In this episode we answer emails from Alyson, Martijn and Russel. We discuss the drawbacks to using a total world fund, common misconceptions about it and misguided worship of the Simplicity Principle, a levered sample portfolio comparison and basic ideas for accumulation.
And THEN we our go through our weekly portfolio reviews of the eight sample portfolios you can find at Portfolios | Risk Parity Radio.
Additional link:
Levered Sample Portfolio Comparison: testfol.io/?s=8JtI7Xd2q7l
Amusing Unedited AI-Bot Summary:
Can achieving higher safe withdrawal rates in retirement really be as simple as investing in a single ETF? Discover the complexities of using VT, a total world fund, during your accumulation phase and why it might not be the one-size-fits-all solution it's cracked up to be. We'll challenge conventional wisdom on cap-weighted funds and explain why diversifying across different asset classes is crucial for your portfolio's long-term success. Get ready to expand your horizons as we question the effectiveness of simplicity and share strategies for effective rebalancing.
Join us for a lively exploration of portfolio diversification with listener Q&A, where we break down the dynamics of levered portfolios and strategize about blending small-cap value with large-cap growth. Whether you're just starting your investment journey or refining your approach, we'll guide you through the pros and cons of various strategies, helping you navigate the path to financial freedom. Plus, we review an exciting week in the markets, highlighting stellar performances and acknowledging the unpredictable nature of trends. Dive into the details with us and equip yourself with the knowledge to make informed investment decisions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mary and Others (00:01):
A foolish consistency, is the hobgoblin of
little minds, adored by littlestatesmen and philosophers and
divines.
If a man does not keep pacewith his companions, perhaps it
is because he hears a differentdrummer.
A different drummer and now,coming to you from dead center,
(00:21):
on your dial.
Welcome to Risk Parity Radio,where we explore alternatives
and asset allocations for thedo-it-yourself investor,
broadcasting to you now from thecomfort of his easy chair.
Here is your host, frankVasquez.
Mostly Uncle Frank (00:37):
Thank you, mary, and welcome to Risk Parity
Radio.
If you have just stumbled inhere, you will find that this
podcast is kind of like a divebar of personal finance and
do-it-yourself investing.
Expect the unexpected.
It's a relatively small place.
It's just me and Mary in hereand we only have a few
(01:01):
mismatched bar stools and someeasy chairs.
We have no sponsors, we have noguests and we have no expansion
plans.
I don't think I'd like anotherjob.
What we do have is a littlefree library of updated and
unconflicted information fordo-it-yourself investors.
Mary and Others (01:23):
Now, who's up for a trip to the library
tomorrow?
Mostly Uncle Frank (01:28):
So please enjoy our mostly cold beer
served in cans and our coffeeserved in old chipped and
cracked mugs, along with whatour little free library has to
offer.
Welcome, which means we'll bedoing our weekly portfolio
(02:03):
reviews of the eight sampleportfolios you can find at
wwwriskpriorityravecom on theportfolios page.
Mary and Others (02:12):
But before we get to that, I'm intrigued by
this how you say Emails.
Mostly Uncle Frank (02:19):
And First off.
First off, we have an emailfrom Allison, and Allison writes
.
Mary and Others (02:38):
Hi Frank, what are your thoughts about using
the ETF VT, a total world fund,for the accumulation phase?
I know this is going all in onthe simplicity principle and
that you prefer 50-50 large capgrowth, small cap value.
I feel like VT has all that init at a cheap expense ratio and
(02:59):
includes all economies in theworld.
As the US percentage of theworld's economy has been
steadily declining since WorldWar II, from 90 plus to around
60 percent now, I think that itmakes sense to invest in a more
balanced fund that kind ofmimics the world's GDP
percentage, though, granted thatGDP is not the best measurement
(03:20):
for that.
But dot, dot dot.
Mostly Uncle Frank (03:36):
Well, the short answer is no, it's not a
very good idea.
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious and don't call meShirley, although I suppose you
could use it for accumulation.
But what you're really doingwhen you're doing that is
under-allocating towardslarge-cap tech worldwide and
over-allocating towardslarge-cap value stocks, so it's
(04:00):
not likely to outperformanything, although it may keep
up Inconceivable.
But then what do you do with it?
When you get to decumulation,you probably have to sell it and
get into something that you canactually rebalance in a
meaningful way, and I think wedo need to talk about how this
would affect a retirement ordecumulation portfolio, since
(04:22):
that is the more interestingquestion and is really what we
generally talk about around here.
We use the buddy system, butit's an interesting question
from the perspective ofrevealing a kind of mindset that
is pervasive in personalfinance circles, and that
mindset is overvaluing orworship of the simplicity
(04:44):
principle.
Mary and Others (04:46):
I am the great Cornholio.
Mostly Uncle Frank (04:49):
As if the simplest combination is the most
important thing and issomething we should be striving
for.
That doesn't make any sense,actually.
Mary and Others (04:59):
Are you threatening me?
Mostly Uncle Frank (05:00):
Your portfolio is not supposed to
look the prettiest or thesimplest.
Your portfolio is not supposedto look the prettiest or the
simplest.
Your portfolio is supposed tofulfill a particular purpose in
your real life, not on a screen.
And here the purpose we aretrying to serve is to have a
higher safe withdrawal rate outof our portfolio, and that means
(05:22):
the application of threeprinciples that we talk about
here, and those are the HolyGrail principle about
diversification, the macroallocation principle about the
balance between different assetclasses in a portfolio and
multiple assets in a portfolio,and then, lastly, the simplicity
principle.
And I do mean lastly.
(05:46):
This should not be the mostimportant principle in your
retirement portfolio.
The reason the simplicityprinciple has to come last is
because higher safe withdrawalrates are driven by better
diversification and the abilityto rebalance a portfolio.
So the role of the simplicityprinciple in your retirement
portfolio is simply to reducethe overall cost of the
(06:10):
portfolio when you get down tochoosing funds, and to make
things simpler to manage in thecontext of rebalancing.
And this fund actually makesthings more complicated, believe
it or not.
But let's talk about some otherfalse assumptions that are
embedded in your email.
The most critical falseassumption you have is that
(06:34):
diversification by headquartersof a company is the most
meaningful kind ofdiversification you can have.
So having a companyheadquartered in Japan like
Toyota is the most meaningfulthing.
When you're comparing that with, say, a company like Ford in
the US, you can see that that'skind of just misguided from the
get-go because so many companiesthese days are worldwide
(06:57):
companies, which plays into theother fallacy or false
assumption that compounds thisproblem that you've got, which
is that you are cap weightingthis fund.
This fund is cap weighted.
That means you hold more of thelargest companies and less of
the smaller companies, whichmeans you are holding more of
(07:19):
these worldwide companies andless of the more diversified
companies that are actually onlydoing business in one part of
the world.
So it's almost like thisstructure defeats the purpose
and there is nothing showingthat this particular formula for
(07:42):
constructing a fund capweighting it formula for
constructing a fund capweighting it has ever been the
best way to organize a fund, andthe truth is it's just not.
It's a convenient way toorganize a fund, it has a useful
place in a portfolio, butultimately it is a very large
cap tilted construction and ifit's US, it's more tilted
(08:04):
towards growth and if it'sinternational, it's more tilted
towards value.
But that gets at the real waysof diversifying a portfolio.
And the real ways ofdiversifying a portfolio, the
ones that work the best, are notwhat country or countries our
headquarters are in.
They have to do with two thingsthat are related.
(08:25):
One is sectors what kinds ofbusinesses are we talking about?
Different countries havedifferent mixes of businesses on
their stock markets, and thatis the defining characteristics
of them, not where they'relocated.
The reason Canadian andAustralian companies or their
stock markets perform similarlya lot is because they have a lot
(08:47):
of companies involved innatural resources, or a much
higher percentage than the USmarket or many other markets.
And the reason the US marketperforms the way it does these
days is that it has a highproportion of tech firms.
So those sectors are one wayyou could diversify a portfolio,
although they're difficult towork with.
(09:07):
The easier and better way thatFama and French discovered and
many others have been workingwith for the past 30 years, is
by factors, and factors tend tocapture the performance
characteristics of these varioussectors.
So if you look at what's in thegrowth side, the growth factor,
(09:28):
the kinds of companies, you seethere tend to be things like
tech firms, and if you look onthe value side of the factor
world, the kinds of companiesyou tend to see there are
involved in consumer goods,utilities and relatively stable
businesses with lower P-E ratios.
(09:48):
And so the best way todiversify a portfolio and we're
just talking about the stockportion of a portfolio right now
is to use the factors first,then use sectors, then look at
international considerations,and you can find these now in a
great set of ETFs from Avantisand one from DFA that embed
(10:12):
these factors along withinternational, so you can get
international small cap value oremerging market small cap value
, and so what seems to work thebest is what Paul Merriman has
discovered or revealed fromworking with people like DFA is
a portfolio that is essentiallyhalf growth tilted and half
(10:33):
value tilted, and you can dothat as simply as just having
two funds.
You take your growthy thing,say the S&P 500 or a large cap
growth fund.
You could kind of do it withthis VT, although it's more of a
blend than a growth fund, andthat serves as your growth
(10:54):
allocation, your large capgrowth allocation, and then you
just add to that like a smallcap value fund and there is a
very simple two fundfundportfolio that you can use for
accumulation, or you can use itin a retirement portfolio for
the stock portion of thatportfolio, or you can add more
funds.
(11:14):
There are many ways to mix andmatch this, but the principle
should be start with half growthand half value.
Then start monkeying aroundwith other sectors whether you
want just small-cap value orsome large half value.
Then start monkeying aroundwith other sectors whether you
want just small cap value orsome large cap value and whether
you want some internationalfunds.
Now, if you want a total worldvalue fund, there is one that
(11:36):
exists now.
It is called AVGV.
We have it in our most recentsample portfolio, the Optra
portfolio.
We've combined that in thatportfolio with essentially an
S&P 500 fund as the growth sideof things, but it is large cap
tilted.
So it may not be the best choiceand you could try to weight the
(11:57):
whole thing by variouscountries, as you say.
Or you could just toss thatidea out, because I know that
idea is popular and people spoutthat idea, but it's like
they're repeating something andthere's no basis for it.
Just toss that idea out,because I know that idea is
popular and people spout thatidea, but it's like they're
repeating something and there'sno basis for it.
There's no basis to say thatorganizing a portfolio that way
results in any kind of improvedperformance on any metric that
(12:17):
you would really want or need.
It's a very artificialconstruction.
But if you disagree with me, Iwould be happy to entertain your
information and I'm not justtalking about to you, I'm
talking to the group oflistenership that shows that
this construction is better insome intrinsic performance way
that you would want it in aportfolio, either for growth
(12:41):
purposes or for decumulationpurposes, because, other than
people telling stories about it,I don't think there's any basis
for it.
I'd like to see some data.
Every time I've run these kindof funds in simulators or
anything else, they don'tperform that well either in
accumulation or decumulation,which goes to a reverse view of
(13:02):
the old adage.
You can't judge a book by itscover goes to a reverse view of
the old adage.
You can't judge a book by itscover.
And the reason people seem tolike this book of a global
cap-weighted fund seems to bebecause it looks better on the
cover of the book, but when youstick it in anything and try to
analyze and try to do somethingwith it.
The outputs aren't any better.
The outputs are generally worse, and so this really ends up
(13:25):
being that kind of simplicityworship that unfortunately
pervades personal finance.
Mary and Others (13:32):
Senor Vives, donde esta tu halpas?
Are you threatening me?
You will give me tipi bongolio.
Mostly Uncle Frank (13:39):
But I just do want to point out another
thing.
That's untrue that you saidthat you were assuming.
But I just do want to point outanother thing that's untrue
that you said that you wereassuming that VT has all of
these things in it in terms ofsmall cap value and
diversification.
It really doesn't, just becauseit has something in it.
That's like saying do you wantcream in your coffee?
Okay, here's one drip.
(14:00):
That's basically the amount ofsmall cap value in a fund like
VT.
It's one drip.
That is not a useful amount tomake any difference at all.
Mary and Others (14:12):
That's not an improvement.
Mostly Uncle Frank (14:14):
VT is a large cap tilted fund driven by
its large cap companies.
That is all.
It is not small cap, it is notvalue, it is not diversified in
that way, forget about it.
And if you are assuming thatyou are just wrong and I don't
care about the gurus that say oh, it's got some of everything in
(14:38):
it, therefore it's diversified.
Mary and Others (14:40):
Oh, how convenient.
Mostly Uncle Frank (14:43):
Well, they haven't done their homework.
I'm sorry they have not donetheir homework.
And they are telling storiessimplicity stories that sound
good but don't work good.
Mary and Others (14:54):
Oh, what it's, God, it's all gone.
Mostly Uncle Frank (14:57):
Now I know it sounds like I'm giving you a
hard time, but I don't blame youfor thinking the way you're
thinking and saying the thingsyou're saying, because these
misassumptions, bad assumptions,run rampant in personal finance
.
They just do, and they've beenrunning rampant in personal
finance for about 20 years ormore, and it's past time that we
(15:20):
start questioning these20-year-old assumptions and
throwing out these ideas becausethey don't stand up to scrutiny
.
I will tell you, theprofessional investing world
knows this, and it's reallymostly in personal finance that
this kind of thinking is stillpervasive, and I do expect it'll
take another 10 years for it tototally wash out, but it will,
(15:42):
because it is just obvious nowthat this is a suboptimal
approach.
Not going to do it Wouldn't beprudent at this juncture and,
other than this kind ofsimplicity worship, it has
nothing to stand on.
I have officially amounted toJack U Squat, so I'm glad you
brought this to our attention inthis format, because it is
(16:05):
something that is worthrevisiting and worth discussing,
since it's like a bad pennythat keeps turning up over and
over again and we're just goingto have to play whack-a-mole
until it goes away.
Mary and Others (16:17):
Hammer time.
Mostly Uncle Frank (16:18):
And so thank you very much for your email,
allison, I know this world iskilling you.
Mary and Others (16:32):
Oh, allison, my aim is true, my aim is true, my
aim is true, my aim is true, myaim is true, my aim is true.
Mostly Uncle Frank (17:05):
Second off, second off.
We have an email from Martine.
Mary and Others (17:10):
Yes.
Mostly Uncle Frank (17:11):
And Martine writes.
Mary and Others (17:14):
Love your insights.
Can you provide or update thetest fall URL that is mentioned
and maybe add all three leveredportfolios for comparison?
Mostly Uncle Frank (17:24):
Well, I wasn't sure which three levered
portfolios you were talkingabout, since we have four of the
accelerated permanent portfolio, the aggressive 50-50, and the
Optra portfolio in Testfolio andI'll link to that in the show
notes so you can check it outand the simulation goes back to
(17:46):
1994, so it's at least 30 yearsand what you see is that the
more levered portfolios theaccelerated permanent portfolio
and aggressive 50-50, do performbetter over time, but they are
extremely volatile and reallytook a big hit in 2022, which
was the worst year in 40 forportfolios that are comprised
(18:10):
mostly of stocks and bonds.
So they have a much lower sharpratio and are much more volatile
than that Optra portfolio,which is more efficient and
obviously would work much betterin a drawdown scenario.
But that's part of why we putthese in as experiments.
In particular, that aggressive50-50 portfolio is basically 50%
(18:33):
stocks, 50% bonds levered upover two times, percent stocks,
50 percent bonds levered up overtwo times, and over the past
four years there have been timeswhen it was the best performing
portfolio.
Right now it's the worstperforming of all those
portfolios.
But what it illustrates is whyyou want things besides stocks
and bonds in a portfolio thatyou're trying to draw down on,
(18:55):
because you want morediversification and less
volatility.
Mary and Others (19:00):
That's the fact , Jack.
That's the fact, Jack.
Mostly Uncle Frank (19:05):
So it makes a good illustration and contrast
between that and the morediversified portfolios.
So feel free to check that outin that link.
Be apprised that it's just asimulation and it's better just
used for comparison purposesbetween the portfolios, because
I did not account for the dragsthat you were going to have with
(19:27):
respect to either using leveredfunds or using margin interest
and the funds in question didnot exist back in 1994, so he
had to simulate them.
But it is an interestingillustration and thank you for
your email.
Mary and Others (19:46):
Last off.
Mostly Uncle Frank (19:56):
Last off we have an email from Russell.
You know I haven't had much ofa chance to talk to you man to
man, russ.
Mary and Others (20:03):
Well, I've only been a man a few days, Dad.
And Russell writes Frank quickquestion For the accumulation
phase 100% total market or 50%small cap value, 50% large cap
growth?
You know what I want to do.
Mostly Uncle Frank (20:22):
When I was your age, my dad shared a beer
with me and I thought it wasabout the best thing in the
world.
When I was a boy, just aboutevery summer we'd take a
vacation.
Yeah, when I was a boy, justabout every summer we'd take a
(20:43):
vacation.
And you know, in 18 years wenever had fun.
But now I have my own familyand well, we're on our own
vacation.
And you know something, russ,what Dad we're going our own
vacation.
And you know something, russ,what Dad we're going to have fun
.
Well, the truth is, russell,that either one of those is
(21:06):
going to work and in any givendecade or two, there's no way of
predicting whether the 100%total market portfolio or the
50% small cap value 50% largecap growth portfolio is going to
be the best one.
Their overall performances aregoing to be relatively similar
over decades for the most part,simply because they're both 100%
(21:28):
stock portfolios.
Personally, I would prefer the50% small cap value and 50%
large cap growth for a couple ofreasons.
First, historically, that hasperformed better, except in the
last decade or so, and it givesyou some opportunity for
rebalancing as you go, which,when you are accumulating,
(21:49):
you're essentially dollar costaveraging in and you want to be
buying low, and so if you'rebuying the low one over decades,
you're going to have a betterperformance when they switch,
which is performing better.
The other thing that I likeabout having the value growth
split set up in accumulation isthat when you get to
(22:12):
decumulation, you could juststick with that as the stock
part of your portfolio, or youcould expand it out, like we
talked about earlier.
But from a managementperspective, that is going to be
an easier portfolio to seguefrom accumulation to
decumulation than the 100% totalstock market portfolio.
(22:34):
That being said, I do have tocaveat this with at the
beginning of your journey, whenyou are just starting out and
saving money, it really doesn'tmatter what you put the money in
.
I would rather have somebodyjust get going, start saving in
a 100% total stock marketportfolio and deal with figuring
out what they want more of orless of later, because until you
(23:06):
get up to, say, around $100,000or the point where the returns
annually in the portfolio arelarger than the savings that
you're putting into theportfolio or new money you're
putting into the portfolio,until you get there, this is
kind of an irrelevantconversation or a very academic
conversation, because it's yoursaving and investing new money
that is dominating theperformance of the portfolio.
(23:27):
So just getting it going is moreimportant than worrying about
fund selection.
Honestly, and for many people,I would rather point them in
that direction to begin with, inparticular because otherwise
they get pointed in directionsof like using a target date fund
or signing up for one of theserobo thingies, which are both
(23:48):
worse, much worse than thesimple index fund.
So you don't want the perfectto be the enemy of the good If
you're just starting out orhelping somebody just get
started out and picking thatindex fund in their 401k, for
example.
Mary and Others (24:03):
And you won't be angry.
Mostly Uncle Frank (24:04):
I will not be angry.
Because those first few years ofaccumulating the fund selection
really doesn't matter matter.
So I'd rather the process be getstarted, use the one index fund
, then spend the next three,four, five years learning more
(24:25):
about investing, and then youcan adjust your funds after that
, with either futurecontributions or if it's in a
retirement account.
You can just switch funds then,and that keeps you away from
these other bad ideas andconcoctions and also gets rid of
the analysis paralysis thatmany people engage in when
they're only talking about asmall amount of money and it's
not worth their time.
And for the more curious andadventurous, I do think it's
(24:49):
worthwhile just to take a smallpart of your portfolio less than
10% and invest it in whateveryou darn well please, no one can
stop me and hopefully you'lllose a lot of money doing that,
because that's the best way toteach you something.
If you happen to be theadventurous type, I once went
(25:09):
out with a dame who told me I'mthe glamorous type and if you're
going to make mistakes ininvesting, it's better to do it
when the stakes are small.
Hey Stella so if you have ateenager who wants to engage in
(25:31):
stock picking, I would say letthem go right ahead, because for
many people that is the onlyway to learn and will save them
from making much bigger mistakesdecades later.
But that probably more thananswers your question, and so
thank you for your email.
Now we're going to do somethingextremely fun, and the extremely
fun thing we get to do now isour weekly portfolio reviews.
(25:52):
Of the eight sample portfoliosyou can find at
wwwriskparityravecom on theportfolios page.
And it was a fun week now,wasn't it?
Mary and Others (26:01):
I'll be honest, fellas, it was sounding great,
but I could have used a littlemore cowbell.
Mostly Uncle Frank (26:07):
Just looking at the markets last week the
S&P 500 was up 4.66% for theweek.
The NASDAQ was up 5.74% for theweek, but small cap value was
the big winner last week.
Mary and Others (26:21):
Guess what.
Mostly Uncle Frank (26:23):
Our representative fund at VIOV was
up 8.68% for the week.
I got a fever and the onlyprescription is more cowbell.
Who would have thunk it?
Before we're done here, y'allbe wearing gold-plated diapers.
Gold was actually the big loserlast week.
(26:43):
Gold was down 1.98% for theweek.
It's still up over 30% for theyear.
Long-term treasury bonds,represented by the fund VGLT
were up 1.68% for the week.
Wreaths were up.
Representative fund REET was up2.37% for the week.
Commodities represented by thefund PDBC were down.
They were down 0.37% for theweek.
(27:04):
Commodities represented by thefund PDBC were down.
They were down 0.52% for theweek.
Preferred shares, representedby the fund PFF, were up 2.36%
for the week and managed futuresmanaged to gain 0.93% at least
our representative fund DBMF did.
(27:24):
Now moving to these sampleportfolios.
First one's this referenceportfolio we call the all
seasons.
It is only 30% in stocks in atotal stock market fund, 55% in
intermediate and long-termtreasury bonds and the remaining
15% in gold and commodities.
It was up 2.34% for the week.
It's up 9.6% year-to-date andup 11.27% since inception in
(27:45):
July 2020.
Moving to these morebread-and-butter kind of
portfolios, first one's GoldenButterfly.
This one's 40% in stocksdivided into a total stock
market fund and a small capvalue fund, 40% in treasury
bonds, divided into long andshort, and the remaining 20% in
gold.
It was up 2.81% for the week.
It's up 14.14% year-to-date andup 37.57% since inception in
(28:12):
July 2020.
Next one's the golden ratio.
This one is 42% in stocks andthree funds, 26% in long-term
treasuries, 16% in gold, 10% ina REIT fund and the remaining 6%
in cash in a money market.
It was up 3.00% for the week.
It's up 14.89% year-to-date andup 34.48% since inception in
(28:36):
July 2020.
Next one's the risk parityultimate Continues to have a
banner year.
I'm not going to go through all15 of these funds.
It's kind of like our kitchensink with a little bit of
everything.
It was up 3.54% for the week.
It's up 17.09% year-to-date andup 24.86% since inception in
(28:58):
July 2020.
Now, moving to theseexperimental portfolios Look
away, I'm hideios, which werenot hideous at all this time
around.
First one's the acceleratedpermanent portfolio.
This one is 27.5% in a leveredbond fund TMF 25% in a levered
(29:18):
stock fund UPRO, 25% in apreferred shares fund PFF and
22.5% in gold GLDM.
It was up 5.14% for the week.
It's up 19.00% year-to-date andup 9.06% since inception in
July 2020.
Next one's the aggressive 50-50,which I mentioned earlier.
(29:39):
This is the least diversifiedand most levered of these
portfolios and it shows it is33% in a levered stock fund UPRO
, 33% in a levered bond fund TMFand the remaining third divided
into a preferred shares fundand an intermediate treasury
bond fund.
It was up 7.59% for the weekand is up 16.82% year-to-date,
(30:01):
but is down 4.2% since inceptionin July 2020.
Now, moving to the seventhportfolio, the levered golden
ratio.
This one's 35% in a compositelevered fund called NTSX that is
, the S&P 500 and Treasury bonds, 25% in gold, 15% in a REIT
called O, 10% each in a leveredbond fund TMF and a levered
(30:25):
small cap fund TNA, and theremaining 5% in a managed
futures fund KMLM.
It was up 4.14% for the week.
It's up 17.88% year to date andup 2.01% since inception in
July 2021.
It started at a veryinauspicious time.
And moving to our last one andnewest one, the Optra portfolio,
(30:49):
this one is 16% in a leveredstock fund Upro, 24% in that
global value fund AVGV, 24% in aStrips treasury Bond Fund GOVZ,
and the remaining 36% dividedinto Gold and a Managed Futures
(31:11):
Fund DBMF.
It was up 3.9% for the week,it's up 7.87% year-to-date and
up 7.8% since inception in July2024.
So its year has been a shortyear and so overall, it was the
best week in a very long timeand made up for the lackluster
performance in October.
(31:31):
So what's up next, everybody'swondering.
Well, we can consult ourcrystal ball here.
Mary and Others (31:37):
My name's Sonia .
I'm going to be showing you thecrystal ball and how to use it,
or how I use it.
Mostly Uncle Frank (31:44):
But our crystal ball at Risk.
Parity Radio always says thesame thing.
Mary and Others (31:48):
We don't know.
What do we know?
You don't know, I don't know.
Mostly Uncle Frank (31:52):
Nobody knows .
Hey, at least it's honest.
But now I see our signal isbeginning to fade.
If you have comments orquestions for me, please send
them to frank atriskparityradarcom.
That email is frank atriskparityradarcom.
Or you can go to the websitewwwriskparityradarcom.
Put your message into thecontact form and I'll get it
(32:13):
that way.
If you haven't had a chance todo it, please go to your
favorite podcast provider andlike subscribe me some stars.
A follow, a review.
That would be great.
Okay, thank you once again fortuning in.
This is frank vasquez, withrisk parody radio signing off.
Hey, stella, stella, stellaStella.
Mary and Others (32:35):
Stella, stella, hey Stella purposes only and
(32:59):
does not constitute financialinvestment tax or legal advice.
Please consult with your ownadvisors before taking any
actions based on any informationyou have heard here, making
sure to take into account yourown personal circumstances.
A foolish consistency, is the hobgoblin of
little minds, adored by littlestatesmen and philosophers and
divines.
If a man does not keep pacewith his companions, perhaps it
is because he hears a differentdrummer.
A different drummer and now,coming to you from dead center,
(00:21):
on your dial.
Welcome to Risk Parity Radio,where we explore alternatives
and asset allocations for thedo-it-yourself investor,
broadcasting to you now from thecomfort of his easy chair.
Here is your host, frankVasquez.
Mostly Uncle Frank (00:37):
Thank you, mary, and welcome to Risk Parity
Radio.
If you have just stumbled inhere, you will find that this
podcast is kind of like a divebar of personal finance and
do-it-yourself investing.
Expect the unexpected.
It's a relatively small place.
It's just me and Mary in hereand we only have a few
(01:01):
mismatched bar stools and someeasy chairs.
We have no sponsors, we have noguests and we have no expansion
plans.
I don't think I'd like anotherjob.
What we do have is a littlefree library of updated and
unconflicted information fordo-it-yourself investors.
Mary and Others (01:23):
Now, who's up for a trip to the library
tomorrow?
Mostly Uncle Frank (01:28):
So please enjoy our mostly cold beer
served in cans and our coffeeserved in old chipped and
cracked mugs, along with whatour little free library has to
offer.
Welcome, which means we'll bedoing our weekly portfolio
(02:03):
reviews of the eight sampleportfolios you can find at
wwwriskpriorityravecom on theportfolios page.
Mary and Others (02:12):
But before we get to that, I'm intrigued by
this how you say Emails.
Mostly Uncle Frank (02:19):
And First off.
First off, we have an emailfrom Allison, and Allison writes
.
Mary and Others (02:38):
Hi Frank, what are your thoughts about using
the ETF VT, a total world fund,for the accumulation phase?
I know this is going all in onthe simplicity principle and
that you prefer 50-50 large capgrowth, small cap value.
I feel like VT has all that init at a cheap expense ratio and
(02:59):
includes all economies in theworld.
As the US percentage of theworld's economy has been
steadily declining since WorldWar II, from 90 plus to around
60 percent now, I think that itmakes sense to invest in a more
balanced fund that kind ofmimics the world's GDP
percentage, though, granted thatGDP is not the best measurement
(03:20):
for that.
But dot, dot dot.
Mostly Uncle Frank (03:36):
Well, the short answer is no, it's not a
very good idea.
Surely you can't be serious.
I am serious and don't call meShirley, although I suppose you
could use it for accumulation.
But what you're really doingwhen you're doing that is
under-allocating towardslarge-cap tech worldwide and
over-allocating towardslarge-cap value stocks, so it's
(04:00):
not likely to outperformanything, although it may keep
up Inconceivable.
But then what do you do with it?
When you get to decumulation,you probably have to sell it and
get into something that you canactually rebalance in a
meaningful way, and I think wedo need to talk about how this
would affect a retirement ordecumulation portfolio, since
(04:22):
that is the more interestingquestion and is really what we
generally talk about around here.
We use the buddy system, butit's an interesting question
from the perspective ofrevealing a kind of mindset that
is pervasive in personalfinance circles, and that
mindset is overvaluing orworship of the simplicity
(04:44):
principle.
Mary and Others (04:46):
I am the great Cornholio.
Mostly Uncle Frank (04:49):
As if the simplest combination is the most
important thing and issomething we should be striving
for.
That doesn't make any sense,actually.
Mary and Others (04:59):
Are you threatening me?
Mostly Uncle Frank (05:00):
Your portfolio is not supposed to
look the prettiest or thesimplest.
Your portfolio is not supposedto look the prettiest or the
simplest.
Your portfolio is supposed tofulfill a particular purpose in
your real life, not on a screen.
And here the purpose we aretrying to serve is to have a
higher safe withdrawal rate outof our portfolio, and that means
(05:22):
the application of threeprinciples that we talk about
here, and those are the HolyGrail principle about
diversification, the macroallocation principle about the
balance between different assetclasses in a portfolio and
multiple assets in a portfolio,and then, lastly, the simplicity
principle.
And I do mean lastly.
(05:46):
This should not be the mostimportant principle in your
retirement portfolio.
The reason the simplicityprinciple has to come last is
because higher safe withdrawalrates are driven by better
diversification and the abilityto rebalance a portfolio.
So the role of the simplicityprinciple in your retirement
portfolio is simply to reducethe overall cost of the
(06:10):
portfolio when you get down tochoosing funds, and to make
things simpler to manage in thecontext of rebalancing.
And this fund actually makesthings more complicated, believe
it or not.
But let's talk about some otherfalse assumptions that are
embedded in your email.
The most critical falseassumption you have is that
(06:34):
diversification by headquartersof a company is the most
meaningful kind ofdiversification you can have.
So having a companyheadquartered in Japan like
Toyota is the most meaningfulthing.
When you're comparing that with, say, a company like Ford in
the US, you can see that that'skind of just misguided from the
get-go because so many companiesthese days are worldwide
(06:57):
companies, which plays into theother fallacy or false
assumption that compounds thisproblem that you've got, which
is that you are cap weightingthis fund.
This fund is cap weighted.
That means you hold more of thelargest companies and less of
the smaller companies, whichmeans you are holding more of
(07:19):
these worldwide companies andless of the more diversified
companies that are actually onlydoing business in one part of
the world.
So it's almost like thisstructure defeats the purpose
and there is nothing showingthat this particular formula for
(07:42):
constructing a fund capweighting it formula for
constructing a fund capweighting it has ever been the
best way to organize a fund, andthe truth is it's just not.
It's a convenient way toorganize a fund, it has a useful
place in a portfolio, butultimately it is a very large
cap tilted construction and ifit's US, it's more tilted
(08:04):
towards growth and if it'sinternational, it's more tilted
towards value.
But that gets at the real waysof diversifying a portfolio.
And the real ways ofdiversifying a portfolio, the
ones that work the best, are notwhat country or countries our
headquarters are in.
They have to do with two thingsthat are related.
(08:25):
One is sectors what kinds ofbusinesses are we talking about?
Different countries havedifferent mixes of businesses on
their stock markets, and thatis the defining characteristics
of them, not where they'relocated.
The reason Canadian andAustralian companies or their
stock markets perform similarlya lot is because they have a lot
(08:47):
of companies involved innatural resources, or a much
higher percentage than the USmarket or many other markets.
And the reason the US marketperforms the way it does these
days is that it has a highproportion of tech firms.
So those sectors are one wayyou could diversify a portfolio,
although they're difficult towork with.
(09:07):
The easier and better way thatFama and French discovered and
many others have been workingwith for the past 30 years, is
by factors, and factors tend tocapture the performance
characteristics of these varioussectors.
So if you look at what's in thegrowth side, the growth factor,
(09:28):
the kinds of companies, you seethere tend to be things like
tech firms, and if you look onthe value side of the factor
world, the kinds of companiesyou tend to see there are
involved in consumer goods,utilities and relatively stable
businesses with lower P-E ratios.
(09:48):
And so the best way todiversify a portfolio and we're
just talking about the stockportion of a portfolio right now
is to use the factors first,then use sectors, then look at
international considerations,and you can find these now in a
great set of ETFs from Avantisand one from DFA that embed
(10:12):
these factors along withinternational, so you can get
international small cap value oremerging market small cap value
, and so what seems to work thebest is what Paul Merriman has
discovered or revealed fromworking with people like DFA is
a portfolio that is essentiallyhalf growth tilted and half
(10:33):
value tilted, and you can dothat as simply as just having
two funds.
You take your growthy thing,say the S&P 500 or a large cap
growth fund.
You could kind of do it withthis VT, although it's more of a
blend than a growth fund, andthat serves as your growth
(10:54):
allocation, your large capgrowth allocation, and then you
just add to that like a smallcap value fund and there is a
very simple two fundfundportfolio that you can use for
accumulation, or you can use itin a retirement portfolio for
the stock portion of thatportfolio, or you can add more
funds.
(11:14):
There are many ways to mix andmatch this, but the principle
should be start with half growthand half value.
Then start monkeying aroundwith other sectors whether you
want just small-cap value orsome large half value.
Then start monkeying aroundwith other sectors whether you
want just small cap value orsome large cap value and whether
you want some internationalfunds.
Now, if you want a total worldvalue fund, there is one that
(11:36):
exists now.
It is called AVGV.
We have it in our most recentsample portfolio, the Optra
portfolio.
We've combined that in thatportfolio with essentially an
S&P 500 fund as the growth sideof things, but it is large cap
tilted.
So it may not be the best choiceand you could try to weight the
(11:57):
whole thing by variouscountries, as you say.
Or you could just toss thatidea out, because I know that
idea is popular and people spoutthat idea, but it's like
they're repeating something andthere's no basis for it.
Just toss that idea out,because I know that idea is
popular and people spout thatidea, but it's like they're
repeating something and there'sno basis for it.
There's no basis to say thatorganizing a portfolio that way
results in any kind of improvedperformance on any metric that
(12:17):
you would really want or need.
It's a very artificialconstruction.
But if you disagree with me, Iwould be happy to entertain your
information and I'm not justtalking about to you, I'm
talking to the group oflistenership that shows that
this construction is better insome intrinsic performance way
that you would want it in aportfolio, either for growth
(12:41):
purposes or for decumulationpurposes, because, other than
people telling stories about it,I don't think there's any basis
for it.
I'd like to see some data.
Every time I've run these kindof funds in simulators or
anything else, they don'tperform that well either in
accumulation or decumulation,which goes to a reverse view of
(13:02):
the old adage.
You can't judge a book by itscover goes to a reverse view of
the old adage.
You can't judge a book by itscover.
And the reason people seem tolike this book of a global
cap-weighted fund seems to bebecause it looks better on the
cover of the book, but when youstick it in anything and try to
analyze and try to do somethingwith it.
The outputs aren't any better.
The outputs are generally worse, and so this really ends up
(13:25):
being that kind of simplicityworship that unfortunately
pervades personal finance.
Mary and Others (13:32):
Senor Vives, donde esta tu halpas?
Are you threatening me?
You will give me tipi bongolio.
Mostly Uncle Frank (13:39):
But I just do want to point out another
thing.
That's untrue that you saidthat you were assuming.
But I just do want to point outanother thing that's untrue
that you said that you wereassuming that VT has all of
these things in it in terms ofsmall cap value and
diversification.
It really doesn't, just becauseit has something in it.
That's like saying do you wantcream in your coffee?
Okay, here's one drip.
(14:00):
That's basically the amount ofsmall cap value in a fund like
VT.
It's one drip.
That is not a useful amount tomake any difference at all.
Mary and Others (14:12):
That's not an improvement.
Mostly Uncle Frank (14:14):
VT is a large cap tilted fund driven by
its large cap companies.
That is all.
It is not small cap, it is notvalue, it is not diversified in
that way, forget about it.
And if you are assuming thatyou are just wrong and I don't
care about the gurus that say oh, it's got some of everything in
(14:38):
it, therefore it's diversified.
Mary and Others (14:40):
Oh, how convenient.
Mostly Uncle Frank (14:43):
Well, they haven't done their homework.
I'm sorry they have not donetheir homework.
And they are telling storiessimplicity stories that sound
good but don't work good.
Mary and Others (14:54):
Oh, what it's, God, it's all gone.
Mostly Uncle Frank (14:57):
Now I know it sounds like I'm giving you a
hard time, but I don't blame youfor thinking the way you're
thinking and saying the thingsyou're saying, because these
misassumptions, bad assumptions,run rampant in personal finance
.
They just do, and they've beenrunning rampant in personal
finance for about 20 years ormore, and it's past time that we
(15:20):
start questioning these20-year-old assumptions and
throwing out these ideas becausethey don't stand up to scrutiny
.
I will tell you, theprofessional investing world
knows this, and it's reallymostly in personal finance that
this kind of thinking is stillpervasive, and I do expect it'll
take another 10 years for it tototally wash out, but it will,
(15:42):
because it is just obvious nowthat this is a suboptimal
approach.
Not going to do it Wouldn't beprudent at this juncture and,
other than this kind ofsimplicity worship, it has
nothing to stand on.
I have officially amounted toJack U Squat, so I'm glad you
brought this to our attention inthis format, because it is
(16:05):
something that is worthrevisiting and worth discussing,
since it's like a bad pennythat keeps turning up over and
over again and we're just goingto have to play whack-a-mole
until it goes away.
Mary and Others (16:17):
Hammer time.
Mostly Uncle Frank (16:18):
And so thank you very much for your email,
allison, I know this world iskilling you.
Mary and Others (16:32):
Oh, allison, my aim is true, my aim is true, my
aim is true, my aim is true, myaim is true, my aim is true.
Mostly Uncle Frank (17:05):
Second off, second off.
We have an email from Martine.
Mary and Others (17:10):
Yes.
Mostly Uncle Frank (17:11):
And Martine writes.
Mary and Others (17:14):
Love your insights.
Can you provide or update thetest fall URL that is mentioned
and maybe add all three leveredportfolios for comparison?
Mostly Uncle Frank (17:24):
Well, I wasn't sure which three levered
portfolios you were talkingabout, since we have four of the
accelerated permanent portfolio, the aggressive 50-50, and the
Optra portfolio in Testfolio andI'll link to that in the show
notes so you can check it outand the simulation goes back to
(17:46):
1994, so it's at least 30 yearsand what you see is that the
more levered portfolios theaccelerated permanent portfolio
and aggressive 50-50, do performbetter over time, but they are
extremely volatile and reallytook a big hit in 2022, which
was the worst year in 40 forportfolios that are comprised
(18:10):
mostly of stocks and bonds.
So they have a much lower sharpratio and are much more volatile
than that Optra portfolio,which is more efficient and
obviously would work much betterin a drawdown scenario.
But that's part of why we putthese in as experiments.
In particular, that aggressive50-50 portfolio is basically 50%
(18:33):
stocks, 50% bonds levered upover two times, percent stocks,
50 percent bonds levered up overtwo times, and over the past
four years there have been timeswhen it was the best performing
portfolio.
Right now it's the worstperforming of all those
portfolios.
But what it illustrates is whyyou want things besides stocks
and bonds in a portfolio thatyou're trying to draw down on,
(18:55):
because you want morediversification and less
volatility.
Mary and Others (19:00):
That's the fact , Jack.
That's the fact, Jack.
Mostly Uncle Frank (19:05):
So it makes a good illustration and contrast
between that and the morediversified portfolios.
So feel free to check that outin that link.
Be apprised that it's just asimulation and it's better just
used for comparison purposesbetween the portfolios, because
I did not account for the dragsthat you were going to have with
(19:27):
respect to either using leveredfunds or using margin interest
and the funds in question didnot exist back in 1994, so he
had to simulate them.
But it is an interestingillustration and thank you for
your email.
Mary and Others (19:46):
Last off.
Mostly Uncle Frank (19:56):
Last off we have an email from Russell.
You know I haven't had much ofa chance to talk to you man to
man, russ.
Mary and Others (20:03):
Well, I've only been a man a few days, Dad.
And Russell writes Frank quickquestion For the accumulation
phase 100% total market or 50%small cap value, 50% large cap
growth?
You know what I want to do.
Mostly Uncle Frank (20:22):
When I was your age, my dad shared a beer
with me and I thought it wasabout the best thing in the
world.
When I was a boy, just aboutevery summer we'd take a
vacation.
Yeah, when I was a boy, justabout every summer we'd take a
(20:43):
vacation.
And you know, in 18 years wenever had fun.
But now I have my own familyand well, we're on our own
vacation.
And you know something, russ,what Dad we're going our own
vacation.
And you know something, russ,what Dad we're going to have fun
.
Well, the truth is, russell,that either one of those is
(21:06):
going to work and in any givendecade or two, there's no way of
predicting whether the 100%total market portfolio or the
50% small cap value 50% largecap growth portfolio is going to
be the best one.
Their overall performances aregoing to be relatively similar
over decades for the most part,simply because they're both 100%
(21:28):
stock portfolios.
Personally, I would prefer the50% small cap value and 50%
large cap growth for a couple ofreasons.
First, historically, that hasperformed better, except in the
last decade or so, and it givesyou some opportunity for
rebalancing as you go, which,when you are accumulating,
(21:49):
you're essentially dollar costaveraging in and you want to be
buying low, and so if you'rebuying the low one over decades,
you're going to have a betterperformance when they switch,
which is performing better.
The other thing that I likeabout having the value growth
split set up in accumulation isthat when you get to
(22:12):
decumulation, you could juststick with that as the stock
part of your portfolio, or youcould expand it out, like we
talked about earlier.
But from a managementperspective, that is going to be
an easier portfolio to seguefrom accumulation to
decumulation than the 100% totalstock market portfolio.
(22:34):
That being said, I do have tocaveat this with at the
beginning of your journey, whenyou are just starting out and
saving money, it really doesn'tmatter what you put the money in
.
I would rather have somebodyjust get going, start saving in
a 100% total stock marketportfolio and deal with figuring
out what they want more of orless of later, because until you
(23:06):
get up to, say, around $100,000or the point where the returns
annually in the portfolio arelarger than the savings that
you're putting into theportfolio or new money you're
putting into the portfolio,until you get there, this is
kind of an irrelevantconversation or a very academic
conversation, because it's yoursaving and investing new money
that is dominating theperformance of the portfolio.
(23:27):
So just getting it going is moreimportant than worrying about
fund selection.
Honestly, and for many people,I would rather point them in
that direction to begin with, inparticular because otherwise
they get pointed in directionsof like using a target date fund
or signing up for one of theserobo thingies, which are both
(23:48):
worse, much worse than thesimple index fund.
So you don't want the perfectto be the enemy of the good If
you're just starting out orhelping somebody just get
started out and picking thatindex fund in their 401k, for
example.
Mary and Others (24:03):
And you won't be angry.
Mostly Uncle Frank (24:04):
I will not be angry.
Because those first few years ofaccumulating the fund selection
really doesn't matter matter.
So I'd rather the process be getstarted, use the one index fund
, then spend the next three,four, five years learning more
(24:25):
about investing, and then youcan adjust your funds after that
, with either futurecontributions or if it's in a
retirement account.
You can just switch funds then,and that keeps you away from
these other bad ideas andconcoctions and also gets rid of
the analysis paralysis thatmany people engage in when
they're only talking about asmall amount of money and it's
not worth their time.
And for the more curious andadventurous, I do think it's
(24:49):
worthwhile just to take a smallpart of your portfolio less than
10% and invest it in whateveryou darn well please, no one can
stop me and hopefully you'lllose a lot of money doing that,
because that's the best way toteach you something.
If you happen to be theadventurous type, I once went
(25:09):
out with a dame who told me I'mthe glamorous type and if you're
going to make mistakes ininvesting, it's better to do it
when the stakes are small.
Hey Stella so if you have ateenager who wants to engage in
(25:31):
stock picking, I would say letthem go right ahead, because for
many people that is the onlyway to learn and will save them
from making much bigger mistakesdecades later.
But that probably more thananswers your question, and so
thank you for your email.
Now we're going to do somethingextremely fun, and the extremely
fun thing we get to do now isour weekly portfolio reviews.
(25:52):
Of the eight sample portfoliosyou can find at
wwwriskparityravecom on theportfolios page.
And it was a fun week now,wasn't it?
Mary and Others (26:01):
I'll be honest, fellas, it was sounding great,
but I could have used a littlemore cowbell.
Mostly Uncle Frank (26:07):
Just looking at the markets last week the
S&P 500 was up 4.66% for theweek.
The NASDAQ was up 5.74% for theweek, but small cap value was
the big winner last week.
Mary and Others (26:21):
Guess what.
Mostly Uncle Frank (26:23):
Our representative fund at VIOV was
up 8.68% for the week.
I got a fever and the onlyprescription is more cowbell.
Who would have thunk it?
Before we're done here, y'allbe wearing gold-plated diapers.
Gold was actually the big loserlast week.
(26:43):
Gold was down 1.98% for theweek.
It's still up over 30% for theyear.
Long-term treasury bonds,represented by the fund VGLT
were up 1.68% for the week.
Wreaths were up.
Representative fund REET was up2.37% for the week.
Commodities represented by thefund PDBC were down.
They were down 0.37% for theweek.
(27:04):
Commodities represented by thefund PDBC were down.
They were down 0.52% for theweek.
Preferred shares, representedby the fund PFF, were up 2.36%
for the week and managed futuresmanaged to gain 0.93% at least
our representative fund DBMF did.
(27:24):
Now moving to these sampleportfolios.
First one's this referenceportfolio we call the all
seasons.
It is only 30% in stocks in atotal stock market fund, 55% in
intermediate and long-termtreasury bonds and the remaining
15% in gold and commodities.
It was up 2.34% for the week.
It's up 9.6% year-to-date andup 11.27% since inception in
(27:45):
July 2020.
Moving to these morebread-and-butter kind of
portfolios, first one's GoldenButterfly.
This one's 40% in stocksdivided into a total stock
market fund and a small capvalue fund, 40% in treasury
bonds, divided into long andshort, and the remaining 20% in
gold.
It was up 2.81% for the week.
It's up 14.14% year-to-date andup 37.57% since inception in
(28:12):
July 2020.
Next one's the golden ratio.
This one is 42% in stocks andthree funds, 26% in long-term
treasuries, 16% in gold, 10% ina REIT fund and the remaining 6%
in cash in a money market.
It was up 3.00% for the week.
It's up 14.89% year-to-date andup 34.48% since inception in
(28:36):
July 2020.
Next one's the risk parityultimate Continues to have a
banner year.
I'm not going to go through all15 of these funds.
It's kind of like our kitchensink with a little bit of
everything.
It was up 3.54% for the week.
It's up 17.09% year-to-date andup 24.86% since inception in
(28:58):
July 2020.
Now, moving to theseexperimental portfolios Look
away, I'm hideios, which werenot hideous at all this time
around.
First one's the acceleratedpermanent portfolio.
This one is 27.5% in a leveredbond fund TMF 25% in a levered
(29:18):
stock fund UPRO, 25% in apreferred shares fund PFF and
22.5% in gold GLDM.
It was up 5.14% for the week.
It's up 19.00% year-to-date andup 9.06% since inception in
July 2020.
Next one's the aggressive 50-50,which I mentioned earlier.
(29:39):
This is the least diversifiedand most levered of these
portfolios and it shows it is33% in a levered stock fund UPRO
, 33% in a levered bond fund TMFand the remaining third divided
into a preferred shares fundand an intermediate treasury
bond fund.
It was up 7.59% for the weekand is up 16.82% year-to-date,
(30:01):
but is down 4.2% since inceptionin July 2020.
Now, moving to the seventhportfolio, the levered golden
ratio.
This one's 35% in a compositelevered fund called NTSX that is
, the S&P 500 and Treasury bonds, 25% in gold, 15% in a REIT
called O, 10% each in a leveredbond fund TMF and a levered
(30:25):
small cap fund TNA, and theremaining 5% in a managed
futures fund KMLM.
It was up 4.14% for the week.
It's up 17.88% year to date andup 2.01% since inception in
July 2021.
It started at a veryinauspicious time.
And moving to our last one andnewest one, the Optra portfolio,
(30:49):
this one is 16% in a leveredstock fund Upro, 24% in that
global value fund AVGV, 24% in aStrips treasury Bond Fund GOVZ,
and the remaining 36% dividedinto Gold and a Managed Futures
(31:11):
Fund DBMF.
It was up 3.9% for the week,it's up 7.87% year-to-date and
up 7.8% since inception in July2024.
So its year has been a shortyear and so overall, it was the
best week in a very long timeand made up for the lackluster
performance in October.
(31:31):
So what's up next, everybody'swondering.
Well, we can consult ourcrystal ball here.
Mary and Others (31:37):
My name's Sonia .
I'm going to be showing you thecrystal ball and how to use it,
or how I use it.
Mostly Uncle Frank (31:44):
But our crystal ball at Risk.
Parity Radio always says thesame thing.
Mary and Others (31:48):
We don't know.
What do we know?
You don't know, I don't know.
Mostly Uncle Frank (31:52):
Nobody knows .
Hey, at least it's honest.
But now I see our signal isbeginning to fade.
If you have comments orquestions for me, please send
them to frank atriskparityradarcom.
That email is frank atriskparityradarcom.
Or you can go to the websitewwwriskparityradarcom.
Put your message into thecontact form and I'll get it
(32:13):
that way.
If you haven't had a chance todo it, please go to your
favorite podcast provider andlike subscribe me some stars.
A follow, a review.
That would be great.
Okay, thank you once again fortuning in.
This is frank vasquez, withrisk parody radio signing off.
Hey, stella, stella, stellaStella.
Mary and Others (32:35):
Stella, stella, hey Stella purposes only and
(32:59):
does not constitute financialinvestment tax or legal advice.
Please consult with your ownadvisors before taking any
actions based on any informationyou have heard here, making
sure to take into account yourown personal circumstances.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!