Mostly Mary [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 Voices [0:22]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:37]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to Risk Parity Radio. If you are new here and wonder what we are talking about, you may wish to go back and listen to some of the foundational episodes for this program. Yeah, baby, yeah! And the basic foundational episodes are episodes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Some of our listeners, including Karen and Chris, have identified additional episodes that you may consider foundational. And those are episodes 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 56, 82, and 184. And you probably should check those out too because we have the finest podcast audience available. Top drawer, really top drawer. Along with a host named after a hot dog.

Mostly Voices [1:34]

Lighten up, Francis.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:38]

But now, onward, episode 355. Today on Risk Parity Radio, it's time for our weekly portfolio reviews of the eight sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com. on the portfolio's page. And the short preview of that is it was a good week for small cap value and not a good week for just about anything else. Guess what?

Mostly Voices [2:03]

I got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell. But before we get to that, I'm intrigued by this, how you say, emails and First

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:18]

off. First off, we have an email from Nanamed.

Mostly Voices [2:24]

I have no name. Well, that right there may be the reason you've had difficulty finding gainful employment.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:36]

And Nanamed writes, you guys are just too blind to see it happening. She blinded me with science. Well, now that was cryptic, wasn't it? Let me tell you what this is about. First of all, Nanomed writes us from a peculiar email address, which I will not give you, but it is located in the People's Republic of China. I'm not sure I've had an email from the People's Republic of China on the show before, but there's always a first time for everything.

Mostly Voices [3:05]

Let's say China. China. China. China. China. China. China. China. China.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:13]

and he or she cites to a article that I'm not going to link to in the show notes, but it is about de-dollarization and China moving away from the US dollar and all of that calamity kind of stuff that you can find on doom scrolling websites where the US dollar is perpetually collapsing and has been collapsing for our entire lifetime. You can't handle the dogs and cats living together. Now we talked about that back in episode 331 and why it's a misguided perception. And so we're not going to talk about that again. What we are going to talk about is how this relates to what I talked about in episode 352, which was about the physical metals racket. which I described there as a collective group of people buying and selling physical metals and ancillary services, and then the kinds of places where they tend to advertise, which tend to be doomer newsletters, websites, book writers, so on and so forth, and they all work together to scratch each other's backs. Always be closing. And so the most interesting thing about this link is where it originates. And where it originates is a site called Zero Hedge, which we will refer to more descriptively and more accurately as Zero Cred. Forget about it. I've said many times that in order to understand something you should know the history of it. And Zero Cred did begin as a legitimate website back shortly after the Great Financial Crisis. and was more of a blogger writing what he was talking about, what the central banks were doing at the time, and what consequences might come out of that. And it was interesting for a couple of years, but after that it kind of degenerated into a clickbait farm. Uh, what?

Mostly Voices [5:21]

And the articles started to be generated by more than

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:25]

one person with the goal of attracting eyeballs and clicks with hysterical and sensational stories about the world collapsing in one way or another.

Mostly Voices [5:37]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:45]

And it has continued on to this day. I think it's gotten worse over time.

Mostly Voices [5:50]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:55]

But that is its history for about the past 15 years or so, after it lost its legitimacy around 2010 or 2011. And so Zero Cred has become like an old tabloid magazine you might find at the checkout in the grocery store. The one for my youth and young adulthood was called Weekly World News and usually had some picture of aliens from outer space on the COVID and something about Elvis. When they canceled the project, it almost did me.

Mostly Voices [6:25]

And one day my mind was literally burst. The next day, nothing swept away. I'll show them I had a lobotomy in the end. Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies? Not at all. A friend of mine had one. Designer of the Neutron Bomb. But the real purpose now of Zero-Cred is simply

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:53]

to attract clicks and eyeballs with sensational stories.

Mostly Voices [6:59]

Radiation. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:08]

And unfortunately, if you kept track of what they say on there and whether it comes true or whether it is true to begin with, they've got a very low hit rate in terms of that.

Mostly Voices [7:18]

Forget about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:22]

So it's for entertainment purposes only if you find that sort of thing entertaining. But what its real place and real reason for existing in the world is for advertisers to find people who are willing to believe these things or truck in these things and sell them things like physical precious metals and all manner of other nonsense.

Mostly Voices [7:46]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:51]

And there is a certain segment of society that these sorts of things appeal to. It's usually younger to middle-aged men who have Not done so well economically. Would you like to see my dinky?

Mostly Voices [8:13]

Your what? My little cat dinky.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:17]

But have large bruised egos and are out there to show the world something by coming up with these hysterical ideas and the bad decision making that accompanies them, at least with respect to finances. I'll show them. I'll show them all.

Mostly Voices [8:34]

And when you point this out to people who truck in such

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:38]

things and think there's something to them, they often point out, Look, we were right about such and such at such and such a time, but they forget the denominator of all the things that they were wrong about. And so the base rate of being correct about anything is very low.

Mostly Voices [8:57]

The money in your account, it didn't do too well, it's gone.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:01]

Reminds me of a analogy we use in trial practice. which is the analogy of beef stew as to credibility. And if you order some beef stew and you begin to eat it and you find a couple of rotten pieces on it, you do not continue to eat the beef stew or pick around in there to see if you can find any good parts. That's not an improvement. You throw the whole thing out, you send it back, and you don't use it or look at that anymore. Forget about it. And that is the approach you ought to have with sites like Zero Credit and other sensational nonsense sites that are looking for eyeballs and clicks to essentially sell ads for bad financial products and other useless things. Am I right or am I right or am I right? So this is basically for people who think they are smart, want other people to think they are smart, but in fact lack critical thinking skills when it comes to evaluating information and the history of a particular speaker and its credibility or lack thereof.

Mostly Voices [10:14]

We use the Socratic method here. If you apply a little bit of the Socratic method, you will not be wasting your time with such things. Through this method of questioning, answering, questioning, answering, we seek to develop in you the ability to analyze that vast complex of facts that constitute the relationships of members within a given society, questioning and answering.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:46]

So thank you for your email because it gives us a great chance to talk about what not to do, and who not to rely on with respect to your personal finances. And zero cred is one of those things.

Mostly Voices [11:03]

You come in here with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer. Second off, we have an email from Ronald. Bedtime for Bonzo, starring Ronald Reagan, Diana Lynn, and Bonzo, that amazing chimp. And Ronald writes, I love this show. It is really educational in an entertaining way. I am in the process of listening to all the old episodes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:35]

Well, thank you, Ronald. Thank you for finding this show educational and entertaining. Not everybody does. At least on the entertainment side of things. Surely you can't be serious.

Mostly Mary [11:47]

I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:51]

Now there are a lot of old episodes now and while I would hope you would listen to all of them, I wouldn't expect you to necessarily. But there is a way to search the entire catalog through the RSS feed and I'll put that link in the show notes. If you just want to word search various ideas, things, or other topics. that is a good way to quickly find which of the shows you might find the most interesting to listen to first. Because I've said a lot of things over the past few years, and hopefully I've improved upon where I started. This is a hobby for me, a retirement hobby, with the original goal to lay out some ideas and principles that I wanted my adult children to understand and be able to implement. But I am grateful that others have found it useful and that we seem to have a nice group of regulars now who are very intelligent people and bring us a lot of good information and good questions. The best, Jerry, the best.

Mostly Voices [12:54]

When I say we have the finest podcast audience available,

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:58]

I really do mean it. And I thank you for being that audience. It's top drawer, really top drawer. Hopefully we'll hear from you again in the near future, and thank you for your email. Bow to your sensei.

Mostly Voices [13:14]

Bow to your sensei. Last off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:21]

Last off, we have an email from Jose. No way.

Mostly Voices [13:25]

Yes way. And Jose writes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:28]

Hi Frank, I've listened to almost all episodes and I've got

Mostly Voices [13:32]

to show my appreciation for all the time and effort you and Mary put into this podcast. I feel like anyone interested in learning can listen to this podcast and get the tools and the talent to DIY their investments. Thank you very much. We had the tools. We had the talent. Now to the question. We are using asset correlation as one of the main metrics for constructing a portfolio that maximizes the safe withdrawal rate. This makes sense. When stocks go down, we like things that move independently or in the opposite direction. But when stocks go up, wouldn't we also want assets that go in the same direction? For instance, when interest rates go down, typically stocks and long-term treasuries both go up in value. This contributes to making their correlation more positive, making the correlation metric worse for our purposes. But shouldn't both assets going up be reflected in a good way on the metric we choose to use? Is there another metric that captures downside protection and upside participation between assets? If so, should we use it? Can we fix it?

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:42]

Yes, we can! Well, first, thank you for your kind words, and especially for mentioning Mary, because I'm very grateful that she is willing to participate in this frolic and detour that I call a podcast. Mary, Mary, I need your hug. Some of the emails that you write in are a bit, shall we say, challenging, although this one does not fall into that category. But she always finds a way to make you sound good, even if your prose is a bit garbled. I think the short answer to your question is no, there probably is not a better metric to start with at least other than historical correlations. One other metric that is useful to look at is simply a portfolio's maximum drawdown both in terms of its depth and how long it lasts. And you can just look at that with historicals, but there's a nice chart at Portfolio Visualizer that'll do that for you. That metric is of course related both to correlation and to the safe withdrawal rate. So it's not really something different, just another way of looking at the same thing. And this goes back to what we call the Holy Grail principle itself. There's a nice short YouTube video of Ray Dalio at a whiteboard explaining this, and I will link to it in the show notes. But essentially, the idea of the Holy Grail principle is to find assets with low correlations and combine them because that is the only free lunch that we know that we can get at, as Harry Markowitz taught us. Did you get that memo? And so the primary focus of diversification or measuring diversification is to find assets that are uncorrelated. Now, the difficulty with correlations is that they do change over time. They do change based on what kind of economic environment you are in. And so really the best you can do is look at how various assets have performed historically in various different kinds of economic environments and then try to find assets in all of those economic environments where they would have a good performance. Now, what am I talking about when I say economic environments? This also comes from Bridgewater and Ray Dalio, but others have adopted similar ideas or metrics. And you can look at kind of the economic weather on a very broad macro picture as a four quadrant model with increasing inflation or decreasing inflation on one axis and increasing growth or decreasing growth on the other axis. And then you can take any given asset and look at how it has performed in each one of those quadrants. And if you do that, you will see that stocks generally perform well in rising growth environments as long as There isn't too much inflation and they perform poorly in falling growth environments, which are often accompanied by deflation. And what performs well there? Well, treasury bonds perform well there. And then if you break the stock market down into more of its components, particularly by factor, you'll find that different factors or sectors perform well or poorly in each one of those quadrants. And so when we had the very unusual weather of 2022, which usually only happens about once every 40 years, things like energy, managed futures, and as we found out, insurance companies tend to perform well in those kind of environments. And if you think about putting this quadrant map up and then placing different assets as to which is the best environment for them. That also tells you which ones are correlated or not correlated with each other because the ones that perform well in the same quadrant are correlated and the ones that perform well in different quadrants are uncorrelated. And so the challenge is to come up with the right mix of assets from all of these quadrants that will give you a decent performance but also reduce the volatility of what's going on there. And that's what eventually plays into your safe withdrawal rate and your ability to take money out of a portfolio. Now, the biggest challenge is that these things are dynamic. They're changing all the time. And so if you look at the history of something like the correlation between treasury bonds and stocks, You'll find that sometimes it's positive and sometimes it's negative. But the only consistent thing is that when we are in some kind of recession or depression or deflation, treasury bonds invariably do very well there. And stocks usually do not do very well there. And there's a paper from Duke University I've cited in the past with all this data going back to the 1950s. I'll see if I can dig it up again. But I thought that that was very illuminating as to how this really works. And if you understand how this really works, then you will reject experts coming along saying, oh, we're in a new paradigm, and now the correlations are going to be like this going forward forever. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. The truth is that they don't know what correlations are going to look like. Frank Vasquez：and it is a better estimate as to what they're going to look like simply by looking at how different assets have performed in different economic environments in the past and remembering that you are likely to get all of those environments at some point in your investing lifetime more than once. That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Voices [21:09]

That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:13]

But you cannot predict which ones are going to come next. Not gonna do it.

Mostly Voices [21:16]

Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:19]

And if you think you can, all you are saying is that you have a crystal ball. My name's Sonia.

Mostly Voices [21:28]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:32]

But unfortunately, I don't think your crystal ball works the way you think it does.

Mostly Voices [21:37]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:41]

So getting back to your questions, no, you don't really want things that are likely to move in the same direction, at least different things. And what this comes down to as a practical matter is that your returns in these portfolios are still going to be largely driven by their exposure to the stock market. That is where the biggest common returns come from in looking at all these assets. And so the other assets that you put in a portfolio need to complement that by dampening the overall volatility of the portfolio less than they are detracting from the overall returns of the portfolio. And that is something that I don't think most amateurs appreciate that the best portfolio for growing assets that will have the best returns over time, like 100% stock portfolio, is not the best portfolio to be withdrawing from because you are doing something different. And once you start taking money out of a portfolio, you start caring about the shorter term volatility of the portfolio, 'cause you cannot afford it to be dropping by 50% when you're taking money out of it. So you're willing to give up some of those total returns in exchange for a greater decrease in the volatility. So the price you pay effectively for having diversified assets that are different from stocks in a portfolio is that some of them will be going down or going sideways or going in a different direction if they are uncorrelated from stocks. And that's really what uncorrelated means. It doesn't mean they go in the opposite direction. It means they could be going up or down at the same time and you don't have a real way of predicting that other than observing that in different kinds of economic environments, you tend to get certain kinds of performances. So in your example, you said when interest rates go down, typically stocks and long-term treasuries both go up in value. That's actually only correct part of the time because what is typically going on is when you're going into a recession, the Fed starts lowering interest rates. But if the Fed is not On time, if you will, and usually there is a lag, you will find a 2008 scenario or the March 2020 scenario where interest rates are going down, treasury bonds are going up, and stocks are crashing because growth is going negative. But then as the Fed keeps reducing interest rates, stocks do bottom out and begin to recover, and then you see both the stocks and bonds going up at the same time. and again, this all goes back to that trade off you're hoping to get, that you're hoping to reduce the overall volatility of your portfolio by adding diversified asset classes into it without reducing the overall returns of the portfolio too much, such that you have a better portfolio for withdrawing money and you end up with a higher safe withdrawal rate. This is why, for example, using corporate bonds or high yield bonds in particular junk bonds usually is not very helpful to try and diversify a portfolio from stocks because those do tend to move in concert with stocks, particularly when there's a recession, they can both decrease in value simultaneously. TIPS also can have that problem as they did in 2008. And so that is why we are very selective about, for instance, the types of bonds we use in a stock-based portfolio. And we know from history that treasury bonds are the least correlated with stocks, and so then make the best kind of buffer, if you will, than other kinds of bonds. And we know that our alternatives, such as gold and managed futures, tend to have a zero correlation to both stocks and bonds. And so that is what makes them very good diversifiers. This is also why something like private equity, which is often touted as an alternative, actually is not that useful in a portfolio, particularly the kinds we're constructing as amateurs or do-it-yourselfers, because that tends to have a positive correlation with the rest of the stock market. Whether a company is publicly traded or not usually does not tell you that it's going to perform better or worse than some other company if they are both the same kind of company. Because recall, you only have so much space in a portfolio to put things. And so if you put the entire kitchen sink in there with everything you can think of, you're going to end up with a bunch of things that are low return yet correlated with stocks. And those are just aren't very useful to diversify a portfolio because you could replace those with other stocks and get a better performance. and maybe just replace them with stocks that have a different factor allocation, such as small cap value versus large cap growth, or represent a particular sector. But that is why you try to exclude non-stock assets that are highly correlated with the stock market, because they take up too much space and they're really not doing anything or doing something better than something else could. But now I believe I'm rambling a bit. Au contraire!

Mostly Voices [27:11]

Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise!

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:14]

And for those of you who have not listened to the first episodes 1-3-5-7-9, you might want to review those because it will put these thoughts in a more organized fashion for you. And there are some good links in the show notes there. But thank you for bringing this topic to our attention because It does get to the fundamental nature of what we're trying to do here and why we are approaching it this way with correlations and why, while we do not expect history to repeat, we do expect it to rhyme in the sense that certain kinds of assets tend to perform well or worse in certain kinds of economic environments. And we expect to see all of those kinds of economic environments over time. So we want a portfolio that can perform decently in the worst economic environments and decently well in the best economic environments. Yes. So thank you for your very interesting questions and thank you for your email. Now that was weird, wild stuff.

Mostly Voices [28:20]

Now we are going to do something extremely fun.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:24]

And the extremely fun thing we get to do now are our weekly portfolio reviews of the eight sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparityradio.com on the portfolios page. But even before we get to that, I need to remind you that we are running a promotion, a charitable promotion, as I mentioned in the past few episodes and we'll continue to mention. We are raising money for the Father McKenna Center, our sponsor charity for this podcast since we have no actual sponsors. I am appearing on another podcast called the Financial Quarterback and I believe those episodes will come out this week. I will link to them in the next show notes after they come out on Monday or Tuesday. But when I was on the Financial Quarterback they offered to match donations to the Father McKenna Center for up to $10,000. And so I am asking you good people, and many of you have already stepped up, to give some money to the Father McKenna Center by going to their donation page. And when you do that, put in the financial quarterback match in the little box where it asks you if you want to make a dedication or have a comment. And we'll add all those up and get a match. Double your pleasure, double your fun. The Father McKenna Center supports hungry and homeless people in Washington, DC. Our main work is serving meals. We serve tens of thousands of meals to people. And we also have a food pantry, which is another one of our main services that we offer. We rely on hundreds of volunteers that help us every year, including many high school students.

Mostly Voices [30:16]

Young America, yes sir. And many others.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:20]

So anything you could do would be greatly appreciated. And now we will get back to our regularly scheduled portfolio review. If we look at the markets this week, another bad week for the general stock market. The S&P 500 was down 0.83% for the week. The NASDAQ took a big hit again. The Nasdaq was down 2.08% for the week, but small cap value was up big time.

Mostly Voices [30:47]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:51]

Our representative fund VIoV was up 4.02% for the week, exhibiting some serious diversification qualities, which is a good thing because just about everything else was down too. Gold was down 0.7% for the week. Long-term treasury bonds represented by the fund VGIT were almost flat. They were down 0.13% for the week. REITs were the same. Our representative fund R E E T was down 0.12% for the week. Commodities were down. The economy appears to be slowing in some respects. Our representative fund PDBC was down 1.61% for the week. Preferred shares represented by the fund PFF were down 0.16% for the week. And managed futures were also down. Our representative fund, DBMF was down 1.82% for the week. Now moving to these portfolios, first one's a reference portfolio we call the All Seasons. That's only 30% in stocks and a total stock market fund, 55% in intermediate and long-term treasury bonds, and the remaining 15% in gold and commodities. split down the middle. And I should mention that these first four portfolios were all rebalanced on Monday, as we described last weekend two episodes ago. And so they are all back to their original configurations in terms of allocations. So this portfolio is down 0.17% for the week. It was almost flat. It's up 4.81% year to date and up 6.41% since inception in July 2020. Now moving to what I describe as our bread and butter kind of portfolios that somebody might actually use or be more likely to use. First one's a 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 this past week almost exclusively to the small cap value fund. It was up 0.68% for the week. It's up 7. 24% year to date and up 29.25% since inception in July 2020. Next one's the Golden Ratio. This one is 42% in stocks in three funds, 26% in long-term treasury bonds, 16% in gold, 10% in a REIT fund, and 6% in a money market or cash. It was also up, it was up 0.29% for the week. It's up 7.34% year to date and up 25.63% since inception in July 2020. Next one's the Risk Parity Ultimate, which has about 15 funds in it that we talked about last weekend, so I won't go through that again. It was actually down last week, it was down 0.23% for the week. It's up 10.12% year to date and up 18.01% since inception in July 2020. Now moving to our experimental portfolios which involved levered funds and are much more volatile. First one is the Accelerated Permanent Portfolio. This one is 27. 5% in a levered bond fund, TMF, 25% in a levered stock fund, UPRO, 25% in PFFA preferred shares fund and 22.5% in gold. GLDM. It was down 0.95% for the week. It's up 7.77% year to date and down 1.23% since inception in July 2020. Next one's the aggressive 5050. This is our least diversified and most levered portfolio. 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 PFF, a preferred shares fund, and VGIT, an intermediate treasury bond fund, as ballast. It was down 1.09% for the week. It's up 6.19% year to date and down 12.91% since inception in July 2020. Now moving to our seventh one, one of our younger ones, the levered golden ratio. This one is 35% in a levered composite fund called NTSX. That's the S&P 500 and treasury bonds. 25% in gold, GLDM, 15% in a REIT, O, 10% each in TMF, a levered bond fund, and TNA, a levered small cap fund, which did very well last week, and the remaining 5% in KMLM, a managed futures fund. So this portfolio is up 0.88% for the week. It's a big winner of these portfolios. It's up 9.51% year to date and down 5.23% since inception in July 2021. This one has the greatest exposure to small cap stocks in general and is benefiting from that recent divergence between the small caps and the large caps. That levered small cap fund was up over 10% last week by itself. And moving to our last portfolio, which is brand new this month, the Optima Portfolio, one portfolio to rule all. And yes, that's a joke. But this one is 16% in a levered stock fund, UPRO, 24% in a composite value fund, worldwide value fund called AVGZ, 24% in a Strips Treasury Bond Fund, GOVZ, and 18% each in Gold, GLDM, and a managed futures fund, DBMF. It was down 0.78% for the week. It's up 0.67% year to date and up 0.67% since inception in July 2024. This one struggled because it does not have as much small cap in it as the last one. I could have used a little more cowbell. making me regret going with a composite value fund that has all cap weightings in it as opposed to a straight small cap value fund. But you never know which size factor is going to outperform next. So we shall see. In fact, that's the big question. I was listening to some commentators saying that the divergence between small caps rising and large cap falling Over the past few weeks here has been the most divergent ever or close to it. I don't have any way of verifying that or not, but it has been kind of a spectacular move by small cap funds recently. I do note that I don't know anybody who predicted that this would occur right now when it's occurring. Many people say, well, they're going to catch up sometime, but that's not really a prediction. So will it continue in the future? Well, we can ask our crystal ball, which you know what our crystal ball always says. We don't know. What do we know? You don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. And so respecting that we do not know, that is why we keep a well-diversified portfolio and rebalance it according to a mechanical schedule to automatically Buy low and sell high.

Mostly Voices [38:21]

And that's the way, -huh, -huh, I like it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [38:25]

And that is just good portfolio management. No more flying solo.

Mostly Voices [38:32]

You need somebody watching your back at all times.

Mostly Uncle Frank [38:36]

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, follow or 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 [39:21]

And the wind screams, will the wind ever remember the names that have blown in the past? Through the scrunch, it's old age and it's wisdom. and whistling snow. This will be the last and the wind cries. the risk parody 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.