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 [0:18]

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 episode 85 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, we are going to have another all email extravaganza.

Mostly Voices [0:49]

I'm intrigued by this, how you say, emails.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:53]

And our first one is in a special category because it reveals a A massive failure of a robo advisor to construct a proper risk parity style portfolio. And so let's talk about this and what went wrong.

Mostly Voices [1:09]

I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice. This email is from John G.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:17]

Subject, wealth front risk parity. I have wealth front and utilize the tax loss harvesting features and really enjoy it. I want to utilize the risk parity function, however, I am curious if the previous performance, per end very poor, indicates significant ongoing flaws to the construction of their risk parity strategy at the root level. Are you able to analyze Wealthfront's risk parity fund's general approach on a system and strategy level? As in, is it a reasonable thing to invest in if you're already at Wealthfront? All right, John, this is a very curious thing that happened here. That was weird, wild stuff.

Mostly Voices [2:00]

And I noted this way back in one of our earlier episodes, but I

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:04]

will link to this article again in the show notes. There was an article done called Quant Funds in the Coronavirus Market Route：Risk Parity, and it analyzed a number of risk parity style funds run by hedge fund managers and fund managers and it talks about about 12 of them. And looking at the 12 of them, you saw some decent performance for most of them. The best one was only down a maximum drawdown of 13.4% during the market crash of 2020 in March, and that was the Columbia Adaptive Risk Fund. And the other ones, the other worst one was 29.1% down, and that was the S&P Risk Parity 12% Fund. And those two were kind of the basics on the range of outcomes there. But then we look at Wealthfront's Risk Parity Fund, which is WFRPX, and it was down 42.8% during the market downturn, 42.8%. You know, it might as well just been in random stocks or whatever. And so that sort of begs the question is why did Wealthfront's Risk Parity Fund perform so awfully during this period because in theory it should have been structured so that it would have had outcomes like the other risk parity funds down maybe 20% when the market was down 40%, but it was down 42%.

Mostly Voices [3:36]

We can put that check in a money market mutual fund, then we'll reinvest the earnings into foreign currency accounts with compounding interest and it's gone.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:44]

Well, let's take a look at what it's actually invested in and consider whether it conforms to the principles that we talk about here, the simplicity principle, the macro allocation principle, and the holy grail principle. And so I'll link to this in the show notes. This is from Wealthfront's page, the article that says, what is risk parity invested in? And it's invested in seven different funds, 62% of it is in an aggregate bond fund. A total bond fund is what that is. It's got all kinds of corporates, some treasuries, some other things in it. 11.1% of it is invested in an emerging markets bond fund, ticker EMB. And so over 70% of it is invested in bonds of various shapes and sizes. And then only 30% is invested in stocks. and those are divided into an S&P 500 at 6. 7%, a Vanguard Developed Markets VEa 3.8%, iShares ETF MCSI EAFE, that's EFA 3.7%, and Emerging Markets Fund from Vanguard VWO 4.9%, and then it's got some REITs, VNW is the Vanguard fund that's using at 8.0%. And then on top of that, it uses a bunch of leverage. And so what it's actually holding is some swaps and some other things, and it gets kind of complicated, which increases the risk of this because it's essentially a 30/70 portfolio. like that all-weather portfolio or sample portfolio, except it's jacked up with a bunch of leverage in it to make it perform hopefully better, but in fact worse. So let's consider, you know, our three principles here, macro allocation wise, it's a 30-70, you would expect it to be very conservative, but they've jacked it up with the leverage, and so you get janky results out of it. If you consider the simplicity principle, it's simple as far as the number of funds it's got in it, except that in that aggregate bond fund, that's the kitchen sink of bonds. That's not simple. It's just a bunch of stuff. Actually, it's a buck and a quarter, quarter staff, but I'm not telling him that. It's not something you really would want in a risk parity style portfolio because you can't be focused on which bonds you really want. You keep using the word. I don't think it means what you think it means. And then it's got all that leverage and complication with swaps, and that's not a simple construction. That's a hedge fund construction. So it really doesn't meet that. But where it really falls down on its face is with the Holy Grail principle.

Mostly Voices [6:50]

Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:58]

If you are going to construct a risk parity style fund, you need things that are uncorrelated or not correlated, and you need to pick them based on that. And all it's got here is a bunch of stocks, and then a bunch of bonds, most of them that are correlated with the stocks. It's got a bunch of corporate bonds in there. These emerging market bonds, those are going to be positively correlated with US stocks as well. So it's bond and stock mix here really doesn't make too much sense. Your mother was a hamster and your father smoked elderberries. The only thing that's marginally not correlated is the real estate fund, but that's still half correlated with stocks. And the only reason you want to keep something like that in there is for income if you needed income. And I don't think this thing was designed to generate income. It's totally lacking in any alternatives. There's no gold in here. There's no commodities. There's nothing else that would go in another direction. It's just a simple stock bond portfolio. That's all it is.

Mostly Voices [7:58]

I wouldn't know majesty if it came up and bit him in the face.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:06]

It's like if you took the Vanguard Wellesley Fund and then added some leverage to it. That's basically all we're talking about here. And so it's no wonder that it failed because it's not really a risk parity style portfolio. These people apparently do not know what they're doing. That's not how it works.

Mostly Voices [8:20]

That's not how any of this works.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:25]

And when you read the manager discussion of this, which I'll also link to this in the show notes from October of 2020, you see how uneducated and uninformed and incompetent these people really are. They're incompetent the way they constructed this. Am I right or am I right or am I right?

Mostly Voices [8:40]

Right, right, right.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:44]

And they write that the performance of the Wealthfront Risk Parity Fund for fiscal year 2020 from November of 2019 to October of 2020 was poor. Yeah, baby, yeah. Over that period, the fund returned -12.94%, -12.94%, whereas a comparison 60/40 portfolio would have returned 5.39%. They write, the disappointing performance was driven by a sharp decline in equity markets caused by the onset of the COVID-19 crisis and a temporary positive correlation in the performance of equities and bonds. Now, that's a false statement. If you picked the right bonds, you wouldn't have had that positive correlation, and it wasn't temporary for those corporate bonds or those emerging market bonds you picked. That's what it is all the time. That's what it is all the time. You should have looked it up. You should have known that. These people are completely incompetent. I can't believe they're calling this a risk parity style portfolio. Hello? Hello, anybody home? Think McFly, think. You can't handle the truth. And then it goes on to say the fund strategy is premised on lower negative correlation between bonds and equities. Again, you have to pick the right bonds.

Mostly Voices [9:58]

You can't just go and grab some total bond market fund, some foreign bonds, and wish and hope and pray that they're not going to be correlated, even though all the data suggests that they are positively correlated. Hello.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:12]

Hello, anybody home? Hello, hello, anybody home? Then later it says to achieve an adequate level of absolute return, the fund applies leverage to its position seeking to achieve a target 12% annualized volatility. Well, all it achieved was a negative 12% return in this fiscal year.

Mostly Voices [10:28]

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:32]

And then it writes as to what happened in March, as concern about the COVID-19 virus grew, both equities and bonds experienced large negative returns. as investors abandoned risky assets. You bet they abandoned those corporate bonds. They were selling them just as fast as they were selling the stocks. What they were buying were the treasury bonds, and that's why the treasury bonds went up 25 to 30% between January and March, and you didn't have enough of them, and that's why you screwed up. It's gone.

Mostly Voices [11:01]

It's all gone. What's all gone? The money in your account.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:05]

It didn't do too well. It's gone. These returns were magnified by the fund's leverage and led to a very poor performance in the month of March. No kidding, Sherlock. No kidding. The money in your account, it didn't do too well. It's God. The fact of the matter is, is that Wealthfront failed. And if this is what you do as Wealthfront as a robo-advisor trying to compete in the marketplace for risk parity style funds, you need to get your act together. Who's ever running this thing just needs to be fired. They need to be fired. Get some people in there that know what they're doing and can construct a proper risk parity style portfolio so that you have results that are similar to all of the other professional risk parity style portfolios. You have no excuse here. It's a disaster.

Mostly Voices [11:51]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together,

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:02]

Mass hysteria. Now, how could they have known what to go after? Well, they could have gone to Portfolio Visualizer like we do, look up a correlation matrix and figure it out. It's not like there's secret information out there.

Mostly Voices [12:13]

I did not know that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:17]

But I found something else that was interesting to note and something that you as listeners may want to take a look at and take to your professional advisors if you have one. And this is Morningstar's report about diversification. And now they're doing these every year. To me, this is the world of financial advisors catching up finally to this issue of correlation that really needs to be looked at in detail with all of your assets compared against each other and not just grabbing it, aggregate bond funds and hoping they're not going to be diversified. We're way beyond that. Come into the 21st century. Anyway, the Morningstar 2021 Diversification Landscape It's a look on how key asset classes performed in 2020, how correlations have changed, and the implications for portfolio building. Key takeaways. Despite the appeal of complex diversification methods that involve highly specialized asset classes, the simplest diversification strategy, such as adding treasuries to an equity-heavy portfolio, wherever we heard that, have fared the best. The best.

Mostly Voices [13:25]

Correlations spiked across most asset classes during the

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:29]

coronavirus driven market downturn. Yes, that's what happens, especially all those stock funds. Those things that are positively correlated become even more positively correlated in that kind of a downturn. Cash and Treasuries continued to excel as portfolio diversifiers and they held up far better than nearly any other asset class during the market downturn. Did you get the memo, Wealthfront? You didn't get the memo.

Mostly Voices [13:58]

I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow. So if you could be here around 9：00, that would be great. Okay.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:09]

Diversification benefits have been tough to find within the United States and international equity markets. But gold, gold, continue to prove its metal. as an excellent diversifier and a haven in times of crisis.

Mostly Voices [14:24]

Well, how about that? You are correct, sir. Yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:28]

Can we state the obvious more obviously? Why don't people know this? And then the next key takeaway. Over the past 20 years, correlations have edged up for several asset classes. Including commodities, corporate bonds, global bonds, high yield rates and tips. Investors seeking out the benefits of diversification must therefore choose carefully.

Mostly Voices [14:59]

Think McFly, think. Think McFly, think. Don't be choosing those for diversification. You might want to choose them for some other reason.

Mostly Uncle Frank [15:07]

Maybe to deal with some inflation, but you don't choose them for diversification.

Mostly Voices [15:14]

Am I right or am I right? Am I right? Am I right? Am I right?

Mostly Uncle Frank [15:18]

All right, I will link to that in the show notes. It does go through with some correlation matrices, all of these different asset classes, but basically it's the same conclusions that they come to that we've already talked about time and time again, which is the best diversifiers for a mostly stock portfolio are going to be treasury bonds and gold. The end. and then how you incorporate other things depends on what you're trying to do. Everything that has transpired has nothing to do with my design. Trondor strikes again. One other thing that I thought was interesting in that report is it has a number of appendices and it also talks about factor investing that we have talked about previously. Ben Felix does. And as to those factors, the factor that was the least correlated with the overall market is the low volatility factor, which is one of the reasons we use some of those low volatility funds in our sample portfolios. They tend to hold a lot of large cap value stocks, things like Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble. And the other thing it does confirm is that small cap value In terms of those kind of factors, is the least correlated with the overall stock market. It's less correlated than internationals, any mid-caps, small cap growth. It just is. So that reality has not changed. You can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. But I am very pleased to see that an outfit like Morningstar is getting away from rating fund managers and producing information. that's actually a lot more useful for portfolio construction than trying to convince us that this manager is better than the other one because it had a good couple years when we know that's all, or mostly all, due to random events and they're going to revert to the mean. Which is why using Morningstar factors has never proven to be a successful way of constructing portfolios, because you end up just Buy something that's been lucky recently and then watching it revert to the mean. It's gone. It's all gone. All right, let's see if we can knock off a few more emails here before our signal fades. The next one comes from Laura M. Laura M. Writes, hi Frank. Thank you so much for putting together such an informative podcast. I've listened to them all over the past few weeks and I've learned a lot already. I feel as though the universe presented you to me at just the right time. My husband and I are both 40, both British, and we are moving with our young children from the UK to Costa Rica at the end of the year. We are selling our home and building a new home in Costa Rica. We plan to live off the proceeds of our house sale, plus some other investments that we have. We currently have some money in SIPs, which are self-invested personal pensions, which had a 40% added by HMRC on the way in as we are higher rate taxpayers. I believe that is the British government or the health service. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with your acronyms. All right, she writes, this money cannot be accessed until age 57 when we leave the UK, no more money can be paid in. They have some money in ISAs, which is a tax-free savings and investment wrapper. like an IRA. Money can be accessed at any time, but when we leave the UK, no more can be paid in. Some in a GIa, which is a general investment account. I think this is what you would call a taxable brokerage account. And we both have inflation-adjusted National Health Service pensions, which will pay about 60% of our cost of living from age 67. All right, discounting the NHS pension because it hurts my head when I try to think about including it. into the calculations and after taking off the money that we need to build the house and get ourselves set up in Costa Rica, we will have about 13% in the SIPS, in a Vanguard 100% Equities ESG Global Fund, 17% in the ISAs, same fund, 12% in the GIA, that's what we would call the taxable brokerage account, and 55% will be the rest of the cash from the sale of our UK property. I would like to create a risk parity Portfolio, I don't want anything too complex. We will be drawing down from the portfolio at 5% per year and living off the income. After playing around on the Portfolio Analyzer, I'm thinking 20% total stock market fund, 20% small cap value fund, 35% long-term treasuries, 5% gold, 5% DLR, that's the Digital Realty Trust REIT, and 5% public storage REIT, that is PSA, is the ticker symbol for that. This seemed to give good returns with reduced volatility and a sharp ratio of 0.98 over a 15-year period compared to 0.71 for a 60/40 portfolio over the same period. Questions. As investors from outside the US, can we buy all the necessary funds through international brokerages such as international brokers? And do you know which firms have the lowest fees, no commissions, et cetera? We will get taxed based on Costa Rican tax laws once we are resident there. Apparently, they do not tax income made outside Costa Rica. HMRC will not tax us from the UK once we are no longer resident. How does that work if you are getting income from US-based funds through an international broker? Surely we'll get taxed by someone. What should we do about our current investment accounts held on the UK Vanguard platform? We will not be able to trade within them to rebalance the portfolio when needed. We would lose tax advantages if we sold the ISA and we'll pay a penalty if we withdraw money from the SIPP early. If we ever return to the UK, these could be useful. Would you diversify further within the equities and with the international equity funds and within the bonds with international long-term government funds? Although I said it hurts my head to consider the NHS pension as it is guaranteed is it worth being more aggressive with our retirement portfolio? You'll be pleased to know that we were meeting with a flat fee independent financial advisor to discuss all the above I like to go armed with the information, so I'd really be grateful to hear your thoughts. Thank you for such precise and useful information. And then she wrote after that that her suggested portfolio didn't add up to 100% because she forgot to include the 10% that would be in cash and short-term bonds. All right, Laura, well, there's a lot here, some of it I can answer well, and some of it I can't. Man's got to know his limitations. I would look into interactive brokers in terms of looking for an international brokerage. They have offices and operations all over the world. They offer trading on all kinds of platforms, I think something like 33 different markets, and they have a couple different setups, one that's completely no fee and one that's low fee with more services involved in it. So I would look at that. definitely for your provider because they are used to dealing with people outside the US and they have a good reputation. I'm not saying they're the only ones to look at, but I would probably go there first. I use them myself and I think they're just fine. Okay, as for your taxes, I do not know what your tax situation is going to be. I'm afraid that is beyond me. Man's got to know his limitations. So I would get some advice. I'm not sure you're going to get taxed on US-based funds where you are. I'm not sure that that is correct, but a decent accountant would know. I would see if you can find someone in the UK that has served clients that have moved to other countries, because I have to imagine that's a fairly common scenario. Now, what should we do about our current investment accounts held on the UK Vanguard platform? We'll not be able to trade them or rebalance the portfolio when needed. That's unfortunate. I would keep then most of them in a simple stock fund or stock funds if you can split them between a small cap value fund and a total market fund. That's a good mix to have. and I'm also wondering what your bond fund options would be there if you can set that up as a simple 60/40 portfolio with the stocks divided into a couple of funds that include the small cap value. That may be the best you can do. I don't know what other things you have available, but at least that will be a solid, standard place to be with that. And then you can work around that as you go. I understand you're not going to be able to access that for a while. I guess it's 17 years. So just having that in something reasonably safe, I think is a good practice. You could take more risk with that if you're willing to, because over 17 years it might pay off. The problem I see is that if you can't touch it and can't adjust the investments in there For that whole time, then you cannot move it towards a more conservative portfolio later on. Although, you know, you have the other stuff outside of that to rejigger. I just don't know what all the proportions are there to make that all work out right. So the safest course, I think, would be to put that in some kind of a 60/40 portfolio. if it's got to just stay there and you can't touch it. And for that, I would probably use intermediate treasury bonds on if you're going to take a whole 40 in bonds because that you don't want to take that much in long-term treasuries generally. If you had an option to take, you know, 60% in stocks, 20% in the long-term treasuries, and then you could do something else with that 20, you know, ideally it would be in like gold and some other things. But the problem is since you can't rebalance it, it's hard to do a whole lot with it. But that's kind of where I come out with it. All right, let's talk about your idea for a risk parity style portfolio. I mean, I think it looks pretty good. I do think you're probably too heavy on the long-term treasuries. And the reason I say that is you've been looking at a 15-year period. If you're looking at the past 15 years, And that's been a good period for long-term treasuries, particularly through the 2008 crash and then the recent 2020 crash. Not all periods are like that. And in particular, if we get a period like the 1970s, if there's going to be some inflation, you're not going to want to have 35% in long-term treasuries. So I would dial that back, even though what I'm suggesting would not have performed the best over the past 15 years, I think you want to consider what has performed the best over the past 50 years. And if you haven't gone to portfolio charts and put in your ideas into that and run them through that to see what your portfolio would have done in the 1970s, I think you want to do that because that kind of environment is always a possibility. So your two stock funds look fine to me. I would dial the long-term treasuries back to instead of 35%. I would make it 20 or 25% would be fine for those. You could add some more gold. You've got 5%. Between 10 and 15 is pretty much ideal for that. And then what you do with the rest of that, I mean, you could up your stocks. So you have 45% in the portfolio instead of 40%. That would be one thing you could do. You could add some more REITs or some other things when you do that. As for the REITs you've chosen, I probably would choose a few more to have a little bit more diversification over that category. You've got two good ones, but I think having four or five would be probably more optimal in the long run. And in particular, I think the ones you've chosen have a particularly low correlation with the stock market. You might actually want to choose a couple of them that have a relatively high correlation with the stock market. The reason I say that is those will tend to do better in inflationary times. I'm thinking about what would be your assets that are going to perform well during more inflationary times if we have those, and the ones that are there that do that would be your small cap value fund, the gold if it gets out of hand, and some of the REITs. So I would make those kind of adjustments and then go test out your portfolio to see how it performed over longer periods of time. One other way you can do that in Portfolio Visualizer is there is an analyzer that doesn't use exact ETFs or investments, but uses asset classes, and that one has more data in it. So you won't be able to put in the exact things here, but you will be able to put in small cap value and you will be able to put in REITs as a category, and you can put that in there and look at the analysis for it for that. I think 10% in short-term bonds and cash sounds great to me, particularly if you're going to be taking 5% variable out of this every year. And I would be prepared to take out at a variable rate as opposed to 5% and then increasing with inflation. I think that's that's probably too aggressive, I would want you to have a more variable or be able to take out a variable rate there if you can adjust your other income. And as for the pension, you know, it's so far away, it's 27 years away. I think I would just leave it alone and pretend it's like it's not there almost until you get closer to it. And then perhaps you can up your spending if you want to. But 27 years away, it's really hard to factor that in other than knowing that If all goes to heck, you'll at least have that in your old age. And if you haven't met with your financial advisor, I would print out that Morningstar 2021 Diversification Landscape report that I talked about earlier. It's almost a test to see whether your advisor understands that and the implications of it and how you can use that to help construct a portfolio. I'm not sure that most advisors really know how to do that, or at least most people who call themselves advisors really know how to do that. By the way, this is not advice. This is just information and entertainment. Hopefully you're amused.

Mostly Voices [30:30]

How funny how I mean funny like I'm a clown. I amuse you. I make you laugh. All right, I think we have time for a couple more short ones.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:38]

And the next email comes from Kevin L. And Kevin L. Writes, Frank, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to predict where interest rates will move, but is there data that shows how long-term treasuries perform alongside equities in a rising interest rate environment? Do the losses caused by rising rates offset their value as a counterbalance to equities during periods when equities fall? And the answer to that is yes. If you go back and look at that data from the 1970s, go to portfolio charts and you can put in various portfolios and various asset classes on their own. You can take 100% portfolio, put in long-term treasuries and look and see how that performed. What you'll find there in that environment is if you have things like small cap value, and gold, they will offset the losses in the long-term treasuries. And that's why you have those things. And that's why I just gave Laura that information about dealing with how many long-term treasuries you really want to have in your portfolio. You don't need to overwhelm a portfolio with them. And you want to have those kinds of equities and other things that would balance that out. The other thing you could hold would be commodities funds or commodities producers and REITs. The kinds of stocks that typically do not do well in that environment are your large cap growth funds and other growth funds. In the 1970s, what you saw was a collapse of what was called the Nifty Fifty, which were supposedly the best 50 stocks to hold, and they included Xerox and Polaroid and a whole bunch of other things. That idea came out of the 1960s, the markets all crashed in 73, 74, and then those sort of things never really recovered. While meantime, REITs and small cap value are kind of off to the races, and small cap value was up for the next 12 years in a row. So that is ultimately why when you look in a portfolio like the Golden Butterfly, you see that 20% small cap value, you see the 20% gold, that you see 20% in short-term bonds. which adjust pretty quickly to the interest rates. They drag a bit, but they don't lose a whole lot of money. They don't gain a whole lot of money either. And so those all tend to balance out a portfolio that has some long-term treasuries that you know are going to suffer in that environment. And the final email we'll do today is from Brian D. Brian D. writes, Frank, I'm interested in thoughts on long-term treasuries. versus TIPS, FNBGX versus FIPDX. I'm looking to build one into my portfolio for the long-term negative correlation to my heavily equities-based portfolio. Well, the answer to that, you can find this in the Morningstar paper and on the correlation analyses over at Portfolio Visualizer, and the answer is no. TIPS are generally positively correlated with stocks. And when the stocks tanked in 2008, the TIPS went down. When the stocks tanked in March 2020, the TIPS went down. So they're not negatively correlated. And the problem with them seems to be that they're so inert that they are not gaining much even in so-called inflationary environments. So if you look at how your TIPS fund performs versus, say, small cap value or commodities over the past, several months when we've been re-flating the economy after COVID. They really have not done a whole lot. It's hard to recommend those given the way they have performed. And I don't know whether that's just because it's the CPI they're only following or something else that's about them. I know they're designed to deal with inflationary environments, but they just have not done it that well. I would also take a look at that Morningstar paper that we've been talking about. One area that we haven't talked about that would be useful in an inflationary environment would be I Bonds, which you can buy directly from the Treasury. They don't really appear in these correlation analyses, but they are better structured than TIPS for inflation protection, really. There is a limit as to how many you can have, but I think it's about $100,000 worth per person. So you might want to look into those as well. Again, I don't think those are really that negatively correlated with your stocks, not like regular treasury bonds are, but they might be something that you just want as a conservative ballast kind of thing in there. But now I see our signal is beginning to fade.

Mostly Voices [35:22]

Tell me, have you ever heard of Single Premium Life? Because I think that really could be the ticket for you. Forget about it. We are still plowing through lots and lots of emails,

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:29]

and I will get to yours eventually. Still back on the ones that came in on May 5th and 6th, but I wanted to do a decent job with all of them and try to address everything as it comes in because it raises a whole lot of different questions that many people may be having. No more flying solo. If you have questions or comments for me, you can send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that's frank@riskparityradio.com that email. or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio.com and put in your message into the contact form and I'll get it that way. If you haven't had a chance, please go over to Apple Podcasts or wherever you get this podcast and leave a five-star review to get the word out so other people can find it.

Mostly Voices [36:19]

Yeah, baby, yeah! Yeah, baby, yeah!

Mostly Uncle Frank [36:27]

We'll be continuing on this weekend with our weekly portfolio reviews, and we'll also answer some more emails. How about that? Shut it up, you. Thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off.

Mostly Mary [36:44]

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.