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 [0:38]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to episode 82 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, we're going to have a bonus email episode since we've got so many emails. So let's have at it.

Mostly Voices [0:50]

Here I go once again with the email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:53]

All right, the first one comes from John G. And John G. Writes, hi, Frank, Love the show. I just mentioned your site and podcast in an article I just published. Would love to get your thoughts on it if I've summed up your investment philosophy properly or if edits are required. Regards, John G. And then he has a link there. Well, I did read the article. It looked great. I thought it was a nice summary of what we're trying to do here and I appreciate the mention. So I will link to that in the show notes and I absolutely love the podcast. I am so glad I found it and I'm thankful for you taking the time out of retirement to share it with us. I've been looking at the various portfolios and interested in how you decided on safe withdrawal rates for each. I looked at the aggressive 50/50 and the accelerated permanent portfolios and see an 8% withdrawal rate and not sure how you chose that number? I tried to back test these on portfolio charts but can't find where you can input that kind of detail. Example PFF or UPRO and they don't have those portfolios in their standard portfolios. Thank you in advance for your help. All right Mitchell. Well the reason I selected those metrics for those portfolios is because those portfolios are based on very traditional retirement style portfolios, one of them called the permanent portfolio, which dates back to the 70s and 80s. You'll have to listen to like episode three to go back and learn about that. And the other one is simply a 50/50 stock bond kind of portfolio. If you take the leverage into account, the accelerated permanent portfolio is actually performing as if it had 205% of an ordinary portfolio, and the aggressive 5050 is performing as if it had 232% of a typical retirement style portfolio. And since those use the 4% rule, I just figured, well, I'll just double that for these and see how it works. These are experimental portfolios, so it is difficult to know exactly how they are going to perform. But I thought that that was a good test number to use for them because I really want to put these portfolios in the sample portfolios page through aggressive drawdowns. I don't think it's useful to be just taking out three or three and a half percent. Anybody can do that with any portfolio. We want to explore what we can do with these more diversified portfolios and what kind of safe withdrawal rates they can actually withstand. And so it is designed to test their limits. It's not what I recommend, but it's more interesting that way for the purpose of this podcast and the website. Now, if you're looking to try and use portfolio charts to back test these, you can't do it exactly, but you can multiply what you put in there. Your portfolio does not need to add up to a hundred there. So you can go in and multiply the percentages for UPRO, as total stock market times three and for the TMF go to the long-term treasury bonds, multiply that number times three and then put those numbers and get these approximations. For PFF I would just use as a proxy the large cap value is probably a good proxy or you could try the rates you go back and forth but really this is more dictated on the UPRO and the TMF the other things in that portfolio. But if you run those things, you'll see very large safe withdrawal rates for these things up in the seven to 9% range. All right, email number three comes from Steve M. And Steve M writes, hi Frank, I've really enjoyed your podcast, particularly because they've introduced me to the concept of risk parity. It has reframed how I think about diversification.

Mostly Voices [5:00]

Yay! I'll improve on your methods!

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:04]

My question centers around how to transition from the accumulation phase to decumulation phase, perhaps using a risk parity strategy. My situation is similar but not as complicated as that of Mark, whose email question you answered in episode 75. My situation is as follows：Age 52, hope to withdraw, retire at 65. Approximately $650k in 403b accounts that I'll be able to withdraw using the rule of 55. plan to pull this money first, at least while I'm eligible or until I'm eligible to withdraw without restriction from my Roth IRAs at 59 and a half, another approximately 650k in Roth IRA accounts. So I anticipate having 1.5 million in these retirement accounts by 55 and use this as a basis for supporting an approximate 55k per year retirement, not including Social Security 400 excuse me, 500k in home equity or additional income. I'm saving the latter for a cushion against future unanticipated expenses or a sequence of returns challenge to my anticipated safe withdrawal rate. I'm 100% in equities in both the 403 and Roth accounts. Approximately 85% of that 1.3 million total in those accounts is in the total market or S&P 500 type index funds. such as VTSAAX, VTI, iShares, FXAI-Z, FZROX, etc. Depending on where the accounts are held. Basically following a JL Collins simple path to wealth strategy. However, the other 15% is divided up relatively equally into small cap, small cap value, and large cap value just to try to capture a bit of those portions of the market as well. I traditionally have a relatively large tolerance to risk, so long as long-term returns justify it, but no, I'll have to change as I transition toward and move into retirement. In that vein, I have no bonds at the moment, but no, I need to begin the transition in that direction, having listened to your podcast about bonds, namely episodes 14 and 16. I'm still unclear, so at least two questions. Question one, assuming I wanted to stick generally with my modified JL Collins simple path, to wealth approach for equities, but knowing that you are not a big fan of total market bond funds such as VBTLX for risk parity purposes, what might you recommend in lieu of that for the non-equity portion of my portfolio, particularly if I was to stick with bonds? Long-term Treasuries, such as TLT, seem to be what I hear, or perhaps mishear, you most strongly favor on the bond side, but would TLT be appropriate itself? Should I have other bond holdings for diversification, be they intermediate or short-term treasury or corporate? Second question, do you have any advice as to the timing, how I might transition from my current 100/0 portfolio to something along the lines of a more traditional 70/30 or 60/40 type portfolio? I see a lot written about the accumulation phase, less about the decumulation phase, and less still about the transition phase. Three, any other suggestions that I should be really Considering any other thoughts that you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for my new favorite podcast, Steve E from Washington. All right, Steve E, there's a lot here. So just looking at your total portfolio, you have 1.3 million with three years to go essentially before you retire. Now, all you would really need to grow that to 1.5 million over the next three years would be a 5% return, which you could easily achieve in a retirement style portfolio, risk parity or otherwise. So what that tells you is that you can move anytime, you are ready to go to convert these things over, and now is probably a good time to do it because we are near all-time highs in all of these markets, and you really don't want to be in a situation where we have some big drawdown in the next few years because it would delay your retirement. Whereas if you move the money now, the chances of you not making it are pretty darn small. And so I would feel pretty comfortable moving it over. You have to realize that these risk parity style portfolios, such as the Golden Butterfly and Golden Ratio, tend to have maximum drawdown periods of only about three years. So being three years out, tells you it's a good time to do that. If you stuck with the portfolio you're in, those have maximum drawdowns of up to 13 years long, and you wouldn't want to get caught in one of those at this point in time, right before you're about to retire. Just looking at the stock portion of this, I would probably move some more of it to small cap value from the total stock market funds. That is kind of a basic split. If you look at, say, the Golden Butterfly portfolio, its stocks are divided into VTI and VIOV, a small cap value fund. Those are kind of the two ends of the spectrum and give you a good balance between the whole market. Small cap value fills in what the total stock market kind of leaves out because of its weighting of things. So I would move towards a more balanced situation with those two things. Whether you want to add other kinds of stock funds in their international funds, that's up to you. But I think that those two are sort of the good basic setup to have, particularly because that small cap value, if there is going to be some inflationary period like you saw back in the 1970s, it's going to be good for that, whereas the large cap total stock market fund is great for environments like we've had for the past 13 years where the interest rates are low and these big growth companies keep growing. Am I right or am I right or am I right? Okay, the next question in terms of what to do with bonds instead of VBTLX. Well, take a look in what's inside of VBTLX and what you'll see in there is 40% of it is in treasury bonds. and a third of those are in long-term treasury bonds. So effectively about 13% of that is long-term treasury bonds. What you will need instead of that is TLT, but a lot less of it. So I would take, say, half of what you had planned to put in VBTLX and put that in TLT, and then you can call the bond issue a day in terms of diversification is concerned. And so that will take care of your diversification. And so what you'll end up with is somewhere between 15 and 25% in TLT, depending on how many stocks you tend to keep holding. So that is what I would do in terms of what goes on in the bond part of it. You said something here that I do need to go after. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. Which is, should I have other bond holdings for diversification? Okay, this gets to an issue that may be a rant coming up since I haven't done a rant this month. Having to do with thinking of your bond portfolio as a separate portfolio from the rest of it and trying to diversify just your bond portfolio. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Mostly Voices [12:42]

Geez, I wouldn't know majesty if it came up and bit him in the face. All of your holdings are one portfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:45]

So what you care about is how all of those bond holdings match up to your stock holdings. What you want really as the core idea in your bond holdings is diversification from your stock holdings. A lot of those bond holdings that are in VBTLX are either not diversified because they're corporate bonds or they are so short term that they're like cash. And so they're kind of just sitting there as dead weight in your portfolio. And if you want that, you can have that, and you should have some cash, but you can control that separately as a separate allocation and not try to make it as part of this. So just get used to the idea diversification in my mind and what I hope to convey to the rest of the world does not mean different. It means uncorrelated, and it means uncorrelated with the rest of your portfolio. Not just part of your portfolio. That's not an improvement. So that is what you would want to think about in terms of your overall diversification with everything in your portfolio. So where does this end up after you put in those that TLT? There are a couple other things that you want to think about having in there. One would be some gold. Because gold will smooth out your overall performance over time. You don't need a whole lot of it. 10% is fine. If you go back and listen to episodes 12 and 40, 12 is my analysis of it, and then episode 40 is a big early retirement now analysis of what gold does in a portfolio. So I would listen to those and you'll get a good understanding as to why it would be useful for you to have a little bit of that in there. Then there is a question of whether you want some more income generators and REITs would probably be good for you if you want that because you can put your REITs behind these tax advantaged positions and so you don't have any tax issues. In fact, with $55,000 in income, you should be paying almost no taxes on this setup that you've got. It should be very smooth and easy to manage for that. So you could take that out of the stocks actually, because REITs are a kind of stock fund that is just slightly different and is there for income. And then you will, as you get particularly to your retirement, is wanting to have some of this in either short-term bonds or in cash or money markets, those sorts of things, because you're going to be living off of it, obviously, and you're going to be wanting it to come out. So you're going to want between zero and 10% in that. Whether you want to move into that piece of it right away is kind of a preference. You could start now and move part of that into cash or hold off on that and do the cash part at the end at the last year. So you could come up with something like a portfolio that looks like 50% in your traditional stock funds 20% in TLT, 10% in gold, 10% in REITs, and then with that remaining 10% you'll take as much cash or short-term bonds as you want for your short-term spending needs and then you could allocate the rest of it into any of the other buckets that you would want. Yes! So that is What I've got for you, hopefully that helps you think about this. And I would go model whatever you're thinking about both at Portfolio Charts and Portfolio Visualizer to get a sense for what your projected holding would be like in your case. All right, email number three comes from Ela Shiva H. Ela Shiva writes, hi Frank, I listened to your podcast today and was very impressed. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Thanks, Alishaeva. Well, I don't have a newsletter, but if I do, you'll be the first one on the list. Yes! I mean, I know what you're thinking. That's not an improvement.

Mostly Voices [17:00]

But on the other hand, I'm a person of limited bandwidth.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:04]

Man's got to know his limitations. Maybe someday I'll have a newsletter. I do not have one currently. But you can go to the website www.riskparadioradio.com and you've been there and see what I've got to offer there. Everything else you're just gonna hear on the podcast and that's where you're gonna get it and you will hopefully learn something from what I've got to say or at least be entertained by it marginally.

Mostly Mary [17:30]

I'm funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown. I amuse you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:34]

All right, next email comes from Brian C. Brian C. writes, Hi, Frank. I'm binge listening to your podcast in chronological order up to episode 38. Thanks for bringing risk parity investing to the DIY investor. I'm five years from PHI, assuming a 3.5% withdrawal, and I expect to continue work full time until I'm about 55, eight years from now. I'm still in an accumulation phase. I've stayed invested in a simple 90% stock, 10% total bond portfolio. Based on an eight-year horizon to move to distribution, when do you think it would make sense for me to become less aggressive and embrace a risk parity portfolio? Cheers, Brian from Portland, Oregon. All right, the question for you, Brian is, do I feel lucky? Actually, that's not the question for you. The question for you is, have I won yet? Because you're very close to winning. and you've won the game when you have accumulated enough that you could retire on that money if you put it in an appropriate portfolio, or you're in a position where you're going to glide into that. As you heard earlier on this podcast, if you could project out needing 5% or less going forward in your portfolio, you could switch that to already to a retirement style portfolio and expect that it will grow at least by that, and you will make it to your destination there. Everything is going as planned. But there is a lot of flexibility here. I mean, it looks to me almost like you could take your current portfolio and switch it into a retirement style portfolio now. Although eight years out is pretty far out, but it would give you the option then to retire even earlier. if you wanted to. The idea is that you're all set up to just walk away any day because everything is locked and loaded in your retirement portfolio. The other rule of thumb that we would commonly think about is when you're five years out, really look at that again and see where you are. Now the other thought I have is that if you take your projected expenses and what you need and then carve off that part of your current portfolio, that it would be projected to meet that and meet that number at your time of retirement, then you could take the other part of your portfolio and still be aggressive with it or do whatever you want with it really, because you're really thinking about what you really need at the end and that's how you know if you won. Of course, you do need to go calculate these expenses and it's not going to be exact, but you can come up with a pretty good estimation based on what your expenses are now They are typically lower in retirement unless you're planning on some big trips or changing your lifestyle in some way. But you also need to add in healthcare and then consider what tax bracket you are in, whether you are in that below $100,000 married person who is going to pay almost no taxes in retirement or you're over between 100 and 500 married person, in which case you're gonna be in that 15% capital gains tax bracket, or you're wealthier than that. But that's the other consideration. All right, and the last email for today comes from Justin Kay. And Justin Kay writes the equivalent of five emails here. So we will treat them as five emails and go through each one and answer them in seriatim. I'll read the first part and then answer it and then go on from there. Justin writes, hi Frank, I found your podcast a few weeks back after listening to an interview you did on Choose FI. I'm glad you did that interview. I spent the past few weeks catching up starting at episode one and I'm almost current. Feedback. You offer a good perspective on various portfolios and your viewpoints are appreciated. I less enjoy the portfolio updates you do as it's often a little dry listening as you explain percentage points of gains in various indexes and portfolios, as there's little I can gain by listening to that. And instead, I'm just looking for you to give me a better summary of overall performance. If I wanted the percentages, I'd probably go to the website instead of the podcast. But with a show called Risk Parity Radio, it's somewhat unavoidable. Smiley face. All right, let me address that. Yes. Part of the purpose of this show and this website is to actually Test drive these portfolios. Real wrath of God type stuff. And what I would like the audience to understand from test driving these portfolios is that it's really boring for the most part. Trondor strikes again. Because you don't want your retirement portfolio to be exciting. You want it to be boring. you want it to put you to sleep at night. I'm putting you to sleep, you old fool. Is there an antidote? Of course there is, right here. But it'll cost you a guinea. So what I would suggest you do is take those portions of the podcast and use those to help you go to sleep at night because I think it will help you do that. But this is intentional. that I want the audience to appreciate that most of the time, even when the markets are jumping up and down like jumping beans, that these portfolios are relatively stable and continue to grow through a variety of circumstances. And so I've inadvertently made my point with you, but you didn't understand which point was being made. Thank you for the comments though. All right, next part of this. I had a few questions that I figured you might be able to speak to. Question one, I enjoyed if you'd spend some more time discussing Hedge Fundies ultimate adventure portfolio. In particular, the backtest data out there on it is very thorough and interesting and I'd like to hear your take. I heard you mentioned it a little bit only commenting on its high volatility. Okay, I will link to something in the show notes from optimized portfolios that summarizes this Hedge Fundy Leverage Portfolio in great detail. And you can read about it there, so I won't go through the whole explanation of it. But what it is essentially is a portfolio that is 55% UPRO, that leveraged stock fund we use, and 45% TMF, the leveraged long-term treasury bond fund we use in our experimental portfolios. If you look at this, it does have a volatility that's around 1.7 times the stock market. Which you would expect because it's essentially got 300% of a ordinary portfolio. You multiply the whole thing times three instead of 100% in portfolio, you've got 300% in portfolio. Yes. The problem with the analyses that I've seen of this, that the back test data out there is it's actually not very thorough. You think it's thorough because it goes back to 1987, but it's not good enough. What you really need to do here is go back to 1970. And the way you can do this is go to portfolio charts and use the data there. I'll link to the place where the calculators are. You're going to have to put the numbers in yourself. Put in as total stock market 165 for the UPRO, put in long-term treasuries of 135 for the TMF leveraged treasury bond fund, and run that analysis. And what you'll see gets you to the problem with this portfolio, that in specific circumstances, particularly the kind of economic environment we had in the 1970s, it's really awful. And what happened then is it went through a 69% drawdown. Now a 69% drawdown is just not going to be acceptable for most people unless you are really a speculator. It's certainly something you wouldn't want to have in a retirement style portfolio. That's not an improvement.

Mostly Voices [26:00]

And what that also hurts substantially is

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:04]

the safe withdrawal rate. The projected safe withdrawal rate of this hedge fund portfolio is only 5.7%. And we are doing that with things like the golden butterfly and the golden ratio are getting close to that kind of thing. So having something with three times leverage that doesn't even get you to 6% on a safe withdrawal rate. It's not a good performance. It's just not. So this is not acceptable as a retirement style portfolio. Now, if you wanted to modify this, you can make it more acceptable. And that's what the accelerated permanent portfolio and aggressive 5050 essentially do in our sample portfolios. So if you run the accelerated permanent portfolio through that same analysis over at portfolio charts, you'll see a 26% maximum drawdown and a safe withdrawal rate of over 9%. And that is what you would want or expect if you were going to put leverage in a retirement style portfolio. It better have a lot better performance. Yeah, 220-221, whatever it takes.

Mostly Voices [27:15]

If you do the same thing with the aggressive 5050,

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:18]

you'll get something that looks like about a 50% drawdown and a safe withdrawal rate of 6.4%, which honestly is not that great. I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is one of them has gold in it and the other one doesn't. Because in that period in the 1970s, there are a few things that did well in that period. One of them was gold, another one was commodities, another one was small cap value. If you don't have any of those things in your portfolio, like this hedge fund he doesn't have any of those things in that portfolio, it's going to suffer in that kind of economic environment. So while I consider it interesting and because the economic environment wasn't like that since 1987 and certainly hasn't been like that in the past 15 years, it's going to look better than it would over a much longer period of time. involving all kinds of economic conditions. And so that's why I really haven't talked about it. It really is not appropriate as a retirement style portfolio. Forget about it. Okay, question two. You mentioned in your 2% F.I. interview you don't recommend the average person invest in municipal bonds. I'd appreciate understanding why, particularly as a relatively low volatility and relatively consistent income, tax-free no less, seems like it would be a good addition to a portfolio. all things in moderation, but maybe I'm missing something. Yeah, what you're missing is that most people are not in the highest tax brackets. And so if you can find something else that pays a better income with favorable tax treatment, like a preferred shares fund, like PFF, you're probably going to be better off with that. If you are in one of those higher tax brackets, then you may get some value out of municipal bonds. But you really need to look at your specific tax situation and they're only going to be appropriate for people in very high tax brackets that have this in a taxable account, obviously. For most people, they're going to be better off in their taxable account to use something like preferred shares because they are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate and if your income is low, that tax rate could be zero.

Mostly Voices [29:29]

Hello, hello, anybody home? Think McFly, think.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:33]

So zero as a long-term capital gains tax rate on a qualified dividend is better than a municipal bond that pays less. That is being taxed at the same rate, zero. And even if you get to 15% on the long-term capital gains tax rate, that is typically better after you take the taxes out than the municipal bond returns. So, while municipal bonds are interesting, they're really not that interesting for most people, and most people don't need them. You could put them more if you had a very conservative portfolio, like a 3070 kind of portfolio, like that All Seasons sample portfolio, and you wanted to make part of that municipal bonds because you had a very large taxable component to that, that would make sense. Again, those things, if they're low returns, they end up being kind of dead weight. So they belong in really conservative portfolios or in really high tax situations. And otherwise, no.

Mostly Voices [30:32]

Forget about it. Alright, question three.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:36]

I'd welcome more input on Big Earns short put SPX, SPY, 1/3 DTE strategy. heard you mention that you really don't understand it much. A man's got to know his limitations, but I think it's worthwhile for you to learn more about it. I did, and I've been employing the strategy successfully for the past six months. The more I learned about it, the more sense it appeared to make, but I enjoy options, so that might help. Well, I do understand this, and I have poked around with it. The problem with it is it's not appropriate for a retirement style portfolio unless you intend to be a trader.

Mostly Voices [31:14]

Now that was weird, wild stuff.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:18]

One of the other purposes of this podcast is to find simple solutions. We have a simplicity principle. Having to trade options every few days is not a simple process for anyone and requires work. So it is not going to be something that we would look at. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it, but as you say, you have to be interested in options and you have to be interested in doing this this and spending your time studying these options, monitoring these options, picking the right options, and trading them at the appropriate time. And if you want to do all those things, more power to you. Yes.

Mostly Voices [31:51]

But what I'm trying to do here is help people

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:55]

construct retirement style portfolios that they don't have to put a lot of extra effort in, that they can simply take their draws, do their rebalancing once a year or on some Banned structured schedule and not worry about it after that.

Mostly Voices [32:14]

Maybe they can go listen to my intonations and help put them to sleep at night. I took the liberty of putting away something in your teeth. What are you talking about? I'm putting you to sleep.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:25]

All right, question number four, not to monopolize on your time, but I have separate volatility hedge strategy I've been toying with that I'd appreciate if you gave some thought to buying long out of the money VIX calls as Taylor utilizes can be a viable strategy long term and profitable strategy to cash in on black swan events. And the gains over successive decades will pay you for your losses and then some apparently. But you need to spend money on depreciating calls every so often month or quarter and wait for that one event every decade or longer to cash in. Alternatively, VXX deteriorates over time on average about half of its value per year. So buying puts is an overall profitable strategy. It's essential essentially the inverse of the long VIX call strategy in that you make consistent income for a decade and then eventually VIX explodes and your VXX puts become worthless but still appears to be overall profitable long term. So why not combine the two? Buy VXX puts then when you hit a profit target, say 10%, you sell the puts, use the original principle to buy more VXX puts and take half of the profits to buy VIX calls. It seems like the gains from VX would offset wholly or partially the loss from VVIX until a large volatility event would come, at which point the VIX would pay multiples more than the expired worthless VX puts would be assuming a high volatility remained high and didn't spike for a moment causing you to cash in on the VIX call profit and still wait for the VXX to come back to profit and repeat thoughts. Well, I don't know if you've modeled these things, but VIX options and VXX options are very strange animals. And for instance, if you look today at the July call for a VIX put versus a VIX call at the same strike price where it is right now, the call costs six times what the put costs. and so these things are not easily modeled. It's even worse when you're talking about options on VXX because that advantage that you think you might have knowing it's going to be decaying is already built in and priced into the cost of the option. So it ends up not being a very good deal when you come out to it, and I'm unaware of anybody that's able to successfully model this, at least in any way that they're willing to publicize. If I had a successful way of doing it, I wouldn't tell anybody because you wouldn't want it to be arbitrated away that those kind of strategies only work when other people don't really know what you're doing and have caught on to it. So while that's something you could attempt to model, I would be skeptical that you could come up with a model that would be predictive of how that strategy would work out. But if you can do it, more power to you.

Mostly Voices [35:25]

Yes!

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:28]

Meanwhile, I will still be frustrated with trying to incorporate volatility into a risk parity style portfolio. Although I do run some experiments on the side that are not ready for prime time. Man's got to know his limitations. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. Thank you for all of these questions today. We still have piles and piles to go through, but we will get to them as we go. Our next episode will be one of our weekly portfolio reviews and we will try to tackle a few more emails in that. If you've got questions or comments for me, send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that email is frank@riskparityradio.com or you can go to the website www.riskparadioradio.com and fill out the contact form and I will get your message that way. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go over to Apple Podcast or wherever you get this podcast and leave me a five star review because I really appreciate it and it really helps get the word out there. We are closing in on 50,000 downloads for this podcast which will be Yet another milestone.

Mostly Voices [36:40]

Woohoo, cheap meat. Ooh, this one's open. Thank you once again for tuning in.

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:49]

This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off.

Mostly Mary [36:54]

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.