Voices [0:01]

A foolish consistency, is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:10]

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.

Mostly Mary [0:17]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:37]

Thank you, Mary, and welcome to 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 [0:50]

Yeah, baby, yeah.

Mostly Uncle Frank [0:52]

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 [1:27]

Top drawer, really top drawer.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:31]

Along with a host named after a hot dog.

Voices [1:34]

Lighten up Francis.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:37]

But now onward, episode 425. Today, on Risk Priority Radio, we're just going to do what we do best here, which is tend to your emails.

Voices [1:47]

I could have told you that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [1:50]

Before we get to that, a little programming note. My ears were burning this morning as I was listening to the Afford Anything podcast because it involved a question from one of our listeners here, eva, to Paula and Joe and they proceeded to talk a lot about Risk Parody and Risk Parody Radio. So they have invited me on that podcast as a follow-up and we'll be recording that, I guess in the next few weeks and hopefully it'll be out in a month or so.

Voices [2:19]

Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night.

Mostly Uncle Frank [2:24]

I will link to that current episode in the show notes, but if you are scoring at home, here is some of the material I sent to Paula's crack team to review for that interview and podcast. I suggested they listen to episodes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 of this podcast, along with episodes 209, 223, 294, and 401., and I threw in episode 276, just for fun. That's a history of the fire movement and if you have just shown up here based on that episode and have never listened to this podcast before, I would suggest you go listen to those as well as background material, and also that you just be apprised that this podcast is a little bit quirky and unusual.

Voices [3:10]

Don't be saucy with me, Bernays.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:13]

It's my retirement hobby and it's non-commercial.

Voices [3:17]

Bits and doozy.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:19]

I don't follow commercial norms or best practices in podcasting. This is pretty much the worst video ever made.

Voices [3:26]

Napoleon, like anyone can even know that.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:29]

It's very much amateur hour on that score, along with my website. It's a running joke here, ha, ha, and I have a sense of humor. That's kind of like a cross between Mel Brooks and Robin Williams.

Voices [3:42]

Is that me or does that sound like an Elvis Presley movie? Viva Da Nang oh, viva Da Nang, oh, viva Da Nang, da Nang me, da Nang me. Why don't they get a robe and hang me? Hey, is this a little too early for being that loud? Hey, too late.

Mostly Uncle Frank [3:55]

So you'll just have to get used to that or suffer through it or decide this isn't for you. You know what, napoleon, you can leave. So I'd rather have a smaller, very engaged audience than worry about how many downloads I have, since I'm not going to be profiting from that anyway.

Voices [4:16]

That is the straight stuff oh, funk master.

Mostly Uncle Frank [4:18]

But enough on those kind of introductory remarks for now, let's get to the listener questions. Here I go once again with the email, and First off. First off, we have an email from Andy and Andy writes hey, frank, I just listened to the episode and Andy writes hey Frank, I just listened to the episode 424.

Mostly Mary [4:49]

I think margin loans work differently if you are withdrawing money versus buying more assets. Yangon mentioned that he was withdrawing cash for a real estate transaction and you seem to suggest he could withdraw several times the nominal value of the account. I don't think this is right Q. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Voices [5:08]

I don't think it means what you think it means.

Mostly Mary [5:10]

I don't remember the exact rules, but I believe if they slash the SEC, consider you an inexperienced investor, you can withdraw cash up to 50% of the portfolio value, and if you are considered an experienced investor, you can withdraw 75%, assuming the assets are the standard fare and can be margined, etc. Maybe a simple example would help in terms of the broker's risk profile versus my risk profile. Cue bow to your sensei.

Voices [5:36]

Bow to your sensei. Bow to your sensei.

Mostly Mary [5:40]

If I were to have a $200,000 portfolio and use it as leverage to buy, say, $200,000 in extra asset value, then the broker would hold $400,000 in assets as collateral on a $200,000 loan.

Mostly Mary [5:54]

This would be 100% leverage on my original assets, but the portfolio could drop 50% in value before the asset value was unable to cover the liability, before the asset value was unable to cover the liability. On the other hand, if I were to have a $200,000 portfolio and were permitted to take a $200,000 cash loan against it, the broker would have only $200,000 in assets as collateral on a $200,000 loan. It would also be 100% leverage from my perspective, but in this case any drop in value would mean the liability was no longer fully collateralized. Clearly, the second case is much more risky for the broker, which is why they permit it. My guess in Yangon's case is that he is considered an experienced investor and could therefore borrow 75% cash against his $200,000 portfolio. I think I've improved on your methods a bit too. Praying for a you are correct, sir versus an everyone is dumber soundbite. Cheers, andy.

Voices [6:51]

Okay, a simple wrong would have done just fine.

Mostly Uncle Frank [6:54]

Well, first off, andy has gone to the front of the line because he's one of our patrons on Patreon who donates to the Father McKenna Center. As most of you know, we do not have any sponsors here. 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 am the board of the charity and am the current treasurer.

Mostly Uncle Frank [7:17]

But if you give to the charity, you get to go to the front of my email line, and actually the first two emailers are at the front of the line this time. There are a couple ways you can do that. You can go directly to the Father McKenna website their donation page, which I'll put in the show notes, and donate there directly. Or you can do it through our support page at wwwriskpriorityradiocom and join our patrons on Patreon who give monthly. Either way, just note that you are a donor in your email to me and join our patrons on Patreon who give monthly. Either way, just note that you are a donor in your email to me and I will put my crack team on it to move you to the front of the line.

Voices [7:58]

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

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:05]

Top men and hopefully they won't screw that up too much, like they do a couple times a month. Now, getting to your email, you were wondering which soundbite you were going to get.

Voices [8:19]

Well, here it is. You are correct, sir, yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:28]

I won't repeat everything I said in episode 424 about this.

Mostly Uncle Frank [8:31]

This was about margin accounts at interactive brokers in particular. I think part of the confusion here is what is the denominator we're using for the percentage? Because obviously, if you have $200,000 in the account and you are just buying more things to add to that thousand dollars in the account, and you are just buying more things to add to that, taking the leverage by buying more assets in the account, the value of the account is two hundred thousand dollars, so that's the denominator. However, if you take out a hundred thousand dollars out of an account that is valued at two hundred thousand dollars, then all of a sudden your denominator goes down by half and it becomes a hundred,000. And so at that point you are taking 100% leverage on your account value, which is then $100,000, because you still have $200,000 of assets in a portfolio in an account that is only worth $100,000, with $100,000 of margin. And that probably sounds even more confusing because it's difficult to explain this orally until you sit down and actually look at the numerator and denominator in the fraction or percentage that you're calculating.

Voices [9:38]

Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys? Forget about it.

Mostly Uncle Frank [9:45]

I think you are correct that interactive brokers does have some mechanism of distinguishing between less experienced investors and more experienced investors. They do give you a survey when you sign up for a margin account and ask you these questions straight up. But I think it also has to do with how much money has been in your account and how long you've been there For our accounts. I can tell you that our margin limit is like five times the value of our account. Surely you can't be serious. I am serious and don't call me Shirley. So for every $100,000 in our account.

Mostly Uncle Frank [10:27]

Interactive Brokers will let us buy like $ hundred thousand dollars worth of assets, and leon's getting larger yes, it's ridiculous and no, we don't do that forget about it but this does appear as a figure that's called the buying power in your account when you're looking at your account online or on your app on the phone, and it's a ridiculously large number compared to the value of the account A really big one here, which is huge. As I also said in the past episode, it also does depend on what kind of assets are in the account. The past episode. It also does depend on what kind of assets are in the account, because if you are holding, in particular, a bunch of options or futures or other kind of things that already have leverage built into them, they are not going to let you take as much margin on those kinds of assets as compared with stocks and well-diversified ETFs, index funds. So where I come out on it is it's way more margin than anyone really needs or would want, unless they truly have a gambling problem.

Voices [11:35]

You know, marge, for the first time in our marriage, I can finally look down my nose at you. You have a gambling problem, that's true. Will you forgive me? Oh sure, remember when I got caught stealing all those watches from Sears? Well, that's nothing, because you have a gambling problem.

Mostly Uncle Frank [11:55]

So hopefully that does not confuse things any more than they are confused. If you do find this confusing and I do when it's presented orally and not on paper. But thank you for bringing it to our attention and thank you for your email.

Voices [12:12]

No more flying solo. You need somebody watching your back at all times. Second off.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:21]

Second off, we have an email from El Yama. Happy Llama Sad.

Voices [12:27]

Llama Mentally Disturbed, llama Super.

Voices [12:30]

Llama Drama Llama Big Fat Mama Llama.

Mostly Uncle Frank [12:35]

And El Yama writes.

Mostly Mary [12:37]

Hey Uncle Frank and Aunt Mary. While waiting for my turn, I've managed to listen to more podcast episodes and have gotten answers to my original first-off and last-off questions. Instead, can I add these two 1. What do you think of the very popular ETF SCHD? I know you aren't a big fan of dividends ETFs, but I use it as the value half of my US large cap assets. It tends to zig when SCHG zags. I looked at Avantis ETF, avlv as a replacement, but some of its top holdings don't seem very value-y. Maybe SCHD could warrant a 10. Questions Two let's assume I am planning on using a safe withdrawal rate that increases less than inflation every year and that my SWR is less than the historical nominal CAGR of my portfolio, assuming future returns pretty closely match historical returns, shouldn't the nominal account balance be about the same, if not increase, after, say, 30 years? Thanks, as always, for your insight and wisdom.

Voices [13:46]

El Yama. I don't think it's nice you laughing. You see my mule don't like people laughing. It's the crazy idea you're laughing at him.

Mostly Uncle Frank [13:58]

So this is following up on episode 416, where we answered Eliyama's first email, but now we have some other questions. So SCHD SCHD is a Schwab High Dividend Fund is how it's labeled. I do categorize it as a very good value fund and it sits right on the border between mid-cap and large-cap in that category, but it is way off to the left. It has an even lower average PE ratio than most value funds, and so if you look at the Morningstar analysis, which you should have a look at, you can see how far it is off to the value side of things. So this does represent the kind of stocks that you would typically hold in a retirement portfolio if you were constructing one out of individual stocks back in the day I'm talking about in the 20th century. And if you look at things like the Vanguard Wellington or Wellesley Fund, you will see a lot of stocks that are similar to these in those kind of funds because they are designed specifically to be conservative and for retirement, and so what you are using it for makes a whole lot of sense because, as we say here repeatedly, the best way to carve up your stock portion of your risk parity style portfolio is to separate it into growth and value, and this can be part of the value section of your portfolio, and it will serve to dampen the overall volatility of the portfolio and also give you some good rebalancing opportunities over time. So, for example, in the year 2022, when growth stocks were down over 30% and up to 40 or 50%, a fund like this was only down 3.23%, and so it made for a good opportunity to rebalance, sell some of this and buy some more of the growth funds at that point in time.

Mostly Uncle Frank [16:03]

The main drawback to this fund is that you should not expect this fund to keep up with the overall market over time, that it's going to have likely a lower expected overall return, especially when you compare it to either the overall stock market or with small cap value or some other choices in the value category. So you would characterize this as a conservative choice in the value slot, and you can see that from its returns over the past couple of years. It returned 4.57% in 2024 and 11.67% in 2025. Whoops, that should be 2023 and 2024, which are much less than the overall market, for sure, and much less than anything else in the value category.

Mostly Uncle Frank [16:53]

As for the dividends, they're just kind of a nuisance to be managed, because in a taxable account, you're going to be forced to pay taxes on them every year when they are issued.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:03]

It's not going to be bad, though, because they're mostly qualified dividends, so I wouldn't let that scare you away from holding this just because it doesn't have value in the name.

Mostly Uncle Frank [17:14]

What is more important is to actually go and look at it at one of these charts, like at Morningstar, and see where it lines up in these sorts of things. So you end up with things that are labeled as dividend funds, oftentimes being value funds or can be characterized as value funds, oftentimes being value funds or can be characterized as value funds, and then you end up with other things that are labeled momentum. For example, the fund IDMO, which we've talked about recently, really functions as an international large cap growth fund in these kind of portfolios, but that is just a best practice when assessing what a fund is and what it might do for you is putting it into these value and growth categories, regardless of whatever the name is on the cover, and so this is a good choice in the large cap value category, and I should also mention that it's pretty cheap too, which makes it efficient that way as well.

Voices [18:06]

Yes.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:09]

All right. Your second question, about whether you would expect to have the same or more money in the account after 30 years of following some kind of safe withdrawal rate on some kind of risk parity or other kind of portfolio, and the answer is yes, of course.

Voices [18:27]

Yeah, baby, yeah.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:29]

That you may be able to increase your spending over time, because, recall that the safe withdrawal rate already is a worst case scenario.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:38]

So when we are talking about safe withdrawal rates of 5% or 6%, that's the worst case scenario.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:45]

And if you are adhering to the worst case scenario in terms of spending, chances are, if you just let it run that way, you're going to end up with much more money than you started with, sometimes multiples of what you started with.

Mostly Uncle Frank [18:58]

And this was one of the central findings that Bill Bengen made in the first place, which is true of any kind of safe withdrawal rate analysis that the average you could take out of a portfolio, even if it was a safe withdrawal rate of 4%, the average is probably 5.5% to 6%.

Mostly Uncle Frank [19:16]

But this is also why it's a mistake in forecasting to take this safe withdrawal rate calculation and then jam in a number of other conservative assumptions to make it even more conservative, because it's already as conservative as it needs to be for whatever portfolio. That is. That is the point of the calculation, because, recall, the other assumption that is typically made in these calculations, at least for comparison purposes, is that you are taking out this starting amount and then increasing it by inflation, which nobody actually does. And in fact, if you saw your portfolio going down, you would probably reduce your spending, not just continue to blindly increase it. And that gives you yet another fail safe in this kind of calculation. And this is also why, when people are talking about 3% or less withdrawal rates, they are really just doing bad forecasting, making usually fear-based assumptions about the future, multiplying conservative assumptions on top of each other and compounding them.

Voices [20:23]

Are you crazy or just plain stupid?

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:28]

And when you do that, you are essentially just saying that you would prefer to die with as much money as possible.

Voices [20:35]

What's with?

Voices [20:35]

you anyway.

Voices [20:36]

I can't help it. I'm a greedy slob, it's my hobby. Save me.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:42]

Because that is the highly likely result of that kind of forecasting and that kind of behavior. But you're correspondingly essentially leaving life on the table by not spending the money when you're alive.

Voices [20:55]

Dead is dead.

Mostly Uncle Frank [20:58]

It's basically a hoarder strategy.

Voices [21:00]

Hey, what do you know? A poil, it's mine, understand, mine, mine, all mine, go, go, go Mine. Do you hear me? Oh, oh, oh, mine, mine, mine, oh, brother, oh, sesame, I'm rich.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:14]

I, and it is the default strategy of most personal finance gurus, which is why their portfolios can be all over the map and it doesn't matter, because they're never going to be spending the money anyway. And you can go back and listen to episode 401 to hear more about that. And you can go back and listen to episode 401 to hear more about that.

Voices [21:37]

Hopefully that helps and thank you for your email.

Voices [21:45]

Oh boy.

Voices [21:46]

I'm rich, I'm wealthy, I'm independent, I'm socially secure. I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich.

Mostly Uncle Frank [21:50]

Last off. Last off is an email from Paolo.

Voices [21:55]

Paulie hated phones. He wouldn't have one in his house.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:00]

And Paolo writes.

Mostly Mary [22:02]

Hi Uncle Frank and Queen Mary. God save our.

Voices [22:09]

Gracious Queen, the Queen, the Queen.

Mostly Mary [22:10]

Long may the gracious King long may the noble King the Savior be. Would you care to opine rant on the current fervor for international stocks? Best Abbey Normal, aka Paolo, late of Tampa, now of NorCal.

Voices [22:33]

Abbey Normal. I'm almost sure that was the name.

Mostly Mary [22:42]

And now my favorite podcast listener, since he called me Queen Mary.

Mostly Uncle Frank [22:47]

Queen Mary. Eh Well, I think we're going to have a lot of fun with that on this podcast, including as a special added bonus I'm going to play for you at the end of the podcast One of my favorite parody sketches of all time from Second City, which involves a parody punk band called the Queen Haters. But we'll get to that later. In the meantime, attending to your actual question here, like most fervors in amateur finance land, it is largely driven by financial media, and what financial media does is glom on to whatever is performing well, which creates this kind of FOMO, saying shouldn't we go change our allocations? They're always talking about what moves should we make today, which makes no sense at all. If the financial media was really trying to help you, they would tell you not to be making moves based on current economic environments and the news.

Voices [24:09]

Are you stupid or something? I'm as stupid as a stupid does.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:16]

So the whole idea is misguided, but the fervor is caused by the fact that international stocks are currently outperforming US stocks, and that hasn't happened in a while Now. What this leads to whether it's international stocks or something else is a lot of erroneous thinking.

Voices [24:34]

Ha ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders.

Mostly Uncle Frank [24:39]

And a lot of speculations about whether this is the new paradigm. And now, since US stocks outperformed international stocks for, say, 15 years, that means the magic hand of mean reversion is going to make sure that international stocks outperform US stocks for the next 15 years. Isn't that the way it works?

Mostly Mary [25:01]

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:06]

And the answer is no. There is no magic hand of mean reversion that says that the next period is going to somehow mirror image the last period. For whatever assets you're talking about, whether it's international stocks or gold or treasury bonds Just because something went some way in the past and it looks like it's changed does not mean it is going to mirror image whatever it was in the past. That's not how anything works. What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard, but that is the stock and trade of people who are enamored with crystal balls.

Mostly Mary [25:49]

A crystal ball can help you, it can guide you.

Mostly Uncle Frank [25:54]

So why are international stocks outperforming US stocks right now? Well, as I said before and you should go back to episode 393 for an explication of this, along with some citations to materials you'll want to review. The main reason that US stocks outperform international, or international outperforms US, has to do with relative currency valuations. If you know whether the dollar is increasing or declining against another foreign currency, it's almost a surety that whichever currency is doing better, that stock market will be performing relatively better to the other one, because there is an embedded currency valuation in that, and in this year the US dollar has dropped about 10% versus a lot of other foreign currencies.

Mostly Uncle Frank [26:45]

So it is no wonder that international stocks are outperforming US stocks at the moment. Now, what are the other reasons? Well, there are too many other reasons Real wrath of God type stuff Having to do with tariffs and what various countries are doing with their central banks and their interest rates, and all sorts of other things. In fact, there are so many other things that nobody can really say what is the reason other than currency that international stocks are outperforming US stocks or vice versa, because there are too many other factors involved.

Voices [27:23]

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas, boiling 40 years of darkness. Earthquakes volcanoesstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice Dogs and cats living together Mass hysteria.

Mostly Uncle Frank [27:35]

And a lot of them involve the idiosyncratic monetary policies of the various countries involved. Because when a government invokes a expansionary policy, their stock market tends to do better to. When people are saying well, the German government is now going to spend more money, the reaction of the stock market there is it's going to go up, Whereas if the government were to say we're going to put on an Austeria program, then it's likely the stock market's going to go down in that country. It's just that simple. With respect to that one element Problem is there's too many of these elements or factors for anybody to really say or make predictions just based on news like that.

Mostly Mary [28:14]

Now the crystal ball has been used since ancient times. It's used for scrying, healing and meditation.

Mostly Uncle Frank [28:23]

But let's be clear I'm not against holding international stocks in a portfolio, and if you are outside the US, you certainly need to hold US stocks in your portfolio, simply because that's where all of these big, large cap growth tech funds are. So if you want an exposure to that sector and those kind of businesses, you're almost forced to buy into the US market sector and those kind of businesses, you're almost forced to buy into the US market. What I'm against, if anything, is to be fooling yourself that international versus US should be your primary form of diversification between the funds you hold, because, as I said, most of that is a currency issue, and so there are other diversifying elements or factors that are much more important than that, one being value versus growth. One way to think about this that we haven't talked about before is to invert this question, which is to say, if you're going to pick a group of US stocks and a group of international stocks, how would you pick them to be the least diversified, not the most diversified? How would you pick them to be the least diversified, not the most diversified? How would you pick a group of international stocks that were the least diversified from their US counterparts?

Mostly Uncle Frank [29:34]

And if you think about that for any length of time, you'll say I would buy large cap multinationals in both jurisdictions. I would buy Ford and Toyota, I would buy Unilever and Procter and Gamble. I would be buying the same kinds of businesses, selling to the same kinds of markets and essentially doing the same kinds of things, with their primary differentiation being where their headquarters is located. All right, translate that into real funds and what would that look like? It would look like holding a total US stock market fund like VTI or VOO and a total international stock fund like VXUS, because they're all large caps, they're all multinationals. That's what's in these things. So that is pretty much the least diversified way of using international funds against US funds the least diversified way, the least diversified choice you could make Now. Do you want to make the least diversified choice you could make Now? Do you want to make the least diversified choice you could make? By default? I'm not a smart man. I don't think you do.

Voices [30:35]

You don't even know what a write-off is.

Mostly Uncle Frank [30:39]

Do you? No, I don't, but they do and they're the ones writing it off. Don't, but they do, and they're the ones writing it off. The good news is you don't have to and it's very easy to get around this. Just hop on over to DFA funds or Avantis funds and you can look at your US total market fund and see that it is very much large, cap and tech tilted and say, all right, well, I'll make my international fund less large, cap and growth and tech tilted and buy something like AVDV.

Voices [31:17]

Yeah, that's smart.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:19]

Or any number of value. Tilted funds if you're trying to balance those two things out. Tilted funds if you're trying to balance those two things out. And then, if you decided you really do want an exposure to international growth in particular, you look at funds like we've talked about before, like IDMO and EFG. There are funds out there that are large cap growth on the international side. But that's the way you want to do diversification with your international funds, the same way you're doing it with the US funds Divide them into growth and value to begin with, and then small and large, and then you can go country by country if you want to, or sector by sector if you really wanted to.

Mostly Uncle Frank [31:59]

But the point of this all is is that you are constructing one big portfolio. So whenever you pick on your US side of things, when you are picking your international stuff, that's not like a separate portfolio, that's part of the same portfolio. So you need to diversify from your total US market fund. You need to diversify away from growth, diversify away from tech and just use international to do that in part. If that's what you're trying to do, and then plan on holding it forever. You don't jump in and out of international stocks any more than you jump in and out of anything else Just because there's a quote. New paradigm on the horizon, crystal balls and magic hands of mean reversion.

Mostly Mary [32:45]

Now you can also use the ball to connect to the spirit world.

Mostly Uncle Frank [32:50]

And don't you dare try to compare CAPE ratios or P ratios between one country and another, because every country's markets are in a different system, different capital system, different legal system and there are different sectors involved, kinds of companies that dominate each country's market, meaning that CAPE ratios or PE ratios from country to country are not comparable in the slightest unless you adjust for all of those factors I just gave you, and nobody does that, so nobody should be comparing those things and making decisions based on that. That's a bad process and bad investing.

Voices [33:30]

You're going to end up eating a steady diet of government cheese and living in a van down by the river.

Mostly Uncle Frank [33:39]

But hopefully that opinion rant whatever you want to call it was sufficient for your edification or entertainment. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. And thank you for your email, but now I see our signal is beginning to fade. If you have comments or questions for me, please send them to frank at riskparityradarcom. That email is frank at riskparityradarcom. Or you can go to the website at wwwatriskparodyradarcom. That email is frankatriskparodyradarcom. Or you can go to the website at wwwriskparodyradarcom. Leave me a message there and I'll get it that way Eventually. If you haven't had a chance to do it, please go to your favorite podcast provider and like subscribe. 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 Signing off.

Mostly Mary [34:36]

Okay, we've got a group for you and they're coming up right now and they invited everybody to follow the bouncing ball and sing along. Ladies and gentlemen, the Queen Haters.

Voices [34:49]

I love the fire in the kitchen. I love the feel of it, I love the kick in the face and I'll take a picture of it and love me a hackneyed clam and I'll give it to the prince. I hate the bloody family. She's never gonna stop. I hate the bloody queen. She doesn't gotta screw. Everybody quit. Oh, bloody rule. I left the ground and went On the road to my city On the battleship With a positive War machine. I'm the chosen one. You see, I'm off the balance ship With a positive BROADER SHIFT. With that humility I can't afford to dance. I'd like to get a high. You know I won't be long. I hate the running too. You're never gonna stop. I hate the bloody twins. I hate the bloody twins and all the bloody rules and all the bloody rules and all the bloody rules. I hate the bloody twins. I hate the bloody twins. I hate the bloody twins. I hate the bloody twins. I hate the bloody twins. I hate the planet. Queen, I'm the top leader in the whole world.

Mostly Mary [36:51]

Wasn't that great.

Voices [36:55]

Oh, come on. Well, I guess it's time for the slam dance contest.

Mostly Mary [37:02]

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.