2021. It had an even more inauspicious starting date than the others. So it was certainly a turnaround or recovery from what we've been seeing for the past couple months. Whether that will continue is uncertain. We can consult this crystal ball here though.

Mostly Voices [35:23]

A really big one here, which is huge. And see what it says.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:27]

And what does it say?

Mostly Voices [35:31]

We don't know! What do we know? You don't know! I don't know! Nobody knows!

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:35]

Funny our crystal ball always seems to say that. But at least it's honest.

Mostly Voices [35:42]

You can't handle the- Dogs and cats living together.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:45]

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, give me some stars, a review. That would be great. Okay. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off.

Mostly Voices [36:25]

You don't start making more sense, we're gonna have to put you in a home. You already put me in a home. Then we'll put you in the crooked homies on 60 minutes. I'll be good.

Mostly Mary [36:36]

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.