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 [0:37]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to episode 87 of Risk Parity Radio. Today on Risk Parity Radio, we're going to have an all email extravaganza because we still have a lot of them to work through. Just two announcements before we get started with that. The first is that I think I am all the way through the emails to May 10th. So if you sent an email after that, I haven't gotten to it yet. If you sent one before that, I may have missed it. I don't think I've missed it, but it's a possibility. So just so you know where I am in the great scheme of things here. The second announcement is that I've been asked by a couple of emailers whether I do one-on-one consultations. and I had not planned on opening a consultation business or financial coaching business, but I am looking into it now to see whether it would make sense and what the parameters of that would be. I am not a financial advisor or registered as a financial advisor and do not have any of those certifications. So this would be for information, education, and coaching. If it comes to pass and I will look at it more closely and see whether it makes sense and tell you at the beginning of June whether I can do that or not. But now to the main event. Here I go once again with the email. And the first email is from Falco W. And Falco W writes, hi Frank, I recently started listening to your show from the start and it's been eye-opening. I had no idea what diversification equals negative slash low correlation and asset allocation meant. And while I haven't made a change to my investing strategy yet, I know that my diversified all equity portfolio is far from diversified. Currently I'm spending a lot of time on the question of why I'm investing. My mom recently got cancer, so I've come to experience that life can change quickly. I'm getting to the point where I think I've got it nailed down as to what I want to achieve. I don't want to invest 30 years for a retirement portfolio that covers 100% of my expenses. I live in the Netherlands and we do have a good pension system so that won't be necessary. I'm also the only son of my mother so there will be an inheritance of some sort in 25 years or so. So my current thinking is that I want to invest now into something that has the potential to buy me more freedom starting in five years or so. I am at the point in life where I can invest about 2,000 euro a month and there are some potential upsides such as bonuses, freelance work on the side, etc. So the coming five years will be a time of high contributions. I'm 27 so when kids are becoming a topic it would be ideal to reduce my work hours by a day a week and have that extra cash come from a portfolio for example. I'd love to pick your brain on that because of my 100% equities portfolio is certainly best for maximizing market returns in the long run, but if I want to start withdrawing some small amounts in five years, it would have to change then. So it's probably risky to continue with 100% equity now. Hypothetical, if in 2026 there is a crash and a lost decade follows, as a consequence it would be foolish to sell a large proportion of my equities. then they'll be at rock bottom to purchase risk parity style assets, which will be high. Does that make any sense? I would love to hear your thoughts on the way I'm approaching this and my thinking around these topics. Thank you so much for putting out the show and taking the time. Super grateful for that. Best Falco. Well Falco, first, sorry about your mom. That is always distressing when a loved one gets sick. And I hope she gets better soon. Since you don't plan on getting your inheritance for 25 years or so, I assume that it is not life threatening. And hopefully it will stay that way. I think what you've said does make some sense if you are going to be using money from a portfolio in five years then yes you would want it structured like a retirement style, risk parity style portfolio for that purpose. The real question that you have to wrestle with is how big does that portfolio need to be? And does it need to be your whole portfolio or just part of your portfolio? So I would think about well how much income do I think I need from this portfolio? You'll need to make some kind of estimate. and then multiply that by 25 and come up with an estimate as to how big that portfolio needs to be. And then you would convert that part of your current portfolio into that drawdown portfolio that you would use in this intermediate term place. And you could still have part of your portfolio if you weren't going to use it as a long-term all equity style investment. if you wanted to do it that way. So if you're planning on doing that, I would probably work on either converting it or simply building it out with the new contributions to where it needs to be after you make that expense calculation. All right, the next question comes from Tim E. And Tim E. writes, Hi Frank, thank you for answering my question in episode 74 about Ben Felix's criticism of risk parity portfolios. I'm late in thanking you because only just this week I got to episode 74, listening in succession from the beginning and heard your reply. I understood your answer and as I was listening to your podcast since I wrote you, I realized my portfolio was already risk parity like since I had 14% gold, 1% Bitcoin, 20% long-term bonds, and 15% short-term bond allocations. The other 50% is in domestic and international index funds with a heavy tilt towards value, especially small-cap value under Ben's influence. But until you came along, I was diversified in different kinds of bond funds equally across treasury, corporate, and inflation-protected bonds. So now after listening to your podcast, I have converted all my bonds exclusively into treasuries and have a bona fide risk parity portfolio as a result. I owe you thanks for clearing my head about that. Thank you. As for a new question, in Ben Felix's Common Sense Investing episode entitled Asset Allocation, he argues that complexity and the uncertainty of future returns makes trying to locate assets across taxable, Roth, and traditional tax-protected accounts For tax purposes, not worth the effort. I took his advice and have equal allocations across my account types. What do you think of his argument? There's a link to a video. You're filling a niche for DIYers no one else is filling. Yeah, baby, yeah! Thank you so much, Uncle Frank. Well, thank you, Tim, and I'm glad you are getting value out of the information I'm supplying. I did go watch the Ben Felix video. It seemed to me that he was talking mainly about Canadian investment choices as to what he was referring to in that video, and he is in Canada, so that doesn't surprise me. The issue with location in the US has to do with our tax code, which taxes ordinary income at a higher rate than long-term capital gains. And as long as that's true, there's going to be a good place and a bad place to put assets in just because of the way things are taxed. And the real issue has to do with what goes in these tax advantaged accounts that you're taking ordinary income out and paying taxes as you go, which are also subject to required minimum distributions when you hit 72. And then how does that compare with your taxable account. The Roth obviously is never taxed. So I think depending on what your tax situation is, you should look at that. Asset location is something that will be still important if you are a US taxpayer. You need somebody watching your back at all times. I also agree that your portfolio does indeed look like a risk parity style portfolio down to the 1% Bitcoin that is about the amount that we said was appropriate given its volatility in relation to stocks and gold and other things. That episode was episode 29 if anyone's looking for it. I do not particularly recommend investing in Bitcoin, but if you do, keep it small and proportional to the rest of your assets in terms of volatility. All right, email number three comes from Jeff G and Jeff G writes, hi Frank, I absolutely love the podcast. I listen to every episode and find your show incredibly informative. I also appreciate all the help and feedback via Facebook in which I have asked several questions of you through the Choose FI page and your information is always much appreciated. I had a quick question for you regarding the building of a risk parity portfolio. Do you think it's appropriate to add new positions as you grow your overall portfolio as opposed to switching what you already have for a different asset type. For example, I have no gold in my portfolio. Should I sell other positions such as my stock allocation to get to a 10% gold position? Or is it okay to add new money to build a new position in gold that would be in a ready position in about five to eight years when I would consider retiring? I'm not sure if that would make a difference whether I sold one asset class to create a new one or simply built the new position from scratch by adding to it every year. I'm about 80% stocks, 15% bonds, and the rest in cash. I'm very close to my true FI number, but want to create a very large buffer to protect against the unknown. In addition, I enjoy my job, so I'm not looking to leave immediately. Thanks for your feedback. Regards, Jeff. And my answer is, yes, I think this is a fine way to approach the issue because it's very tax efficient. if you're not selling anything and buying something else, obviously you're not realizing any capital gains, and so it's advantageous from that position. The only question is just how fast you can get there and whether you would need to make more of an adjustment. It doesn't sound like you would, but if you're putting essentially everything new into the assets you are lacking, this should build out pretty well, I would think. And you may want to look at it in another couple of years with another projection and see where it is to see whether you need to sell something. But at the moment, I would think that just starting with your plan would make a lot of sense. Or as we say here in Risk Parity Radio Land. You are correct, sir. Yes. And now the next email comes from Adam. And Adam writes, I am thoroughly enjoying your podcast since starting at episode one, about 45 episodes in so far. I remember being fascinated by the Golden Butterfly portfolio after I discovered portfolio charts several years ago, but at the time I was sticking to a more common 100% total stock market allocation. Between looking at portfolio charts and portfolio visualizer and running countless backtests, I've adapted my portfolio to a relatively simple structure that seems to perform well on both analysis sites due to the uncorrelated and negatively correlated asset classes, which is 42.5% small cap value in fund AVUV and 42.5% long-term treasuries in TLT and 15% gold in GLDM. I'm nearing an early financial independence status, so I'd really like the balance this portfolio provides regarding growth stability and perpetual withdrawal rate. Thank you for running such a wonderful podcast and discussing these kinds of risk parity portfolios. Well, thank you, Adam. I'm glad you're getting a lot out of this as well.

Mostly Voices [13:20]

We had the tools, we had the talent.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:24]

And it is correct that this portfolio you've constructed does test very well. I think it has a 6% perpetual withdrawal rate. on the portfolio chart site in something like a 6.5% safe withdrawal rate over 30 years. So it's very good in that respect. The only caveat I have on this portfolio is that in some decades it does underperform a lot of the market and doesn't look that shiny. So in particular, if you look at the past decade when small cap value stocks were not doing very well. Its performance looked kind of lackluster. Now, if you looked at it in the prior decade, you'd be very happy you had this portfolio. So I think there is a psychological issue with being able to hold a portfolio like this, knowing that it's going to have subpar decades, and then it's going to have much better decades, and it's usually going to do better when the market is crashing. That's the interesting thing about this portfolio. It has a low correlation itself to the overall stock market. So I did go ahead and run a backtest analysis of this portfolio over at Portfolio Visualizer to compare it to a total stock market portfolio. And it's only 0.73 correlated with the overall stock market. What was really nice about it that going back to 1978, I think it only had a max drawdown of around 18%, which is fabulous from that point of view compared to the overall stock market, which had a drawdown of over 50%. Still, you will find that in the periods when large cap growth stocks are doing particularly well, this portfolio is going to lag. So, like the late 90s and the past decade would be two of those kinds of periods. The other period where it would be rough sailing will be in an inflationary environment, like part of the '70s and into the '80s. The gold and small cap value will help there, but the treasuries are going to suffer. And so one of the questions is whether you want to have that large of a treasury bond component in there. But I will leave that up to you. This is exactly what I'm hoping that people will do and get out of this podcast is that they will go and do it themselves and experiment with these calculators to come up with something that suits them the best.

Mostly Voices [16:05]

We had the tools, we had the talent.

Mostly Uncle Frank [16:08]

All right, the next email comes from Phil S and it's a long one. Let me read it to you. Dear Frank, first of all, thank you for creating such an informative and engaging podcast. It is great to see you bring more exposure to risk parity style investing. I am a UK national based in the Middle East, age 43, and have attempted to create a risk parity style portfolio with my SIPP pension plan. SIPP is a close equivalent to the 401k where you are free to invest in any asset class until retirement. Unfortunately, most of the funds noted in your podcast are not available on the UK market. I have tried my best to choose the best fit alternatives in GBP. Based on my research, most of these funds charge higher fees, spreads, and incurred dealing charges of £10 per buy/sell transaction. In addition, there's also a hedged currency component that can lag returns. My preferred portfolio would be the Risk Parity Ultimate, however, the high dealing charges for 12 funds would eat too much into the return given the regular rebalancing required. In addition, it is hard to find best fit UK equivalents for all 12 funds. Do you know of any tools that could help find alternative funds? Also, portfolio visualizer and portfolio charts do not capture the UK funds that I can invest in. I therefore recently created the aggressive 50/50 portfolio in my SIPP with the nearest UK based equivalent funds ETFs Please find attached. I will rebalance if anyone fund goes plus or minus 20% its original allocation. So you can see from my spreadsheet, the UPro and VGIT UK equivalents match well. I'm unable to find a TMF three times leveraged fund equivalent with the 20 plus year treasuries that have settled for a three times 10 year treasury funds, which is not sufficiently negatively correlated to the UPro. My fear is that a fall in the leveraged share fund would not be adequately diversified by the leveraged bond fund. Do you know of a leveraged bond fund similar to TMF that is sufficiently diversified away from UPRO? Also, the UK-based preferred shares equivalent does not track well with PFF. Do you recommend another asset class with a high correlation to preferred shares? You mentioned one of your episodes that in practice you would include a gold ETF to introduce more diversification into the aggressive 50/50. What percent allocation would you consider? I wanted to bring an international perspective on the additional hurdles in creating a risk parity style portfolio and I appreciate your views. Keep up the great work. Best regards, Phil S. Well, thank you, Phil S, for this very interesting email and I wish I could address it better than I can. Man's got to know his limitations. Because I'm a US investor and I'm only a bit familiar with what goes on in other markets and other options. I realize that we tend to have more and better options here and that you are restricted by this particular plan. If there's some way you can get out of it or get them to go to something like Interactive Brokers, that would be the best bet. I realize that's probably not a solution that you can use. Just going through a few of and making a few comments on your email. The Risk Parity Ultimate, if you wanted to construct something like that, remember that it is essentially 40% stocks, 25% long-term Treasuries, and then the rest of it is in alternatives that include REITs, gold, preferred shares, and a couple other things. So that is kind of the The basic framework of that is the 40% stock funds and 25% long-term treasuries and everything else could be swapped in or out with various ideas, if you will, to make it either more aggressive or more conservative, as the case may be. I am not sure I know of any other fund that is comparable to TMF in order to balance that out. you need to look at the volatilities of the UPRO versus the fund that you have available. And what that will tell you is kind of what the proportions ought to be so that you want the percentage times the volatility to equal the same on both parts of it. And that is going to involve taking just a much larger slug of those treasuries in relation to the size of the UPRO. So I know you can find the volatility measurements for UPRO. If you go to the correlation analyzer and put UPRO in there, it will give you returns and volatility in addition to what its correlation is with other funds. And so if you can put your funds in there, hopefully you can get that information that way and then using that volatility Metric you size your portion so that the overall volatility is matching so that would mean say if you had something that was half as volatile as something else youe would want to have twice as much of that in the portfolio. That's just a simple example. All right going to the preferred shares fund and equivalents are alternatives to that. Recall that the purpose of a Preferred shares fund in a portfolio is to generate income. And so it is taking the place of what you might have fulfilled with corporate bonds in the past when they were actually paying a decent interest rate. And since they're not anymore, you wouldn't use those. You might have corporate bond options that are similar to that. And that is something that I would look at because you're working in different currencies. The other thing to look at that would generate income would be REITs and you could find similar income generators in the REIT world to PFF both either in funds or in individual REITs. The reason PFF is popular in the US is for its favorable tax treatment because it pays what's called a qualified dividend which is taxed at a lower capital gains tax rate than the income you would get from a corporate bond fund or from a REIT. I don't think that's probably relevant to you at all, but that's what it is or what it means for us. All right, as for how much gold you want in a portfolio, I would go and listen to episodes 12 and 40 about this. Generally, the amount in a portfolio that's not leveraged would be 10 to 15%. So if you have a portfolio that is leveraged, you probably want a little more. So it's probably going to be somewhere between 15 and 25% nominal. So I would start with 15 and then think about whether you want any more. Your portfolio may end up looking a little bit more like the accelerated permanent portfolio. than the aggressive 5050. Two other points before I leave you. One is that there is a leveraged treasury bond fund called TYD that I think though is pretty similar to the one that you already have available. But so it's not as volatile as TMF. And then the other thing I want to make sure that I leave you with is that using these leveraged funds like UPRO is an experiment in my view. That's why we call those things experimental portfolios. Simply because they have not been around that long and I can't guarantee and would not guarantee that they would continue to perform essentially as advertised. But so far they have performed as advertised even though they are really designed for short-term trading and not designed for long-term holdings. And that is why we call them experimental. So I hope that helps you. Honestly, I wish I could do better on these questions. That was weird, wild stuff. But you know how it is. Man's got to know his limitations. Alright, the next question comes from someone who prefers to be called Steve.

Mostly Voices [25:05]

Hey, Steve!

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:08]

And Steve writes, Good day Frank. One for your followers who are looking to start investing with reasonable cash sums. I have recently discovered the FI movement. My family and I are immigrating from Africa to the US in a month. We are immigrating to the states with about 650,000 in cash dollars and another $500,000 in assets we want to liquidate over the next five years. which include land, business, shareholdings, etc. We have about 20 years of investing before we might consider retiring at around 60. We will have annual household income of between $170,000 and $250,000 and we'll have expenses of about $50,000 to $60,000. Flights to Africa are not cheap. I very much like the risk parity approach and I'm enjoying your podcast. So my questions are these：1. The stock market is expensive at the moment with some chatter of a correction being imminent. Would you still agree that we get into the stock market now rather than wait for the correction because the time in the market is better than timing the market or maybe get into stocks some and hold some cash back for the correction. Number two, with 20 to 25 years left, how much would you recommend we deploy the 650,000? What mix between stocks, large cap growth, small cap value, international, long-term treasury bonds, preferred stocks? Reits Gold, we have no debt, have an emergency cash fund, etc. We have a fine number of about 2.5 million. Keep up the great work. Thanks, Steve. Hey, Steve. All right, Steve, your first question is in the Crystal Ball category. My name's Sonia.

Mostly Voices [26:52]

I'm going to be showing you the Crystal Ball and how to use it or how I use it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:59]

Whenever I consult my magic crystal eight ball toy, this is all it tells me.

Mostly Voices [27:03]

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:11]

I was also listening to a podcast with Vitali Katsenelson, who is a professional investor, and he has a podcast called the Intellectual Investor that I would recommend. And he says in his last podcast, the kind of portfolio we really need to have is called an I don't know portfolio. Because since we don't know what is going to happen in the future, even in the immediate future, we would want to have something that would cover us regardless of what we are likely to face in the near future and the distant future. So I would say on the time frame you're looking at, it's probably kind of irrelevant whether you put it all in right now or put it all in over the course of the next year or two simply because the time frame that's important is all the time after you put it all in there. So while it's mathematically the right decision to put it all in there at once, put it in your portfolio at once, if psychologically it helps you not to have to do it all at once and do it on a planned schedule, then that's just fine. I would do it that way if that feels better to you because it's a lot of money. But I would stick to a specific schedule, write it down that you are going to invest this much money on these dates and not be looking and waiting for the market to do something because otherwise you risk being just shut out of the market for years or decades. There are people who got out of the market in 2008 And have not been able to pull the trigger on getting back in. And you don't want to be one of those people. And to avoid that, write down what your plan is when you plan on making the investments and then stick to that plan. All right, that's your question one. Ask for question two about how to deploy the $650,000. With 20 to 25 years left on it, you'd want to deploy as much into the stock market as you are comfortable with. I would diversify that across a few funds. One idea is simply to split it between large cap growth and small cap value. That's a simple way to cover the whole market. Another idea would be to look at, say, Paul Merriman's four fund portfolio, which is another simple way that covers essentially the same ground. If you are interested in what is called factor style investing, you could look at what Ben Felix does. That is also a simple and reasonable way to divide up a portfolio that covers both US and international. One thing you should bear in mind is it doesn't really matter which one of these you pick because of the macro allocation principle that All of these portfolios that I'm talking about that are all stock portfolios are going to perform 90% plus the same because they're all correlated and you won't know in advance which is going to be the preferred portfolio. So for example, any of those portfolios I just described would have underperformed a simple total stock market fund portfolio over the past 10 years. They all would have done worse. and the reason they all would have done worse is because things like emerging markets and small cap value had a bad decade. Now what the next decade is going to look like we don't know. So I wouldn't spend too much time trying to optimize your stock portfolio because it really cannot be done. What you're most interested is making sure that you have low fee funds and that to the extent you have multiple funds you rebalance them on some schedule. You could ask yourself questions. Do I feel lucky?

Mostly Voices [31:14]

Do I feel lucky?

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:18]

Now, as for how much you would want in long-term Treasuries, preferred stocks, REITs, gold, those alternatives that we talk about on this podcast, this really again goes to how your overall plan is going to shape out. Think about what the portfolio you want to have at retirement is going to look like. if you can imagine that and it looks like one of our risk parity style portfolios, then you could take on a piece of that now if you wanted to have a more conservative portfolio than you have. So instead of having a hundred percent stock portfolio or a risk parity style portfolio, you have something that maybe has just half of the alternatives in that portfolio that a risk parity style portfolio would have. So I'm imagining something like you take the Golden Butterfly portfolio and instead of having 20% short-term treasuries and 20% long-term treasuries and 20% gold, you take 10% for each of those and then you add that remaining 30% back into the stocks. And that is going to give you something that has the characteristics of what an 80/20 portfolio would kind of look like or feel like. I'm not necessarily recommending you do those things because the all stock portfolio has the biggest chance of having the greatest returns over time. But to the extent you just want something that's more conservative that matches your risk tolerances, that is one way to do it, knowing that in the end you're going to end up with something that looks like a total Risk Parity Style Portfolio. That's kind of the flexibility you have with do-it-yourself portfolio construction.

Mostly Voices [33:08]

We have the tools, we have the talent.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:12]

I think there are another couple of considerations that you may have because investing this money in financial markets is not the only way you could invest it. You could invest some of it in rental properties or another business or something else on the side. Now, that's not something we deal with here, but those are viable options and something you may want to consider in addition to what you're going to put into a brokerage account in financial market assets. But honestly, I can say looking at these numbers, you're in very good shape and it seems like you are likely to reach your goals just by being steady with your investments and not panicking in downturns. and that's really all you will need to do given the income you're going to be making and your relatively low level of expenses. You're in good shape. Yes. All right, last question for today comes from Nick and Nick writes, hi Frank, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the type of bonds used in the bond portion of a risk parity type portfolio. If you take as an example a 60/40 or 50/50 stock bond portfolio, why would one go with anything other than a long-term treasury fund, TLT, VGI, or even EDV for the bond portion. It is the least correlated to stocks, so I would have assumed that it would be the best choice as opposed to what we often see in various portfolios where the bond portion is divvied up between long, intermediate, short-term bond funds, or worse, an allocation that includes corporate bonds, which are even more correlated to stocks. Thanks and love your podcast and your presentation style. Thanks for this question, Nick. It kind of goes to some fundamentals about bonds and why you might hold them for what purpose. Really, you can hold bonds for three purposes. One would be diversification, looking for that actual negative correlation with stocks. A second would be for income. And a third would be for stability. Now, typically you would get income out of corporate or high yield bonds. but these days they really don't pay much in that line. So you're better off looking elsewhere for income such as preferred shares or REITs or those sorts of things. So you really don't want the bonds for income these days. Now you may want some bonds for stability and those are just going to be your short term bonds or money markets and the only purpose of that is simply to have some cash and just to dampen the total volatility of the portfolio. But those don't do very much for you in terms of returns so that you need to make sure you're not over weighting your portfolio with those sorts of things. I agree that the main problem with these kind of total bond funds is they have kind of a mishmash of stuff that is probably not optimized for you. It's certainly not optimized for you. Now, going to that diversification component, there is also a volatility issue here. And the reason why you actually want long-term treasuries in a portfolio that is mainly driven by stocks is because of its volatility in the opposite direction from stocks. So these long-term treasuries are more volatile than the short-term treasuries. And sometimes people think, well, that's why I don't want them, but that's actually why you do want them, because since they move in the opposite direction and they are more volatile, you have a more diverse portfolio with long-term treasury bonds. The other thing about them is you don't need as many then for diversification purposes. You don't need to have 40% all in long-term treasuries. You can get away with having 20% or 25% and then take that extra that you would have put there and put it into alternatives like gold or put it into income generators like REITs or just do something else with it. And so that's the advantage of having long-term treasuries. You just don't need as many to build out a typical portfolio. And we kind of know this intuitively. If we look back at how, for instance, the 4% rule was derived, that was looking at a portfolio that was 60% stocks like the S&P and 40% intermediate term treasuries. And the intermediate term treasuries are just not as volatile as the long-term treasuries. So you need more of them to perform the same diversification purpose that you would for the long-term treasuries. This is one of the most counterintuitive things I think in portfolio construction, simply because most people tend to make the mistake of looking at their bond portfolio in a vacuum and not really aligning it with their stock portfolio. And if you're just constructing a bond portfolio in a vacuum, yeah, then it does look like some kind of total bond thing. But then when you line that up with your stocks, you realize you're really not getting the kind of bang for your buck you're looking for in terms of diversification. And you really need to focus on what kinds of bonds you have and how they align with the stocks in your portfolio and the other things in your portfolio, not just the other bonds. And that's why you don't need to be so afraid of the volatility because you want it. And you want it because then you get to hold less of that asset class and you can hold more stocks or more other things that are going to have other benefits for your portfolio.

Mostly Voices [39:09]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [39:12]

But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. I am a little short on time this week, so there will not be another podcast until we do our weekly portfolio reviews this weekend of the six sample portfolios you can find at www.riskparadioradio.com. And we'll also tackle some more emails and see if we can make a bigger dent in those as we go. If you have comments or questions, you can send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that email is frank@riskparityradio.com or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio.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 to Apple Podcasts or wherever you get this podcast and give it a five-star review because that helps Get the word out. That would be great. Mmkay. Thank you again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off. And as for my presentation style, let me understand this.

Mostly Mary [40:20]

I'm funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? What do you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny? I think I have too much fun with that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [40:28]

The Risk Parity Radio Show is hosted by Frank Vasquez.

Mostly Mary [40:32]

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.