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.

Mostly Voices [0:52]

Expect the unexpected.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:56]

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 [1:14]

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

Mostly Voices [1:23]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:27]

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 [1:51]

But now onward, episode 316.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:56]

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. And yes, I have been absent on that score for three weeks now. But we will be getting back to that. And we'll also talk about our monthly distributions for February. Boring. But before we get to that, I'm intrigued by this. How you say? Emails. And today we have three emails from one listener, a very enthusiastic listener named Matthew. And I thought I would just put them all together since they all came within two days. And so here we go. First off.

Mostly Voices [2:50]

First off, we have an email from Matthew.

Mostly Mary [2:53]

Surely you can't be serious. I am serious. And don't call me Shirley. And Matthew writes, Uncle Frank, I don't understand inflation, but I think you might be able to explain it to me. Now how do you know he has one? Five bucks says he does, 10 says it's a doozy. I get the superficial part where the price of stuff in the store increases over time. Decades ago, the price of a car, house, loaf of bread, ounce of gold, gallon of gas, etc. were a lot lower than they are today. The usual line of thinking is that a dollar is worth less than it used to be and often drifts off into conspiracy theories about monetary policy. This is a conspiracy.

Mostly Voices [3:37]

That's what this is. One big conspiracy. And everyone's in on it.

Mostly Mary [3:46]

My first fundamental issue is that often both the price of the item and the item itself are changing over time. This is most evident with computers and electronics, where a computer today is far better than a computer 25 years ago. The price of a computer increases, but the price per floating point operation per second is far lower. The extent to which the price increased because a dollar is worth less versus a computer now being better is difficult to determine and ultimately a subjective value judgment. The rate of change for computers is an outlier, but this effect is present for practically everything except basic commodities. Cars today are far better. Same for housing, which is bigger, has better lighting, appliances, HVAC, etc. Colleges used to look like military barracks and now look like resorts. Your mom goes to college. My second issue also affects commodities. A bushel of wheat and an ounce of gold hasn't changed over the past 100 years. However, we are producing a lot more wheat and gold. One would expect the price to increase through simple supply and demand curves. A final issue is technology that affects the cost of production.

Mostly Voices [5:05]

Yes, I love technology, but not as much as you, you see. But I still love technology. Farmlands are hugely more productive. Same for automobile manufacturing and lots of other businesses.

Mostly Mary [5:21]

Prices should be falling because of this. Putting these together, long-term inflation numbers seem pretty meaningless. Short-term changes like we just experienced are significant. Hyperinflation is one of the most destructive economic environments. However, long-term inflation rates could be argued anywhere between about plus 5 and minus 5%. Also, long-term what matters is opportunity cost of not having significant capital reasonably invested, not inflation. Thanks, Aunt Mary, for reading this.

Mostly Voices [5:56]

Mary Mary, why you buggin'?

Mostly Mary [6:00]

I'm a long-time listener and really enjoy your show and insights. I appreciate the barbell approach with cheesy sound bites and deep philosophical arguments.

Mostly Voices [6:09]

Let's face it, you can't talk 'em out of anything.

Mostly Mary [6:12]

P.S. I like the Cowbell and Goldmember quotes. I nominate there's always money in the banana stand from Arrested Development when talking about cash.

Mostly Voices [6:24]

And so Michael, his son and his brother, together enjoyed the cathartic burning of the banana stand. There was money in that banana stand.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:32]

Well, Matthew, you're not alone because I don't think anybody completely understands inflation, or at least at such a level that they could predict that a certain event or action will lead to a certain type or level of inflation, because the economy is what is called a complex adaptive system, which means that an input one day may result in nothing, and then if the same thing happens five years later, all of a sudden that results in some kind of big economic event. The best analogy for it is the sandpile analogy, or rice pile sometimes is what people say. The idea is if you were to pile up grain by grain, either sand or rice, you're going to get some kind of big pile. And as you keep dropping the sand or rice grains, eventually there's going to be avalanches in the pile. But there's no way of really predicting which grain of sand or rice is going to cause the avalanche, which gives you this kind of inherent level of uncertainty. And most important things in the natural world are like that, including the weather, earthquakes, financial markets, and all sorts of other things. And inflation is like that as well. Okay, your first observation relates to how certain things like computers, for example, get better over time. And what that is, is an observation that capitalism and advancing technology are inherently deflationary, that the whole goal in a capitalist system is to make better products that cost less and thereby make profits from them. All of that activity is ultimately deflationary. The economist Joseph Schumpeter famously said that what capitalism is, is a process of creative destruction, meaning that old, more inefficient technologies and ways of doing things are replaced by more efficient technologies that produce more goods and services for less cost. So that is always a deflationary force moving through capitalist economies. But that phenomenon also makes inflation notoriously difficult to measure because you're not even necessarily talking about the same product from one decade to another. And so people that do things like measure the CPI are always trying to think about substitution and think about improved technologies and all sorts of other things. It's really an impossible task unless you had the exact same products to deal with from one period to another. But you can get a little more insight if you talk about something like commodities like a bushel of wheat, because a bushel of wheat stays pretty much the same over time. It's not completely true because there are agricultural technologies and there are better ways and better seeds for growing more wheat. And with respect to something like gold, gold doesn't typically disappear the way wheat tends to disappear because people aren't eating it. But in both circumstances, there is a cost of production. There is some kind of demand in the world. Typically, if there's more people in the world, there's more demand for whatever product you're talking about, especially if it's food. But then you also have an issue with whatever is the unit of account that you're measuring in. And that's usually a currency. So, the characteristics of the currency and the monetary system you're in also affect this measurement, which leads you to the most simple definition of inflation, which is too much money chasing too few goods and services. And for many decades, it was thought that it was only the money supply that mattered. And when Milton Friedman was doing his great work, that's how it seemed to be. We've come to learn over the past, I say, 40 years or so, that it's not just the amount of money in the system, but also what is called the velocity of money that matters. And the velocity of money is how many transactions or turnovers you have with a given unit of currency. How fast is the money moving through the system, if you will. So, even if you have more money in a system, if it's not moving as fast or not moving at all, you're not going to have inflation. In fact, you could have deflation if it stops moving and people just hoard it. That makes things extremely complicated. Now, our system is set up to have a steady rate of inflation. The system is set up in the United States with the Federal Reserve and all that. They try to have a steady rate of inflation that's low. Around 2% is what they're talking about now, but it's always been let's have a rate of inflation, but let's have it be low. The reason they want to have some rate of inflation is historical, because you go back to the 19th century in particular, what you found was when you had a currency that was a hard currency based on a gold standard, if you will, There were repeated bouts of deflation where money was being hoarded, culminating in the Great Depression. And these bouts of deflation were more catastrophic than having some normal level of inflation. And so that's why people that run central banks are always trying to get a level of inflation that is slightly positive, because historically that was kind of the Goldilocks place to be for economies. And if you go below zero, then you have a whole series of other problems and civil unrest, really. You would really want to study the period between 1873 when the United States went back on a gold standard to the crisis in 1907 to really get a handle on what the monetary system looked like then and why that led to the United States adopting a central bank like other countries had already done. It's a conspiracy, man! Now you also mentioned hyperinflation, and that is one of those scare words that is thrown around a lot by people that don't understand what they're talking about or trying to sell you something. So beware of how that word is being used.

Mostly Voices [13:31]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:36]

as a technical definition, it typically means 50% inflation in a month, 50% inflation in a month over a period of years. So we're talking about thousands of percent over years. We have not experienced anything like that since the Civil War, really. The inflation experience in the United States in the late 1970s was not hyperinflation in particular. And if somebody telling you that it is an indication they really don't know what they're talking about. You can't handle the dogs and cats living together. When does hyperinflation typically occur? It typically occurs when a country owes debt, but not in their own currency. They owe debt in the currency of another country. But they don't want to raise taxes or raise the money to pay it. So what they do is just print more of their own currency, and that tends to lead to hyperinflation. This is why there's never really been a bout of hyperinflation in the world's reserve currency, whatever that happens to be, simply because if all of your debts are owed only in your own currency, you're probably not going to have hyperinflation. So if you look at the prime examples, Weimar Republic and Austria and Hungary after World War One, They owed tremendous debts to other countries in gold or other countries' currencies. They tried to solve it just by printing more money. They ended up with hyperinflation. Same thing for Zimbabwe, more recently, same thing for Argentina over the past decades, and other Latin American countries. Some of the people we met in Peru were telling us about this and how Peru's economy was a complete mess back in the 1980s. in addition to the terrorists that were running around, and that life had gotten a lot better in the past 20 or 30 years. But anyway, what I've told you about this topic in the past few minutes is just the tip of the iceberg of this topic. But I think to get a good understanding of it, what you actually need to read are economic histories, not polemics or things that people throw around today about what they think is going to happen in the future, but what has actually happened in the past. A couple of good books to read would be one is called When Money Dies. It was written in the 1970s, but is about the hyperinflation in Weimar Germany in the early 1920s and goes through it on a kind of like a month by month basis as to what happened. It's a fascinating history really. Another book about that time period that is useful to read to understand What central banks were trying to do and why they struggled with the gold standard then is called Lords of Finance. And it is about the central bankers from the various countries, particularly the United States, France, and the United Kingdom after World War I and how they tried to manage that situation and did not really manage it that well and we all ended up in the Great Depression. We are lords of chaos.

Mostly Voices [16:51]

You guys suck.

Mostly Uncle Frank [16:58]

Another general economic history that's entertaining to read is called 50 Years in Wall Street, which was published in 1907, which is about the period after the Civil War in the United States all the way to the early 1900s and the booms and busts that occurred throughout that period. Because there would basically be a catastrophic recession just about every decade then, if not more often when you'd have deflationary environments. And that was what all the screaming was about with the cross of gold speech given by William Jennings Bryan in 1896, the idea of free silver, that silver would also be used as money to essentially get more money into the system. This was an endless political topic of debate at that time, just like it is today. Except people today don't seem to remember what had happened in the past and how we got here. That was a shot, a puff of smoke. We ran like the dickens. And that's how we got here. Wow. More recent books include the Price of Time by Edward Chancellor, which was written in the past couple years and is all about the history of interest rates. and also this Time Is Different by Reinhart and Rogoff, which is about 800 years of history about central banks and currencies and economic crises in various countries. Anyway, go read those and then we'll talk. You're that smart. Let me put it this way.

Mostly Voices [18:33]

Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Yes. Morons.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:41]

Really? I do appreciate your curiosity because I am also a curiosity driven individual who just likes to know things just to know them for no practical purpose or reason.

Mostly Voices [18:59]

It cuts. What?

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:09]

It's actually quite a good trait to have because it means you are never bored as long as there is a library available and even when there's not a library available.

Mostly Voices [19:20]

I'd love to go to the library with you. It's a date.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:24]

Anyway, that's enough on your first email.

Mostly Voices [19:29]

There's $250,000 lining the walls of the banana stand.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:32]

Moving to the next one. Second off. Second off, we have an email from Matthew. How about that?

Mostly Mary [19:40]

Looks like I took the wrong route to quit drinking. And Matthew writes, Uncle Frank, I would appreciate your thoughts on yet another aggressive accumulation portfolio construction. 70% VIoV and 30% UPRO. I tried to keep three and a half of your principles in mind. Tough to beat two ETFs on that metric. Macro allocation, it's all stocks in keeping with aggressive accumulation. Holy grail, it's split between funds with relatively low correlations within the confines of equities. And the extra half point, it's levered 1.6 to 1, which you have mentioned a few times as being optimal given the usual caveats about leverage and gambling problems.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:28]

Thanks again for the great show, Matt. Well, you know what I have to say about these leveraged portfolios. You have a gambling problem. I did have another listener who has been riding a large portfolio of UPRO since about 2011. And I hope they took some chips off the table and stopped playing once they had reached their goal with that. I still think the jury is out with all of these sorts of things. So if you're going to experiment with them, don't bet the farm on them. This is something that you would want to stick in a small Roth account, since if you're going to get lots of growth, you want it to be in an account that you don't have to pay any taxes on. When I ran this thing through Portfolio Visualizer, it did have a scorching return of over 18% annually since 2009, but it also did have a 44% drawdown at one point. So if you're going to do something like that, I hope either you're very young and can deal with the roller coaster ride, or this is just not a big part of your overall plans or portfolio. Two of my adult children have been experimenting with such things on a very small scale, fortunately.

Mostly Voices [21:51]

I've given her an all she's got, Captain. If I push it any harder, the whole thing will blow. But still have 90% of their investments in basic index funds.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:02]

I will say it's probably much less risky than investing in something like cryptocurrencies, because at least this is all tied to the stock market. Anyway, I hope you have fun with that. Not too much fun. And thank you for your email.

Mostly Voices [22:18]

Well, you have a gambling problem. Last off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:23]

Last off, we have an email from Matthew. Who would have thunk it? Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.

Mostly Mary [22:30]

And Matthew writes. On your early podcast, you would frequently pick an investment and run through a series of questions about it. I really enjoyed that analysis. I would appreciate more of that, although it does sound a bit like another job. I don't think I'd like another job. One specific type of fund I would like your thoughts on is private real estate and how it might fit into a diversified risk parity style portfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:58]

I don't want to suggest a particular fund or REIT, but in case it would be useful, perhaps pick one of the recommendations from the White Coat Investor. Thanks for the great show, Matt. Well, yes, I have not done one of those in a while. Mostly because you have to realize that when I first started doing this podcast, absolutely nobody was listening to it. Now we only have the crazy people listening to it. I be normal. And I say that with much affection. Abby normal.

Mostly Voices [23:37]

But I do enjoy focusing on the emails in particular that

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:41]

people send in as they are more broadly applicable to more people in most circumstances than some of these more esoteric analyses of investments that you may or may not be interested in. Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. As for private real estate, yeah, I probably would not do or attempt to do an analysis on something like this. If I did, it would be on the BlackRock B REIT. And the reason is this. I don't think that private real estate performs really any differently than publicly traded real estate in in the form of REITs. The real difference between it is that it is not marked to market every day like a public REIT is, which leads to lots of distortions in its alleged performance. It can look a lot better or a lot less volatile than it actually is if you were to mark it to market every day, which means any data you have about it is kind of suspect. the other principle problem I see with it is that it's not easy to rebalance. And if you're talking about constructing a portfolio that you plan to be rebalancing, you want to be using components that you can actually rebalance. Where I think this fits in better or makes more sense to account for is if you have investments like this that are throwing off a stream of income that you simply subtract that from your annual expenses like you would a pension or some other cash flowing thing like Social Security or anything else, which means I would model it for its cash flow streams and not its fair market value since the fair market value of it is difficult to determine. So I probably would not include it as part of a managed portfolio, but simply as something that is reducing the annual expenses that need to be covered by your managed portfolio. I will provide this link in the show notes to the White Coat Investor and the real estate investment companies there. I know these are popular and people use them successfully. In talking to people, they do not seem to perform any better than investments in marketable securities, other REITs, the stock market, other things like that. I would be a little leery of anything that is just kind of an online platform, like a Peer Street or a Fundrise. I do have a lot of experience in online lending platforms like Prosper and Lending Club, which I participated in for over a decade from about 2008 or 2009 to 2019. I did not find those things to be terribly lucrative. They were entertaining in some ways, but they also created tax issues because they were paying ordinary income yet incurring capital losses, which was nice if you had something else to balance it off against as a capital gain and net that out. But it did require a lot more tax management than you would want out of most investments. So it was an interesting experiment, and I'm glad I did it. But after that, I find that these online platforms are undesirable for one reason or another. both for the illiquidity and the potential tax nightmares they create. But there are many ways to invest in real estate. We do own one rental property. I probably would not get another because it is another job. It's not a big job, but it's still a job. Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately. I would say I've been missing it, Bob. And so it's one of those things. If you like doing that, more power to you. And if you don't, You don't have to, so pick your poison with respect to that. It is a good thing to do in your 20s if you're single in particular, and particularly if you're thinking about house hacking. Our eldest son has done that very successfully simply by renting rooms to other people. Our second one has rented his first room to his first tenant, a short-term one. But that is a very good idea and almost a best practice for somebody who is single in their 20s and is in a reasonably stable place where they can be there. And you do get all of the tax benefits that you can find on your Schedule E of your 1040 form. Anyway, I will take your suggestion under advisement. And if we appear to be running low on emails, then I may take you up on it. Don't hold your breath though.

Mostly Voices [28:42]

You're gonna end up eating a steady diet of government cheese and living in a van down by the river. And thank you for your email. Now we're going to do something extremely fun.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:54]

And the extremely fun thing we get to do now is our weekly portfolio reviews of the seven sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. And just looking at what the markets did last week, the S&P 500 was up 1.38% for the week. The Nasdaq was up 1.12% for the week. Small cap value represented by the fund VIoV was actually down last week. It was one of the big losers. It was down 2.18% for the week. Gold was up last week. Gold was up 1.93% for the week. Long-term treasury bonds represented by the fund VGIT were also up. They were up 2.20% for the week. REITs were slightly down. Our representative fund REET was down 0.39% for the week. Commodities represented by the fund, PTBC were down 3.44% for the week. Preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were down 0.03% for the week, so almost flat, and managed futures represented by the fund DBMF or up 0. 94% for the week. And since I've been off, I do not have weekly returns for these portfolios. We do have year-to-date and since inception, and we can talk about their monthly distributions for February. But going to these sample portfolios, the first one is this All Seasons, which is a reference risk parity style portfolio. It is only 30% in stocks in the total stock market fund, 55% in treasury bonds that are intermediate and long term, and the remaining 15% in gold and commodities. It is up 0.05% year to date and up 1.55% since inception in July 2020. For February, we are distributing $30 from accumulated cash. Always money in the banana stand. That's at a 4% annualized rate. So that'll be $60 year to date and $1,383 since inception in July 2020. It's interesting those bond funds are now paying well over 4% and so are practically covering the entire distribution or most of it by themselves. But moving to our more bread and butter kind of portfolios that somebody might actually use in retirement or otherwise, first one is a golden butterfly. This one'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 is down 0.96% year to date but is up 19.36% Since inception in July 2020, we'll be distributing $42 out of it for February. It'll come from the Total Stock Market Fund, which has been the best performer recently. That's at a 5% annualized rate. That'll be $84 year to date and $1,862 since inception in July 2020. Next one's Golden Ratio. This one is 42% in stocks and three funds. 26% in a long-term treasury bond fund, 16% in gold, 10% in a reit fund, and 6% in cash in a money market fund. It is down 0.53% year to date. It is up 16.44% since inception in July 2020. For February, we'll be taking out $40. It always comes out of the cash bucket in this portfolio. All his money in the banana stand. It's at a 5% annualized rate. That'll be $81 year to date and $1,833 since inception in July 2020. Next one's the Risk Parity Ultimate. I will not go through all 15 of these funds. This is just kind of like a kitchen sink where we have a little bit of everything. This one is down at 0.20% year to date. It's up 6.64% since inception in July 2020. For February, we are taking $36 out of it. It's coming out of accumulated cash that's at a 5% annualized rate. There was money enough in Amsterdam.

Mostly Voices [33:21]

That'll be $73 year to date and $2,060

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:26]

since inception in July 2020. Moving to these experimental portfolios involving leveraged funds. Don't try these at home. Look away, I'm hiding.

Mostly Voices [33:38]

Even though I know some of you do. You can't handle the gambling problem. First one is the Accelerated Permanent Portfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:46]

This one's 27.5% in a leveraged bond fund, TMF. 25% in a leveraged stock fund, UPRO. 25% in preferred shares, PFF, and 22.5% in gold, GLDM. It's up 0.25% year to date. It's down 8.13% since inception in July 2020. For February, we'll be taking out $35, which is at a 6% annualized rate. It'll be coming from UPRO, which has been the best performer recently. That'll be $71 year to date and $2,293 since inception in July 2020. Next one's the aggressive 50/50. This one is the most levered and least diversified of these portfolios. It's got one third in a levered stock fund, UPRO, one third in a levered bond fund, TMF, and the remaining third divided into preferred shares and an intermediate treasury bond fund as ballast for it. It's up 1.19% year to date, it's down 17. 01% since inception in July 2020. For February we'll be taking $32 out of Accumulated cash.

Mostly Voices [34:59]

There's always money in the banana stand.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:03]

That's at a 6% annualized rate. It'll be $64 year to date and $2,262 since inception in July 2020. For reference, all of these portfolios started at about $10,000 when they started. And the last one is our youngest one, the Levered Golden Ratio. This one is 35% in a composite fund called NTSX that is a 60/40 portfolio S&P 500 and Treasury bonds levered up 1.5 to 1. It's got 25% in gold, 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 is down 2.06% year to date that REIT has not been helping it recently. It is down 15.24% since inception in July 2021. For February, we are taking $30 out of NTSX that's at a 5% annualized rate. It'll be $61 year to date and $1,228 since inception in July 2021. And hopefully by the time this comes out, I will have also updated the website with all of this information and more. That's what I'm talking about. I realize there are some broken links there that people have alerted me to that I will be fixing in due course. And I should not be running off to any other countries in the near future, so there will be a steady stream of podcasts and updates. 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. Just one other announcement. I think the tickets for the Economy Conference run by my friend Diana Merriam are nearly sold out now. Going on in about six weeks, March 15th through 17th in Cincinnati. I will be participating in a panel discussion and it's usually a lot of fun. You can get a 10% discount by using the words Risk Parity Radio when you check out there and I will put that in the show notes as well. It's the only personal finance conference that I attend. Because more than one of those a year would probably not be very good for our marriage. Trips to Peru work a lot better for that. Oh, behave.

Mostly Voices [37:46]

Yeah, yeah, baby.

Mostly Uncle Frank [37:53]

In the meantime, 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 follower review. That would be great. M'kay? Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio. Signing off. Have some conditions. Terms.

Mostly Voices [38:13]

Boy. One condition in one term. All right. Let's have the condition first. Free banana whenever I want. Single dip. Double dip. But I'll take one stick. All right. What else? Creative control. Spinoff rights and theme park approval for Mr. Banana Grabber, Baby Banana Grabber, and any other Banana Grabber family character that might emanate therefrom.

Mostly Mary [38:38]

I retain animation rights and we're going to go back to single dip. Done. 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.