Voices [0:01]

A foolish consistency, is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer, a different drummer.

Mostly Mary [0:19]

And now, coming to you from dead center on your dial, welcome to Risk Parity Radio, where we explore alternatives and asset allocations for the do-it-yourself investor, Broadcasting to you now from the comfort of his easy chair. Here is your host, Frank Vasquez.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:36]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to Risk Parity Radio. If you are new here and wonder what we are talking about, you may wish to go back and listen to some of the foundational episodes for this program.

Voices [0:49]

Yeah, baby, yeah.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:51]

And the basic foundational episodes are episodes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Some of our listeners, including Karen and Chris, have identified additional episodes that you may consider foundational, and those are episodes 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 56, 82, and 184. Whoa, and you probably should check those out too, because we have the finest podcast audience available.

Mostly Mary [1:26]

Top drawer, really top drawer.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:30]

Along with a host named after a hot dog.

Voices [1:34]

Lighten up Francis.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:37]

But now onward to episode 423. Today, on Risk Parody Radio, we're just going to do what we do best here, which is attend to your emails.

Voices [1:50]

And we have the tools, we have the talent.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:54]

And so without further ado.

Voices [1:56]

Here I go once again with the email.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:59]

And First off. First off, we have an email from Dave.

Voices [2:05]

First off, we have an email from Dave.

Mostly Mary [2:12]

And Dave writes Hello, frank and Mary, many thanks for all the work you do. I am about five years from retirement and I'm starting to transition my portfolio from accumulation to decumulation. Oh, behave. Yeah am starting to transition my portfolio from accumulation to decumulation. I've become a loyal listener to Risk Parity Radio as I discovered your podcast several years ago as I was exploring the risk parity approach and studying the offerings and teachers of Ray Dalio and Bridgewater Associates.

Mostly Mary [2:42]

Recently, bridgewater Associates has partnered with State Street and introduced an all-weather ETF, allw. It follows risk parity investing principles and has the pedigree of Dalio and Bridgewater, along with a capable ETF firm in State Street. The ETF does not have a long track record, as it was introduced in 2025. Some details of the ETF the portfolio holds equities, nominal government bonds, inflation-linked bonds, commodities and gold across major developed and emerging economies. From the existing portfolio positions and the marketing materials, I believe the portfolio is comprised of equities of 42% with less than half US exposure. Nominal government bonds of approximately 76% with less than half US exposure. Commodities of 39%, with about 14% in gold. Inflation-linked bonds of about 30%, all US. The portfolio is levered to about 175% using futures and swaps.

Voices [3:49]

You have a gambling problem.

Mostly Mary [3:52]

The expense ratio is 0.85%. All in a single ETF with the associated tax benefits when utilized in an after-tax brokerage account and you have professionals managing the leverage for you. I am surprised at the level of international exposure, especially in that nominal government bonds where less than one half are in US treasuries. Also a heavy dose of tips and more broad commodities than gold. I'd love to get your impression of this new ETF, dave.

Voices [4:22]

Then we'll reinvest the earnings into foreign currency accounts with compounding interest, and it's gone.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:28]

Well, first off, dave, let me thank you for being a donor to the Father McKenna Center, and a substantial donor, I should say.

Mostly Mary [4:36]

Top drawer, really top drawer.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:40]

For those of you who do not know, we do not have any sponsors on this podcast. We do have a charity we support. It's called the Father McKenna Center and it supports hungry and homeless people in Washington DC. Full disclosure I'm on the board of the charity and I'm the current treasurer, but if you give to the charity, you get to go to the front of the email line, as Dave has done here.

Voices [5:02]

That is the straight stuff. Oh funk master.

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:06]

There are two ways to do that. You can go directly to the donation page at the Father McKenna website and I will link to that in the show notes. Or you can go to our support page at wwwriskparityradarcom and go through Patreon and give that way. Either way, you get to go to the front of the line. But please do mention that in your email when you send it, so I can have my crack team move you to the front of the line.

Voices [5:33]

We have top men working on it right now. Who Top?

Mostly Uncle Frank [5:42]

men. But now let's get to your email. Okay, this new ETF that is a partnership between State Street and Bridgewater. It's called the All Weather ETF, ticker symbol ALLW. I will give a couple of links in the show notes so you can check this out. But, dave, you did describe it quite accurately and my impression of it is that it's interesting, but I don't think that many people will find it that useful, for a couple of reasons. First, it does follow the sort of classic dimensions for a risk parity style portfolio, which are similar to the sample portfolio, the all seasons portfolio portfolio, which are similar to the sample portfolio, the all seasons portfolio, but in the tradition of these portfolios it is also levered up. As you mentioned, it's 1.75 to 1.

Voices [6:34]

Ramming speed. Ramming speed.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:44]

There are a number of other funds out there of recent vintage that are also trying to do this. One is called RPAR, one is called UPAR, and they are also leverage risk parity style portfolios who are run by people that used to be at Bridgewater.

Voices [7:02]

Inconceivable.

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:04]

And we have talked about RPAR in particular all the way back in episode 31 and then had discussions of it in episode 62, 113, 142, 155, 246, and 260, which you may want to check out, because a lot of things I'm going to say right now are similar to the ones I said about that fund in the past. Fidelity has also gotten on board with the risk parity concept and has their own risk parity fund. It's called FAPSX. It's a mutual fund. I do not believe that that fund has any leverage in it, though. What I've said about RPAR in the past and I think it also applies to this is it seems to be trying to be too clever by half, in that it is a managed fund. It's going to be jumping in and out of a whole bunch of different things, and it's not clear what the exact exposures are going to be at any one time. It also has this unfortunate reliance on tips which, as I have pointed out in the past, has been detrimental to funds like RPAR and UPAR.

Voices [8:14]

That's the fact, Jack. That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:19]

And it's also why we do not use them in our portfolios, forget about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:24]

And, frankly, it's quite expensive, although it's not as expensive as a hedge fund. It is attempting to bring that kind of idea to an ETF form, but, since it's also leveraged, it really is more akin to the experimental portfolios we have in the sample section, particularly the levered golden ratio and the Optra portfolios, although this has even more leverage than those. So what it's really trying to do is provide a return that is similar to the total stock market, but at a lower level of risk or volatility. I think that's going to be difficult to do for it, particularly given the fees and the complications that are involved in this, and, honestly, I'm going to hold something like this. I'm probably going to hold something that looks more like a return-stacked portfolio, like that sample Optra portfolio.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:21]

I think the problem with these all-in-ones, though, for this kind of strategy is that it's unclear what they're really trying to do and how they would fit into somebody's portfolio, Because it's doubtful anybody's goingification inside of it, so you wouldn't need anything else, and they're just going to manage this thing for you like they're managing your entire portfolio. I don't think adding it to another portfolio really makes a whole lot of sense, and the other problem I see with it. It's not structured for being a retirement portfolio vehicle. Particularly, it's not structured for drawing down on. It is structured for generating a higher return with leverage and that's the key feature of it is the fact that it's leveraged.

Voices [10:17]

Well, you have a gambling problem.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:20]

So I can't see us trying to use this as a retirement portfolio vehicle either.

Voices [10:25]

Not going to do it Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:29]

Which does get at the difference between a classic risk parity style portfolio, like the all-season sample portfolio, which we keep as a reference portfolio because it's based on Bridgewater's original formulation, and then something like the sample portfolios, the golden butterfly and golden ratio portfolios, which actually are designed more for drawing down on and so have a higher exposure to stocks, but they don't have leverage in them, so they give you that something that's more stable. And then also the problem with this is the problem with all of these composite funds is that you can't rebalance them. You're just stuck with whatever the fund provider is doing inside of them and whatever rebalancing plan they have. But it's much better for portfolio management and being able to draw down upon if you can manage it in connection with your drawdowns. So you're basically selling the high things and buying the low things, which you can't do with something like this. So I will be interested to see how this performs over time and compare it with those funds RPAR and UPAR which have not performed very well in the past few years due to these problems with complications and the use of tips in them.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:49]

But maybe this one will do a little better. We can also compare this by essentially subtracting the leverage to the reference portfolio, the all seasons portfolio that we have, and so I will probably use this, like I use RPAR and UPAR, which is to look at these on an annual basis and compare it to the portfolios that we've constructed, because they do provide decent references for what we're trying to do and basically have shown that what we're trying to do makes a whole lot more sense, is cheaper and is probably a lot better than what you're getting out of these more complicated products. I can't say that I'd ever actually use one of these, simply because I don't see how it really fits together with what I'm trying to do, especially in retirement.

Mostly Mary [12:37]

That's not an improvement.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:39]

But we will watch it with great interest.

Voices [12:41]

going forward, and you young, Skywalker, we will watch your career with great interest.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:50]

Thank you for bringing it to our attention and thank you for your email.

Voices [12:55]

Oh, mr Marsh, don't worry, we can just transfer money from your account into a portfolio with your son and it's gone. Second off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:06]

Second off, we have an email from Jeff.

Voices [13:11]

Mr Spicoli, that's an end again, man.

Mostly Mary [13:15]

And Jeff writes Hi, frank and Mary. Thank you both for all that you do to make this such an enjoyable podcast. My question relates to calculating the break-even point for delaying social security. When doing the calculation, I see that many online tools just do a simple math breakdown of when the crossover point is for how much money and actual payments are being made. To get a more accurate look, wouldn't they also have to calculate the interest lost by weighting accurate look? Wouldn't they also have to calculate the interest loss by weighting?

Mostly Mary [13:50]

For example, if I were to take a $2,800 benefit at age 62, that is $2,800 per month. I don't need to take out of my portfolio and that money is therefore growing with interest At a 6% annual return rate that money would grow to nearly $350,000 by the time I reach 70. At age 70, I may receive $5,000 per month, which is a big improvement over the $2,800, but I would theoretically also have nearly $350,000 less in my net worth. Am I understanding that correctly or is my math way off? It would seem the break-even point is much later than what online calculators show, which is somewhere in the 77 to 81 range. My calculations show a break-even point closer to 90, or even higher, depending on the interest rate of return. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. Best regards Jeff.

Voices [14:38]

Oh, gnarly.

Mostly Uncle Frank [14:41]

Well, I think the results are usually embedded in the assumptions in these kind of calculations, because there are a variety of calculators and some of them make good assumptions and some of them make bad assumptions or unrealistic assumptions. The main assumption that is problematic here is always what kind of return would you assign to the money that you would receive from social security, assuming that you would be able to invest it? And it's actually not appropriate to assign it six percent or some higher return. In fact, if you're going to assign it a return, you would have to assign it the t-bill return, the risk-free rate of return, because this is essentially money that is being received without risk other than the US government going away or whatever they're going to do with Social Security. But I'm not including that for the moment because I don't have any way of calculating that. What you should really be comparing this to is what would it cost me to buy a simple annuity that has similar characteristics? So you could imagine a simple annuity with an inflation adjustment which is hard to find or almost impossible to find these days in the market that starts at age 62. Or somebody could buy a deferred annuity that pays out what you're going to get paid out at age 62, or somebody could buy a deferred annuity that pays out what you're going to get paid out at age 70 or 67 or some other later age and then basically compare which one would cost more. Because you want to pick the one that would cost more because that means it has more value, and you can do these kind of approximations at immediateannuitiescom, although I'm not sure anybody does that. That would be actually the more legitimate way to compare these things than looking at some kind of break-even test, because the annuity calculations already have calculated in the actuarial assumptions that you need in order to do these kind of break-even tests. The problem with the break-even tests is that those assumptions change depending on what age you are. So your actuarial date of death at age 62 is going to be less than the one projected for a 70-year-old, simply because the 70-year-old has survived longer already. This makes these things very difficult to actually calculate in practice if you're trying to do it the way you're doing it with looking at these ages, but if you're going to do it, you have to assume a T-bill rate of return. You can't be assuming a 6% annual return rate, unless you're willing to take the risk, of course, but then you're not comparing apples to apples anymore, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:27]

The other thing that you should consider as an individual that's never in any of these calculators because it can't be is what is your personal risk of survival or of dying, or of longevity, I should say, because that is the ultimate factor. If you knew that you were going to live to age 95, you delay the whole thing all the time and you might have some of that kind of information depending on your family's genetics. I would use that more as a deciding point than any kind of calculator, simply because if I knew that everybody in my family died by age 75, I certainly would be taking it at age 62. But since, in my case, my parents are 96 and 91 and still alive, it doesn't make sense for me to take it sooner than age 70. And that's certainly not incorporated in any of these calculators.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:20]

The other question is are you married or not? Because that is generally the factor that tells most couples that the higher earning one should take social security later because of the spousal benefit. And the spousal benefit is huge, a really big one here, which is huge Because your spouse didn't earn that. That is basically like free money. Now there's a nice calculator at the website Open Social Security that I'll link to in the show notes that's run by Mike Piper, that you can put in two different people with their Social Security information that you should get from Social Security and put it in there if you're talking about a couple, and it'll tell you what's your optimal claiming strategy. And he's got his assumptions listed there so you can check those out as well. But I know every time I run something like that for us it basically says mary should take earlier and I should wait until age 70, and I would actually be using a calculator like that. I would not be using any of these simplistic break-even calculators because in my experience they have all kinds of deficiencies to them.

Voices [19:32]

It's a trap.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:34]

And again, your answer is dictated largely by your assumptions, with the key assumption being how long do you think you're actually going to live?

Voices [19:43]

What would you say?

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:45]

you do here. Hopefully that helps Check out that website and thank you for your email.

Voices [19:54]

You see that sign no shirt, no shoes, no dice no shoes no dice. Right.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:11]

Learn it, know it, live it.

Voices [20:12]

Last off Last off we have an email from Peter.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:19]

Hello, peter, what's happening?

Mostly Mary [20:21]

And Peter writes Hi Frank happening. And Peter writes Hi Frank. Since 1960, dividends alone have contributed to 85% of the S&P 500's total return, according to Hartford Research. I don't think it means what you think it means. Given this, why do so many retail investors dismiss dividend investing? I understand that it's not the most tax efficient strategy, but for someone relying on a nest egg, doesn't the peace of mind of having cash flow deposited into your account each month outweigh tax optimization, especially when it means avoiding selling in a downturn? Convince me otherwise, please. Thanks, peter. We have sort of a problem here. Yeah, hmm, yeah, did you see the memo about this?

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:07]

Well, peter, when I read your email, I said well, this does not sound correct and I better go look at Hartford Research.

Voices [21:15]

No more flying solo.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:17]

And in fact, what you wrote is not correct. You wrote since 1960, dividends alone have contributed to 85% of the S&P 500's total return, according to Hartford Research.

Mostly Mary [21:30]

That's not how it works.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:31]

That's not how any of this works is that, going back to 60, 85% of the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 index can be attributed to reinvested dividends, not dividends, reinvested dividends and the power of compounding.

Voices [21:55]

That's the fact, Jack. That's the fact, Jack.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:59]

So what does that mean? So what does that mean? If you are reinvesting dividends, you are essentially using the total return, which includes the appreciation and the dividends. You're putting them both back into the stocks, and that is how you are compounding your returns. So it's not the dividends themselves at all. Forget about it. It is the total returns that are driving the growth of the index, and that would be true whether the dividends were actually paid out or not. If the dividends were retained, you would have exactly the same outcome, because you are assuming the dividends are reinvested. That's what that means. If you don't include the word reinvested, your statement is false, fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:57]

But I can understand why you'd be confused by this, because I believe Hartford Research is intentionally publishing something like this to confuse you. That is what people that promote dividend funds like this, which are managed funds, high fees that's what they want you to believe. They want you to believe what you wrote, which is wrong, as opposed to what they wrote, which is clever, cleverly different.

Voices [23:24]

Because only one thing counts in this life get them to sign on the line which is dotted.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:31]

So you've been completely deceived, I'm afraid, by Hartford research.

Voices [23:35]

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders.

Mostly Uncle Frank [23:39]

And if you look at figure one of that presentation, you'll also see another highly misleading misrepresentation going on there in the form of the graph, because they are comparing a investor who invested in the S&P 500 and reinvested all their dividends with somebody who received no dividends at all, which is impossible if you're investing in the S&P 500. You're going to get dividends, so the lower amount is completely contrived and makes the higher amount look like it's more. This is the same kind of misleading presentation you will see at annuity presentations, where they use the S&P index without dividends included to mislead people into thinking that their choice is better, and this is the same kind of nonsense, to put it politely.

Voices [24:30]

A, B, C, A, always B, B, C.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:34]

Closing, Always be closing closing, always be closing, always be closing.

Voices [24:44]

That means, you should not be trusting this presentation at all.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:46]

Forget about it, Because you would have had a similar line that was even lower if you took away the capital appreciation and only considered the dividends from the S&P 500, which would be the equivalent of what they've done. But you can see what kind of a stupid idea that would be. Stupid is what stupid does. Sir. The kicker is in the note that's underneath figure one, where they say to cover themselves for their misrepresentation with the statement dividend-paying stocks are not guaranteed to outperform non-dividend-paying stocks in declining, flat or rising market. For illustrative purposes only, Probably, should say for misrepresentations and misconceptions only.

Voices [25:33]

Am I right or am I right, or am I right, right, right, right.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:37]

But that language will cover them enough for legal purposes. In fact, if you read the rest of what's on that page and I will link to this in the show notes you'll see that the component of returns that dividends have formed of the S&P 500 is about 34%, and I think that's between 1940 and 2024. What's more interesting is that histogram there where they show you what proportion that dividends represent of the total returns of the stock market and you'll basically see that in decades like we've had recently, they are an abysmal part of the returns, maybe like 12%, and it's only in bad decades, like the 1970s, the early 2000s or even going back to the 1940s, that dividends represent a large part of the returns. But you should learn something much different from that. You won't learn it just by reading that, but what you should know these days is the principles of factor investing.

Voices [26:43]

Bow to your sensei. Bow to your sensei.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:46]

That most dividend stocks are value tilted stocks, and that is what is important about them, not that they pay dividends. What's important about it is they're value-tilted stocks because if you look in decades like the 1970s or the early 2000s value outperformed growth it wasn't the dividends, it was the fact they are value-tilted stocks. So, knowing that what you should be focused on is not dividend paying, but are these value-tilted stocks we're talking about, and some value-tilted stocks don't pay dividends. Berkshire Hathaway is the prime example of that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:28]

What you'll also find, and more recently, is that companies have gone away from paying dividends and gone to share buybacks, which is another way of reinvesting in a company. Instead of paying a dividend, the company buys their own shares back, which is effectively a reinvestment of a dividend. But that's the fundamental error you're making. The question here is whether the earnings are being reinvested in the company, and whether you do that by retaining them in the company, by not paying them out, whether you do that by buying back the shares, or whether you do that by paying a dividend but then forcing the receiver of the dividend to reinvest the dividend. You have the same result, because it's the reinvestment that matters, that leads to the compounding, not the fact that a dividend is being paid.

Voices [28:19]

These things you say we will have we already have. That's true.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:25]

I ain't promising you nothing extra, which also leads me to question your statement. Doesn't the peace of mind of having cash flow deposited in your account each month outweigh tax optimization? Absolutely not, absolutely not.

Voices [28:42]

Are you crazy or just plain?

Voices [28:44]

stupid.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:46]

We live in an era of no fee trading and fractional shares. If you want to create a dividend, it costs you nothing. You simply sell a piece of the shares of whatever it is and call that your dividend and walk away with it. The payment of dividends only really mattered and was only advantageous back in the 80s or 90s, when it cost money to sell your stocks through transaction fees and so you did want to be getting income out of them that was paid directly that you didn't have to pay transaction fees to get at.

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:38]

That is not true anymore. We do not live in that era anymore. We also do not use fax machines, and what you're talking about is essentially having the peace of mind of having a fax machine where you could plug it into the phone and get it that way, and it wasn't flying around through wireless things and satellites and going into a computer and being called email that you had to print in order to get it on paper, whereas the fax would give it to you on paper to begin with. And wouldn't that give you peace of mind?

Voices [30:12]

I'm just a caveman. I wonder did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:22]

My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. So no, the payment of dividends should not be giving you peace of mind. In fact, that's a highly misplaced peace that you're feeling.

Voices [30:33]

Secondary latent personality displacement. Oh great, yes, sir.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:37]

Secondary latent personality displacement oh great. Yes, sir, the only way that can give you peace of mind is, if you're just spending so little out of your portfolio aka living off the dividends only that you don't have any issues with safe withdrawal rate anyway, Because if you're spending less than 3% of your portfolio, you don't have a safe withdrawal rate problem. In most cases, you do have a hoarding problem and you're going to die with the most money possible, but you don't have a problem with worrying about running out of money unless you are relying on individual stocks are there no prisons?

Voices [31:12]

plenty of prisons. And the union workhouses are they still in operation? They are, I wish I could say they were not. And the treadmill and the poor? Are they still in operation? They are, I wish I could say they were not. And the trade mill and the poor law? They're still in full vigor, I presume Both very busy, sir. Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. What can I put you down for?

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:32]

Nothing. The better way to get peace of mind is to have a properly diversified portfolio and actually understand where these returns come from, because dividends aren't magical and you're not getting anything out of that and you certainly shouldn't be getting this false sense of security out of them.

Voices [31:51]

That and a nickel will get your hot cup a jack squat.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:56]

The better approach would simply be to allocate whatever you were allocating to dividend paying stocks to value tilted stocks, because there's a huge overlap there. But the value tilted stocks are also going to capture those returns that you would receive from stocks that don't pay as high of dividends or don't pay dividends at all, from stocks that don't pay as high of dividends or don't pay dividends at all and you're really missing out on those returns if you are only focusing on dividends. So the reason many retail investors do dismiss dividend investing and most professionals also do, except for the ones that are selling funds that do such things is that they do not actually improve your portfolio situation and provide only false security, in addition to being a headache to have to deal with with taxes, because the first word after income is taxes.

Voices [32:50]

What guy in a suit. No, it's a tax collector.

Voices [32:54]

Hide us SpongeBob.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:57]

And what you want to be able to do is manage the taxes out of your portfolio by selling things and incurring capital gains on your schedule and not on the schedule that somebody is choosing to pay dividends. I'll link to a nice video about the irrelevance of dividends that I've linked to before. It's from Ben Felix, who gives you the academic background as to why dividends are not magical and do not improve your situation.

Voices [33:26]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The great and lost has spoken.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:34]

And please do reread the Hartford research thing again, even though it's slanted propaganda-ish.

Voices [33:42]

It's a doozy.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:44]

It still supports what I'm telling you and does not support what you think it supports.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:49]

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. And it's very dangerous believing in things that you don't understand, especially in investing. Hopefully that helps, and thank you for your email, and I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo. Okay, but now I see our signal is beginning to fade. If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank at riskparityradiocom. That email is frank at riskparityradiocom. Or you can go to the website, wwwriskparityradiocom, put your message into the contact form and I'll get it that way. If you have an energy chance to do it, please go to your favorite podcast provider and like, subscribe and give me some stars, a follow, a review. That would be great, okay, thank you once again for tuning in. This is Frank Vasquez with Risk Party Radio.

Voices [35:06]

Signing off. They got the money. Hey, you know, they got a way. They're headed down south and they're still running today. So yeah, go on, take the money and run. Go on, take the money and run. Go on, take the money and run. Go on, take the money and run. Go on, take the money and run. Yeah, yeah, come on, take the money and run.

Mostly Mary [36:04]

Oh no, the Risk Parody 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.