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. Thank you, Mary, and welcome to episode 91 of Risk Parity Radio. Shut it up, you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:48]

Today on Risk Parity Radio, it is time for our weekly portfolio reviews of the six sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com. And we also have our monthly distributions to go over. But before that, we are going to get back to working on this large stack of messages I have from you. I'm intrigued by this. How you say, emails? And first off, first off, we are going live to Denmark with an email from Rune J. And Rune J writes, Dear Frank, really enjoying your podcast a lot. My wife and I are currently in our accumulation phase, but planning on going on so-called coast fire in about 8 to 10 years, age 52 to 54 then, where we plan to draw some income from our portfolios and work part-time to cover the rest of our costs. This phase will continue until official retirement age 70. So our question is, when would it be wise to reallocate portfolio from currently primarily stocks to a more risk parity style portfolio. On one side, if markets are down, we always have the option to work more. What puzzles me a little is that the difference between the expected return on the test risk parity portfolios and 100% stocks does not seem so large. Official retirement period is taken care of by other governmental pension types. We live in Denmark. A topic that could be interesting to hear more about is the difference in predictive value of expected return versus variance and covariance. I remember from school that a professor mentioned that second order moment variance due to its mathematical nature is much more stable over time compared to the first order expected return. Thank you for a great podcast, Run J. All right, Rune J. Let's talk about the first part of this first. I think what you probably want to do first is do a calculation or an estimate of your expenses that need to be covered when you get to this coast fire thing. I know it's kind of difficult to do that right now, but you should give it a try and then improve it as time goes on. Because what you want to know is Taking that expense list and then subtracting off any income you believe that you'll be having, and you'll need to estimate that as well. That tells you how much your portfolio needs to cover. And once you know what your portfolio needs to cover, if you want to just use the 4% guideline as an estimate, you need a portfolio that is essentially 25 times what that is. I mean 25 times your annual expenses that are not covered. Knowing that then you can look at what you currently have or have accumulated and then work forward to see whether that's enough. Put it that way. You still have eight to ten years so there's a lot of variance going on here as you mentioned because eight to ten years is a relatively long time frame still. But in theory, if you had, say, enough money that if it grew at 4 or 5% for the next eight to 10 years, would get you to that number that is 25 times your residual expenses, you're already there. Now, a better way or rule of thumb might be simply to wait until you're five years out and then look at that calculation again. Once you are there, though, you can move your assets into this risk parity style portfolio. Because what's nice about that is you want to be all set up before you pull the plug on any retirement and maybe have been living that way for a year or two or up to five years, which is what we did essentially before you pull the plug. Because once you're in that risk parity style portfolio, you can walk away at any time, essentially. And there is a lot of flexibility here, knowing that really all you need to be thinking about is, well, I need to be in my retirement portfolio before we pull the plug on things on work-wise. So you can begin to convert some now if you'd like to do that, or you can wait a little bit longer, but just make sure that when you're coming in there that you are ready to go and you're not going to get caught with a large stock portfolio when it's time to retire and then the market crashes. That's what you're trying to avoid. So there's a number of different ways to get there. Now, another option, if you have accumulated enough already, is simply to take the part that you think you're going to need as your retirement portfolio, if you will, put that aside in a risk parity style portfolio, and then you can do whatever you want with the excess. I mean, if you want to take more risk and keep it in stocks, that's fine. If you want to go buy some real estate, take a vacation, that's fine too. But there are a number of different options that you can go with there. And as for your observation that you're not giving up that much by switching to a risk parity style portfolio, that's generally correct, at least year on year, if you compound that over decades, it will end up being a lot. So what you're typically giving up in return is about 1 to 2% by moving to a risk parity style portfolio, and that's going to be true of any retirement style portfolio. But what you're getting in exchange for that is about half of the volatility. And so that actually puts you in a situation where your safe withdrawal rate is higher with a risk parity style portfolio than it would be if you were to stay in a 100% stock portfolio because you are reducing that variance. Now, as for those statistical principles, I don't want to get too technical or too jargony, but I think if we could just think about how these expected return, the first order, the variance or second order, and then the covariance fit into the things we talk about, maybe that would be of some use. We talk a lot about what's called the Sharpe Ratio, and the Sharpe Ratio is a measure of risk reward. Basically, the higher the Sharpe Ratio you have, the more return you're getting for the risk that you're taking. Now, the Sharpe Ratio is in fact a measurement of two of these things. The Sharpe Ratio is the returns on the top as the numerator, and then the standard deviation representing the variance as the denominator. And so in that kind of formula, you can see that as the standard deviation goes down, the Sharpe Ratio goes up. It's an inverse correlation there. And so that's a very good way to think about in a concrete way what these things are doing for you. Now, there's also an interesting graphical representations of this. And go to portfolio charts and look at some of the portfolios there. You can just pull up the golden butterfly or 60/40 or a total stock market or put whatever you want in there. The graphs there show a lot of the variance in these portfolios. And you can see where you have a portfolio, like a 100% equity portfolio, it's going to have a very broad variance. and you're having a broad possibility of outcomes. When you compare that to a risk parity style portfolio, you'll see that the outcomes get very narrow. They stay in a much tighter band, whether you're talking about the growth of the portfolio, drawing down on the portfolio, any of those sorts of things over time using a Monte Carlo simulation to project that. So you're getting a much narrower set of outcomes than a risk parity style portfolio, which gives you that more predictability, which then feeds into a higher safe withdrawal rate. And that's how those things come together. But bands, how broad or narrow they are in those calculators is a graphical representation of the variance of a portfolio, whereas the slope or how quickly it goes up in an accumulation phase, say, is a representation of the returns or compounded annual growth rate. Now, where does the covariance come in? The covariance comes in when you are looking at those correlation matrices. A correlation matrix is basically a measurement of correlations. You are comparing one asset to another asset to see whether they move together or move separately or they don't seem to have any relationship as far as their direction. And that you can see at the correlation calculator over at Portfolio Visualizer, which I can link to in the show notes.

Mostly Voices [10:10]

I did not know that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:14]

And I will also link to a little article or link about the Sharpe Ratio to whet your appetite for more statistical observations if you are so inclined. That was weird, wild stuff.

Mostly Voices [10:26]

Dogs and cats living together, Mass hysteria. All right, let's go to the next email. It's from Patrice L.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:34]

And Patrice L. Writes, Thank you for your podcast. That's exactly what I've been looking for to educate myself on how to change our asset allocation as we move out of the accumulation phase and into retirement. I particularly liked your explanations of the different kinds of bonds and the analysis of various investments with the 10 questions for me to learn about alternatives to stocks. My husband and I are 48/49 years old and are hoping to retire at the end of 2022. However, it may slip another year depending on how the market performs since we all need some asset accumulation. I've spent my entire investing life with 100% stocks except for some cash in a portfolio and understand that needs to change. I admit I've been chasing returns recently to get into retirement as quickly as possible. Note this excludes equity in our home. Our asset allocation has been 90% stocks and 10% cash with some of the large cash balance held for a major remodel to our house that may or may not happen now. Our assets have grown faster than we expected due to recent strong stock market returns. So we are excited about potentially being able to retire earlier than planned, but also are feeling more risk averse and want to diversify our portfolio since we don't have a long time horizon now before we start the drawdown phase. We recently sold some of our stock and moved 5% into bonds for an 85% stock, 10% cash, 5% bond portfolio. Our portfolio is roughly 50/50 taxable and 401 accounts. Our marginal tax rate is currently 35%. I have a few questions for you and we'll go through these one at a time and do the answers for them before reading all of them. The first one is when we retire, we do not want to have a mortgage. We will either pay off the mortgage on our current house or the more likely scenario is we sell our current house and move to another location. Either way we need to use a chunk of our total assets 10 to 12% to pay for this. What are your thoughts on how to hold these funds? for the next couple few years. All right, well, well first congratulations. It sounds like you're doing quite well in your saving and investing and I do agree it's time to focus on something different if your work situation is changing and you're no longer having all that income and you want to live on what you've accumulated. As for this first question, if you are planning on spending this money in the next one or two years I think you just hold that in cash or short term bonds or something like that. That's really too short of a time period to be thinking about investing much of it. Well, I should also congratulate you on keeping your house down to 10 to 12% of your assets. Because one mistake many Americans make, and I don't even know if you're an American, is that they put too much money into their house and then it stuck there in equity and they can't use it to live on. Most successful wealthy people only have about 10 to 15% of their assets tied up in the thing they're living in. So congratulations on that as well. I actually think you should consider taking a mortgage or keeping a mortgage for the first part of your retirement. And we'll get to this to your later questions. and the reason I say that is because your issue with your retirement accounts is liquidity and not wanting to take it out. One way to get around that is to keep more of what would be going into this house outside of that. And so not thinking of paying off the house now, but thinking of paying it off when you get to 59 and a half might be a better strategy for you. Now, if you're going to do that, then you could take the money that you would have paid the house down with or the mortgage down with, and you can get a pretty low rate right now on that, and put that in a risk parity style portfolio just by itself as sort of matching up with the mortgage. So that takes care of the mortgage and continues to grow, but is also available as a liquid source of assets. as you go and then thinking of paying that down over the next 10 years. So when you get to 59 and a half and you get access to the rest of that money without penalty, it'll put you in a much more flexible situation, I think. All right, question two. Given we are about 10 years from being able to access our 401 accounts, thoughts on the split of assets between the taxable and tax deferred accounts. We need to make sure our taxable accounts can support us for 10 years of drawdowns. I know traditional thinking is to place assets in taxable versus tax deferred based on how they are taxed. However, does this thinking change when you can only access a portion of the assets for the first 10 years? And then your third question, which I can take together with this one, is how do you suggest we move our assets to make a transition to a risk parity style portfolio all at once over time, etc. Well, in your situation, at least while you're working right now, you do have this issue with the taxes. In the 35% tax bracket, you are also going to be in the 20% capital gains tax bracket, long-term capital gains tax bracket. And so to the extent that you can avoid selling things and taking gains on them in your taxable account before you actually retire, that would be advisable. So what you might do is move all the stuff in your 401k to set up your kind of risk parity style portfolio. But then after you retire, make adjustments so you make your taxable account less risky, take some risk out of that, add some more risk back into the 401k side of this thing. by buying more stocks in there. And that way you will be able to kind of manage this tax situation that you've got. I think in your situation that takes kind of precedent over tax location issues. So I would essentially take those 401k assets and as soon as possible move them into the bonds and alternatives that you were going to be holding in a risk parity style portfolio while leaving the taxable account alone until you actually retire or not in the 35% and 20% tax brackets anymore and then start selling those things down and making more adjustments and evening the tax location issues out as you go. And again, going back to your first question, Not paying down the mortgage right away and keeping a mortgage for those first 10 years will give you that liquidity flexibility that I think is going to be important for you if you don't want to have to access that money in those retirement accounts. Yeah, baby, yeah! And I should also say there's nothing wrong with holding a large pile of cash or short-term bonds at the beginning of retirement or particularly if you're moving to another location. and the reason that makes sense is the unpredictability of what your actual expenses will be. So if you go and get set up, live for a year figuring out, well, what are our actual expenses? It's okay to keep stuff in cash or short-term bonds for that short period of time just while you make your adjustments and then moving it back into other assets.

Mostly Voices [18:26]

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:30]

In fact, in the real world it makes more sense since we can't predict everything. What we usually can predict much better than anything else though is our expenses. That changes when we're making a change in life but will reset itself as we go forward with that. So hopefully that helps. And the last part of your email says thank you for any help you can provide. I've listened to about 20 of your episodes but not in order so please Let me know if any of the episodes answer my questions as well. Thanks, Patrice. Well, we've had a number of questions from listeners about their particular situations going into retirement. And most of those, though, are after the beginning of the year when more people started listening to my podcast and I was getting a lot more questions. So I would listen to the episodes involving listener emails and you can look in the show notes for each one to see what the topics are that are covered. But if you start in January of this year and listen to all those first. That is probably going to help you in terms of finding people in similar situations. Everybody's situation is different and yours is different than some of the other ones I've found, but there are some similarities for certain people. So go ahead and check those out. Yes. All right, our next email is from Franklin and Franklin writes, hi Frank, fellow Franklin here. Thanks for your appearance on another podcast. Can't remember which one. I just might listen to too many. I always wanted to fine tune asset allocation. My thoughts are most active managers can't beat the market. So why not just be the market? Put all the retirement in SPY. But what if I wanted to beat the market, but all or some in a leveraged market ETF is a thought I have. I can't trade in leveraged ETFs in Vanguard. Boo. I will start listening to your older podcasts. Thanks for the content. Well, thank you, Franklin. And you are correct that most managers cannot beat the market. And when they do, it's more luck than it is skill. And I just listened to another podcast where they were saying, if you wanted to use managers as a basis for choosing funds, you'd be better off choosing the ones that underperformed. in the recent past because those will tend to outperform due to reversion to the mean in the future. Whereas if you pick the ones that are performing well in the recent past, your chances of higher future returns are actually lower. You could ask yourself questions. Do I feel lucky?

Mostly Voices [21:06]

Do I feel lucky?

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:10]

If you haven't listened to it, you might want to go back to episode 9 where we talk about how not to construct a portfolio and all of the bad methods that are commonly used. Picking hot fund managers is one of those methods, as in looking at your selection of funds in a 401k and picking the ones that have performed the best in the past 10 years. Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Both of those kinds of strategies have shown and are a reason why amateur investors typically underperform indexes and would be better off in indexes. Hello, hello, anybody home? Think McFly, think. But your plan for accumulation to put it all in SPY, that should work just fine. If you want to have a few more stock funds, make sure they are actually diversified from that, such as small cap value or other things based on factors, but you can just ride with that. In terms of using leverage funds, yeah, you can't do that in Vanguard, so if you wanted to do it, you'd have to Switch to another brokerage, which isn't a big deal. You can go to Schwab or Fidelity or any number of them and buy those kinds of funds if you're interested. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. It will make your journey more, much more volatile. And I can't say that using those leveraged funds is necessarily a good idea because some of them have not been around for a while and they really weren't designed for long-term holdings. That being said, at least the larger ones based on the largest indexes like UPRO and TMF have performed relatively well and consistently with how you would expect them to perform since they came into existence in 2009. Another leveraged fund that you might look into we talked about in episodes 59 and 61. It is called NTSX. X and what that is, it's a leveraged 60/40 portfolio. So it's underlying, it has essentially the equivalent of 60% stocks and 40% treasuries, but it's structured in such a way with options that it's leveraged up so it acts like a 60/40 portfolio. But you can listen to those episodes and consider whether that would be something that you would be interested in because I do believe you can purchase that at Vanguard. Although don't quote me on that. All right, we have time for one more email which will get us through the emails up to May 17th. You can see I seem to be getting further and further behind, but I'm working on it. This one comes from Jeff P. Jeff P. Writes, hi Frank, I recently discovered your podcast when I heard you on Choose FI. Risk parity is a new concept to me and you do a great job explaining it and have started to listen to you on Risk Parity Radio. I would appreciate it if you could help me understand when one should begin to transfer their funds to a risk parity portfolio. I'm 55 years old and have a large concentration risk in my company's stock within a registered account, an RSP account. I am Canadian. I want to retire in 10 years and I'm thinking of converting some of our company stock each year into ETFs within the registered account. Should I start setting up my risk parity portfolio now or wait until I am much closer to retirement? Thanks for listening, Jeff P. Well, this is a common question and I'm happy to answer it as many times as it comes up. That would be great. Okay. Because again, what we need to be thinking about is not so much when we are going to retire, but what are our expenses going to be and when do we anticipate that we need to go live on our portfolio. So the first thing you want to do is try to estimate what your expenses will be in retirement. And they will probably be some fraction of what they are now. In most cases, people's expenses go down when they enter retirement. Then you multiply that times 25 to get an estimate. And that tells you what your number, if you will, the amount you need to accumulate that's an estimate of that. And then you can back that down to how much you already have accumulated. Now, once you have accumulated that much money, or you can see yourself getting there with only four or five percent returns over the next period of time until you actually start using the money, that's a good time to start moving your assets into a risk parity style portfolio or other retirement style portfolio simply because You've won the game. Once you get to that point, you've won the game and you can stop playing. Yes. But in order to figure out whether you've won the game, everybody's game is different and you do need to come up with that estimate of expenses. The other kind of rule of thumb that I often quote or use is that when you get to being five years out from your retirement and if your portfolio is near an all time high, that is also a good time to make the shift and you can do it all at once. And the reason that is has to do with how long projected drawdowns last for these kinds of portfolios. Now in an all stock portfolio or a 60/40 stock bond portfolio, you may experience drawdowns of up to 13 years long. such as 1999 to 2012, or from 1966 or seven to 1980 was another one of those periods. That contrasts with a risk parity style portfolio, which historically has only had drawdowns that last maybe three years tops, three to four years. And so if you're five years out, you want to make that conversion if you're there. What I mean there is if you've accumulated enough money simply because if there is a drawdown that comes right after that, your risk parity style portfolio is likely to get through that before you retire or shortly thereafter. So you're just in a much safer position. You really want to go into retirement already having shifted most or all of your assets around. So that when you're getting to those final years, you're in a position where you just could walk away at any time, which allows you to continue working or not working, depending on how you're feeling. Ain't nothing wrong with that. As for your conversions of company stock, yes, I would definitely start doing that. And I would try to keep your company stock to less than 10% of your overall portfolio. It is just an inherent risk to be working at one company that's paying you income and also having an interest in that company. Simply because if something bad happens to the company, you can not only lose your job, but also the stock crashes at the same time. Now that's an extreme example, but that's why you want to avoid holding on to too much company stock. And the best policy for that is typically to convert some of it continuously as long as it's not ruining your tax situation. So I would go ahead and start converting those to indexes right now.

Mostly Voices [28:39]

You need somebody watching your back at all times. And hopefully that answers your questions.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:46]

But now it is time to shift and go to our weekly and monthly portfolio reviews of the six sample portfolios that you can find at www.riskparityradio.com.

Mostly Voices [28:56]

I do what I'm told.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:00]

and as always we just go through what the markets did the past week just for comparison purposes this was a week when people were just out buying a little bit of everything and so we saw the S P 500 go up 1.16 the Nasdaq was up 2.06 gold was up 1.3 it wasn't super gold this week just ordinary advances I love gold then TLT which represents Long-term treasury bonds was up 0.57%. Our representative REIT fund, REET, was up 1.73%. Our represented commodities fund, PBDC, was up 2.43%. And preferred shares fund that we hold in some of our portfolios, PFF, was up 0.88%. So overall, everything went up a little bit and so did our risk parity style portfolios. And just going through those. I'm putting you to sleep. And I will also go through the distributions that will come out of these as we go through each one. So the All Seasons Portfolio, which is our most conservative portfolio, is only 30% in stocks. This one was up 1.05% for the week. It is up 5.99% since inception last July. We are distributing out of this portfolio at a rate of 4% annualized. And so what we do is we take that 4% and divide it by 12 and that's how much we take out of this every month. So this month we'll be taking a distribution of $35. That will come out of cash since enough cash is accumulated to cover that. And for the life of this portfolio we have distributed $343 in total. $35 of that came from GLDM, $33 came from VGIT, the intermediate treasuries. 137 of it came from VTI, the stock fund that's in there. 34 came from PBDC, the commodities fund. And $104 has come out of accumulated cash from dividends and other distributions. Alright, our next portfolio and the next three are sort of bread and butter sample risk parity style portfolios. Cornbread. Ain't nothing wrong with that. This one is the Golden Butterfly, which is 40% in stocks, Divided into a total stock market fund and a small cap value fund. It's got 40% in bonds divided into short and long term treasuries and then the remaining 20% is in gold. This one was up 1.12% for the week. It is up 20.76% since inception last July. Continues to lead the pack in the horse race of risk parity style portfolios here. You can't handle the gambling problem. And we are distributing out of this at a rate of 5% annualized. And so that comes out to $48 for June's distribution since VIoV has been doing the best. That small cap value fund will take it out of that. And so for the lifetime of this fund, we've removed $494. I should say all of these portfolios started with $10,000 last July. And from that $494, that was $43 that came out of the gold fund, GLDM, $363 out of the VIoV, which has been on a tear since the beginning of this portfolio. It's up 80% since last July. And then we have had $88 that came out of cash that had accumulated in this portfolio. Our next portfolio is the Golden Ratio. This one is 42% in stock funds, 26% in long-term treasuries, 16% in gold and 10% in a REIT fund, R-E-E-T, and then it's got 6% in cash out of which we take all of our distributions. It was up 1.2% for the week. It is up 18.28% since inception last July. And we are also distributing out of this at a 5% annualized rate. And so for the month of June that will be $47. It will come from cash, of course. and we have removed $489 out of cash since inception for this fund last July. If we look at it, there's still $257 in there out of the $600 we allocated to the Money Market Cash Fund. And so that will easily pay the next distribution, and then we'll have a rebalancing in July and it will get filled up again for next year. this one's very easy to manage. It's all one big crapshoot, any who. The next portfolio is our most complex one. It is the Risk Parity Ultimate. It is approximately 40% in stocks, it is 25% in treasury bond funds, I won't go through all those funds. Then it's got 10% in gold, 10% in REITs, and 12.5% in a preferred shares fund, PFF, and the remaining 2.5% is in VXX, a volatility fund. It was up 1.25% for the week. It is up 16.76% since inception last July. We are distributing out of this at a higher rate than the other two that we just talked about. So it's coming out at an annualized rate of 6%. And so we have or we will be taking $55 out of it for the month of June. in the distribution that'll come out of VIoV, which is also the high performer in this fund. And so for its lifetime, we have distributed $578 out of it, $52 from GLDM, $319 from VIoV, $51 from VUG, that's a large cap growth fund, and then $156 has come out of accumulated cash. And now we go to our two experimental portfolios. Real wrath of God type stuff involving Mass hysteria. Leveraged funds in these. The first one is our Accelerated Permanent Portfolio. This one is 27.5% in a leveraged bond fund, TMF, 25% in UPRO, the leveraged stock fund. Then it's got 25% in PFF, the preferred shares fund, and 22.5% in gold. This one was up 1.9% for the week. It is up 14.15% since inception last July. We are taking out of these funds at an annualized rate of 8%.

Mostly Voices [35:31]

You can't handle the crystal ball! To really put them through their paces.

Mostly Uncle Frank [35:35]

Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise. And so that involves a distribution from it of $71 for the month of June. And we will take that from UPRO, the leveraged stock fund. Just have been performing the best. And so we will have distributed $762 from this portfolio since its inception. $71 came out of TMF, the Leveraged Bond Fund. $483 came out of UPRO, the Leveraged Stock Fund. Then we've taken $65 out of PFF, the Preferred Shares Fund, and $143 has come out of accumulated cash. over that time from dividends and distributions. And then our final portfolio, our most volatile one, the aggressive 50/50. This one's 33% in the leveraged stock fund, UPRO, 33% in the leveraged bond fund, TMF, with 17% in preferred shares, PFF, and 17% in intermediate term Treasuries, VGIT. This one was up 1.88% for the week. It is up 15. 46% since inception last July. And we are also distributing out of this at an annualized rate of 8%, so we're taking $72 out of it from UPRO for June. We will have distributed $765 from it since inception. $70 came out of TMF, $419 came out of UPRO 63 from PFF, and $213 came out of accumulated cash. And you can find all of this information also on the Portfolios page at the website www.riskparityradio.com But now I see our signal is beginning to fade. Shut it up, you! Shut it up, me! I think we'll have another all email extravaganza to try and get caught up on a few more of those hopefully in the next day or two since we have a holiday on Monday. Maybe I'll spend part of it for that podcast. Expect the unexpected. If you have questions or comments, you can send them to frank@riskparityradio.com that's frank@riskparityradio.com that's the email or you can go to the website www.riskparityradio. com and fill in the contact form and I'll get your message that way. Yeah, baby, yeah! We have over 65,000 downloads of this podcast now and I thank you for each and every one of those. If you could go over to Apple Podcasts, wherever you get this, and leave a five-star review, that would be very much appreciated. That would be great. Okay. Thank you again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Parity Radio signing off.

Mostly Mary [38:29]

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.