• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Optimized Portfolio

Investing and Personal Finance

  • Start Here
  • Investing 101
    • Beginners Start Here – 10 Steps To Start Building Wealth
    • What Is the Stock Market? How It Works & How to Invest in It
    • How To Invest in an Index Fund – The Best Index Funds
    • Portfolio Asset Allocation by Age
    • How To Invest Your Emergency Fund
    • Portfolio Diversification – How To Diversify Your Portfolio
    • Dollar Cost Averaging vs. Lump Sum Investing (DCA vs. LSI)
    • How To Invest Your HSA (Health Savings Account)
    • Factor Investing and Factor ETFs – The Ultimate Guide
    • more…
  • Lazy Portfolios
    • All Weather Portfolio
    • Bogleheads 3 Fund Portfolio
    • HEDGEFUNDIE’s Excellent Adventure
    • Warren Buffett Portfolio
    • Golden Butterfly Portfolio
    • Paul Merriman Ultimate Buy and Hold Portfolio
    • Ben Felix Model Portfolio
    • Permanent Portfolio
    • David Swensen Portfolio
    • 60/40 Portfolio
    • more…
  • Funds
    • VOO vs. VTI – Vanguard S&P 500 or Total Stock Market ETF?
    • The 7 Best International ETFs
    • The 8 Best Small Cap ETFs (4 From Vanguard)
    • The 5 Best REIT ETFs
    • The 5 Best EV ETFs – Electric Vehicles ETFs
    • VIG vs. VYM – Comparing Vanguard’s 2 Popular Dividend ETF’s
    • The Best Vanguard Dividend Funds – 4 Popular ETFs
    • The 5 Best Tech ETFs
    • The 7 Best Small Cap Value ETFs
    • The 6 Best ETFs for Taxable Accounts
    • The 5 Best Emerging Markets ETFs (1 From Vanguard) for 2023
    • more…
  • Leverage
    • What Is a Leveraged ETF and How Do They Work?
    • How To Beat the Market Using Leverage and Index Investing
    • The 9 Best Leveraged ETFs
    • Hedgefundie’s Excellent Adventure
    • Leveraged All Weather Portfolio
    • Leveraged Permanent Portfolio
    • Leveraged Golden Butterfly Portfolio
    • NTSX – Review and Summary
    • TQQQ – Is It A Good Investment?
    • PSLDX – A Review
    • SWAN – A Review
    • RPAR Risk Parity ETF Review
    • more…
  • Dividends
    • The Best M1 Finance Dividend Pie
    • The 11 Best Dividend ETFs
    • The Best Vanguard Dividend Funds – 4 Popular ETFs
    • VIG vs. VYM – Comparing Vanguard’s 2 Popular Dividend ETF’s
    • 8 Reasons Why I’m Not a Dividend Income Investor
    • QYLD – A Harsh Review
    • more…
  • Brokers
    • The 5 Best Stock Brokers
    • The 4 Best Investing Apps
    • M1 Finance Review
    • Brokers with the Lowest Margin Rates
    • M1 Finance vs. Fidelity
    • M1 Finance vs. Vanguard
    • Webull vs. Robinhood
    • Stash vs. Robinhood
    • M1 Borrow Review (How M1’s Margin Loan Works)
    • more…
  • Retirement
    • The 10 Best ETFs for Retirement Portfolios in 2023
    • The 4% Rule for Retirement Withdrawal Rate – A Revisitation
    • Sequence of Return Risk in Retirement Explained
    • Traditional IRA Explained
    • Roth IRA Explained
    • 401k vs. Roth IRA
    • Roth IRA vs. Traditional IRA
    • Backdoor Roth IRA Explained
    • more…
  • My Toolbox

RPAR Risk Parity ETF Review – An All Weather Portfolio ETF?

Last Updated: March 22, 2022 8 Comments – 10 min. read

RPAR is a single fund solution for an all-weather portfolio strategy based on risk parity – one ETF to be fully diversified across multiple assets. I review it here.

Disclosure:  Some of the links on this page are referral links. At no additional cost to you, if you choose to make a purchase or sign up for a service after clicking through those links, I may receive a small commission. This allows me to continue producing high-quality, ad-free content on this site and pays for the occasional cup of coffee. I have first-hand experience with every product or service I recommend, and I recommend them because I genuinely believe they are useful, not because of the commission I get if you decide to purchase through my links. Read more here.

Contents

  • What Is the RPAR Risk Parity ETF?
  • UPAR ETF
  • Risk Parity Explained
  • RPAR Risk Parity ETF – Historical Performance
  • My Review of RPAR
  • Replicating RPAR with ETFs
  • Conclusion

What Is the RPAR Risk Parity ETF?

To discuss the RPAR ETF, we first have to talk about the concept of an “all-weather portfolio.” As the name suggests, this phrase describes a portfolio designed to perform well during any market environment. We know that diversification lowers portfolio volatility and risk by using assets that move at different times relative to one another. An all-weather approach sort of takes this to the extreme across different asset classes to smooth out the ride as much as possible.

As such, it often sacrifices some return in doing so, but this is usually acceptable for the risk-averse investor or retiree who wants an all-weather portfolio. In fairness, too, historically this idea has not had to sacrifice much performance to drastically lower the portfolio’s risk. The most famous example of this concept is Ray Dalio’s famous All Weather Portfolio, which uses a mix of stocks, treasury bonds, commodities, and gold. To do so, it uses at least 5 different funds.

Enter RPAR, a relatively new fund-of-funds from Evoke-ARIS. Alex Shahidi is a co-founder; he wrote about the strategy’s underpinnings in a book here. Basically, this ETF is a single investable fund that holds multiple funds across different asset classes to arrive at an all-weather strategy. In their words, the fund “seeks to generate positive returns during periods of economic growth, preserve capital during periods of economic contraction, and preserve real rates of return during periods of heightened inflation.” To do that, RPAR holds global stocks, U.S. treasury bonds, commodities, and TIPS in risk parity allocations, and rebalances quarterly. Their reasoning for each asset class is as follows:

  • Global equities – strong economy; falling inflation
  • Commodities – rising inflation
    • Commodity producers – strong economy
    • Physical gold – weak economy
  • TIPS – weak economy; rising inflation
  • Treasuries – weak economy; falling inflation/deflation

Again, RPAR is purposefully agnostic toward the prevailing economic environment, and diversifies accordingly across a risk-parity-weighted collection of different asset classes. The fund uses broad indexes for those asset classes and diversifies globally within stocks, which I’m a fan of. The fund even aims to maximize tax-efficiency by minimizing income and distributions, so this fund wouldn’t be terrible for a taxable environment as well.

Similar to SWAN, RPAR aims to protect investors during severe market downturns but still allow for participation in up markets. Here’s what RPAR looks like:

35% Long Treasury Bonds
35% Long TIPS
25% Global Stocks
15% Commodity Producers
10% Gold
-20% Cash (Leverage)

RPAR seeks to track the Advanced Research Risk Parity Index, a proprietary index created by ARIS and EQM Indexes. This ETF launched in late 2019 and has a gross expense ratio of 0.54%. Assets may stray fairly quickly from their intended allocations, so the fund is rebalanced quarterly.

UPAR ETF

RPAR utilizes a “modest leverage” of 120% via treasury futures, similar to how NTSX uses them, to provide slightly enhanced exposure in a way that’s still tax-efficient. The true All Weather Fund at Bridgewater does something similar. In October, 2021, Toroso filed for a new, riskier ETF, UPAR, which launched in January, 2022. It seeks to track the proprietary Advanced Research Ultra Risk Parity Index (the “UPAR Index”). UPAR is essentially the same thing as RPAR but cranks the leverage up to about 168%. Its target allocations are as follows:

49% Long Treasury Bonds
49% Long TIPS
35% Global Stocks
21% Commodity Producers
14% Gold

UPAR has an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Risk Parity Explained

Apropos of its ticker name, RPAR uses risk parity as the weighting scheme for its components. This just means each asset is weighted in such a way that they all contribute the same amount of “risk” (for which volatility is the proxy used) to the portfolio.

For a simplistic example, the historical volatility of long U.S. stocks is about 15%. For U.S. treasury bonds, it’s about 10%. Thus, risk parity is achieved at a 40/60 allocation of stocks to long treasuries, where each asset is contributing the same 6% volatility. One doesn’t need to know anything about risk parity to know that a 40/60 portfolio is considered to be pretty conservative.

The theory is that the diversification benefit of holding multiple uncorrelated assets (think higher risk-adjusted return as measured by Sharpe) is probably maximized somewhere around risk parity weights. This is the case because we can only offset the movement of a high-volatility asset with a low-volatility asset if we have a higher allocation to the low-volatility asset. Hopefully that makes sense intuitively once you think about it. I’ll provide a couple more examples to drive the point home in a second.

Interestingly, this idea of maximizing risk-adjusted return (Sharpe) around risk parity weights actually is the case historically for stocks and intermediate treasury bonds. The greatest risk-adjusted return is achieved historically by a 30/70 allocation, which is roughly risk parity for those two assets. That happens to be the asset allocation for the Larry Swedroe Portfolio.

For those interested in Bitcoin, you might enjoy this example. Bitcoin is so volatile (i.e. it moves up and down so wildly) that its risk parity weighting in a portfolio alongside stocks and long treasury bonds is only 3%! The long bonds get 54% and the stocks get 43%.

Another key underlying assumption is that asset class returns depend largely on the macroeconomic environment, which is usually unpredictable. In this sense, an all-weather strategy helps mitigate the impact of black swan events like the 2008 crash and 2020 pandemic as well.

However, note that one can still utilize an “all-weather” strategy without using risk parity, and vice versa. While we don’t want to overfit and try to predict the future, I would argue the risk parity calculation at least offers a place to start the conversation of how one might allocate different assets, depending on the goal.

RPAR Risk Parity ETF – Historical Performance

Again, RPAR is very new. A very short backtest using the live fund from January, 2020 through June, 2021 is below, with 60/40 global stocks and long treasuries as a benchmark, and SWAN and NTSX also thrown in for a fun comparison:

rpar 1 year performance
Source: PortfolioVisualizer.com

While we get to see the behavior during the March 2020 crash, 1 year is just noise. 10 years is probably still noise, but that’s how far I was able to go back using the constituent funds that comprise RPAR, along with simulated proxies for NTSX and SWAN:

rpar 10 year performance
Source: PortfolioVisualizer.com

Notice how RPAR hasn’t really delivered on its promise during the time periods above. 60/40 and SWAN both still had lower volatility and smaller drawdowns. RPAR had the lowest risk-adjusted return (Sharpe) of all the portfolios. I’ll talk about why in the next section.

My Review of RPAR

Again, RPAR is agnostic toward economic environment and market behavior and uses a risk parity scheme to diversify across various asset classes. And there’s the rub. In my opinion, it leans too far into fear-based allocations for market environments that are almost certainly less likely than others. Granted, it uses a modest amount of leverage to counteract that, but I think it still sacrifices too much space – born of the formulaic risk parity weighting – to assets with low or zero expected returns for the sake of protecting the downside. That is, it inherently focuses too much on the downside and not enough on the upside, and we’re investing in the market precisely because we expect it to go up more than it goes down.

This is like buying an umbrella every day during the summer just in case it rains that day. A better analogy about strategies like this is from the famous Hedgefundie, who said “it’s not so smart to stock up on winter coats when you live in Miami.” Put another way, the premium you’re paying for that insurance policy is likely just dragging down your long-term total return. A major crash happens about every 7 years on average. While it certainly feels better psychologically to weather the storm when it hits for the investor checking their portfolio often, we don’t want to stifle the growth happening in the 6 years leading up to that storm.

Now don’t get me wrong. All this market-agnostic risk parity stuff is fine for the risk-averse investor or retiree aiming to minimize volatility and the potential for material loss. It’s also fine if the assets you’re using with it have similar, positive expected returns. But it is almost certainly a bad idea for the young investor in an accumulation phase with a medium to high risk tolerance.

And in fairness, it looks like RPAR wasn’t really built for the latter audience. This is how hedge funds invest. But most people do not need to and should not want to invest like a hedge fund. Moreover, I still think there are better, cheaper ways to go about achieving its intended goal. More on that in a sec. First let’s talk about specific assets.

Global stocks across all geographies and cap sizes sound great to me. Unfortunately they only get about 25% of the fund.

I like the choice of long treasuries, and I’m even okay with their allocation of about 35%. In short, we know that duration should be matched to time horizon, treasuries are a superior diversifier versus corporate bonds, and long bonds are better able to counteract the movement of stocks. But we also have to grapple with the fact that we’re now in an unprecedented time of historically low bond yields, which means we probably don’t want 70% in long bonds.

Where it starts getting weird for me is the fact that they’re also allocating another 35% to TIPS. I even like that they’re long TIPS, but 35% seems heavy, especially given that we know stocks are probably still the best inflation “hedge” over the long term. Again, this weighting is simply a product of the risk parity scheme. TIPS are great for a retiree, but then a retiree probably shouldn’t have 70% in long-term bonds.

Next we have gold at about 10%. I’ve said it plenty of times elsewhere: I’m not a huge fan of gold; it has a long-term expected return of zero, it doesn’t seem to be a reliable inflation hedge, and it’s taxed as a collectible. That said, gold does reduce volatility due to its usual uncorrelation to both stocks and bonds, and it does seem to hedge against uncertainty. Also, at least we’re not talking about a huge 25% allocation like with the Permanent Portfolio. Again, the inclusion of gold is more appropriate for a retiree or someone with a short time horizon; we wouldn’t expect any outsized returns from it.

Then we have commodities. Well, not exactly. RPAR uses commodity producers (think energy companies, metal miners, etc.; allocation is about 15%) via the S&P Global Natural Resources Index, but I’m not even sure why. These are businesses involved in commodity production. As such, commodity producers are more correlated with the stock market than with commodities themselves, which sort of defeats the intended purpose of their inclusion. In holding them, the investor would also be taking on the business risks of these companies that may be unrelated to commodities. Lastly, commodity producers tend to sell commodity futures to hedge their price risk, which basically cancels out the precise hedge we’re looking for.

The choice of commodity producers could just be for the lower fee or for the greater expected returns compared to commodities per se. In either case, we wouldn’t expect anything special out of them. In a nutshell, commodities have had negative real returns over the past century. Remember we still always want our diversifiers to have positive future expected returns. And commodity producers don’t even give us much of a diversification benefit with their positive correlation to equities, and don’t provide the economic protection we’re looking for. So it’s wasted space in my opinion. As with the case of the 7Twelve Portfolio that also used commodity producers, it appears to be a case of diversification for the sake of diversification. To be completely fair, once again, this is much less egregious if we’re talking about a retiree’s portfolio where we’re looking to diversify to minimize volatility and risk, but it’s still probably not the best way to go about achieving that goal.

To put it succinctly, I guess my main point is this: If you’re going to use commodities and TIPS, don’t use risk parity weighting, and if you’re going to use risk parity weighting, don’t use commodities and TIPS. Sadly and ironically, I’d rather see RPAR ditch its risk parity roots in favor of a more realistic, evidence-based view of asset performance and market behavior – and the likelihood thereof – to weight different assets more strategically, though then it would have to change its ticker symbol. Even taking Dalio’s retail All Weather Portfolio from the Tony Robbins interview and packaging that as a single product would likely yield superior results over the long term, though admittedly that depends on the investor’s goals.

Moreover, RPAR only employs asset class diversification. It does nothing for risk factor diversification, a newer paradigm from financial academia, which researchers have concluded is just as impactful as traditional asset class diversification. We could easily overlay some factor tilts on top of different asset classes, such as with the Golden Butterfly Portfolio and Factor Tank Portfolio.

And while RPAR presents an affordable one-fund solution for a diversified portfolio, I still don’t know if that convenience is worth its 0.54% fee. Remember, the fund is not doing anything particularly special other than the treasury futures for some leverage. Aside from that, it’s holding a handful of very straightforward, low-cost index funds that any retail investor can buy (e.g. Vanguard’s VTI, VWO, and VEA) and rebalance themselves for far cheaper. I’ll explore this alternative a bit later on.

Granted, it’s obvious that many feel differently, as the fund has amassed an impressive $1.4 billion in assets in a pretty short amount of time. If I had to guess, this is due to a combination of the pre-existing name recognition of terms like “all weather” and “risk parity” and perhaps an efficient solution for both novice investors who don’t want to learn to do it themselves and for advisors who don’t want to have to take the time to construct and rebalance portfolios for clients.

In complete fairness to Evoke-ARIS, I love the idea of this type of solution, and I even think the fee is reasonable for it; I just wish the execution were a little different. The creators explicitly state that they expect RPAR’s long term return to be about the same as that of stocks; I just don’t see how that could possibly happen, but all crystal balls are cloudy.

Replicating RPAR with ETFs

RPAR should be available at any major broker if you want to buy it. But if you want to pay less than 1/3 of RPAR’s fee and do it yourself, we can roughly replicate RPAR like this:

25% EDV
25% LTPZ
25% VT
15% GNR
10% SGOL

I’ve created that pie here for those using M1 Finance.

Ideally one would hold this in a tax-advantaged account like an IRA and rebalance regularly.

Conclusion

RPAR sounded cool at first until I actually looked under the hood. I disagree somewhat with some of the asset choices, but I disagree much more with their allocations. In fairness, no one picked those percentages; they’re just a product of the unfortunate risk parity approach in this context. I think risk parity can be a useful framework, but not when we’re dealing with assets like commodities and TIPS.

I also don’t think RPAR is worth its fee, as retail investors can pretty easily replicate it using most of the same exact low-cost index funds that RPAR itself uses. If I were interested in a strategy like this, I’d probably be more likely to use an alternative like SWAN plus gold, classic 60/40, or the Golden Butterfly Portfolio.

What do you think of RPAR? Let me know in the comments.


Disclosure: I own NTSX in my own portfolio.

Interested in more Lazy Portfolios? See the full list here.

Disclaimer:  While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, I am in no way a certified expert. I have no formal financial education. I am not a financial advisor, portfolio manager, or accountant. This is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational and recreational purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. Do your own due diligence. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.

m1


Don't want to do all this investing stuff yourself or feel overwhelmed? Check out my flat-fee-only fiduciary friends over at Advisor.com.

77 percent of millenials report their finances are a source of anxiety

Related Posts

  • VOO vs. VTI – Vanguard’s S&P 500 and Total Stock Market ETFs
  • Why and How To Invest in Gold for Beginners
  • DFSV vs. AVUV – DFA vs. Avantis US Small Cap Value ETF
  • The 11 Best Fidelity ETFs For Low-Cost Sector Exposure
  • How to Invest in the Dow Jones Index – ETF Options

About John Williamson

Analytical and entrepreneurial-minded data nerd, usability enthusiast, Boglehead, and Oxford comma advocate. I lead the Paid Search marketing efforts at Gild Group. I'm not a big fan of social media, but you can find me on LinkedIn and Reddit.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ayee says

    November 11, 2021 at 1:39 pm

    Do you have the source on the statement that factor diversification is just as impactful as asset class diversification? In the ’08 crash and the ’20 crash, value and size etfs crashed with the rest of the market.

    If you look at the stock portion as a whole, the rpar etf has a 37.5% value tilt (15 / 40 = 37.5) since the commodity producers segment is full of value companies. They aren’t explicitly targeting value, but they have plenty of exposure to it.

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      November 11, 2021 at 11:01 pm

      The Death of Diversification Has Been Greatly Exaggerated from Kizer and Ilmanen.

      Reply
      • Ayee says

        November 19, 2021 at 7:06 pm

        Thanks, I hadn’t realized that you were talking about leveraged long short portfolios. I guess, in theory, you could use something like RALS to balance out a portfolio with UPRO and/or NTSX to get a good sharpe ratio. Some people classify long-short portfolios as “alternatives,” but I guess it’s all stocks under the hood.
        If you look at GNR on morningstar, it has a P/E of 10 and P/B of 1.62. If you look at its factor regression on portfoliovisualizer, it has a value loading of 0.39. I’m skimming through the holdings of the RPAR etf holdings, and they look pretty similar to GNR.
        The Fama-French factors are for equities, not gold and bonds. You can look at the equity components separately to get a sense for what’s going on.

        Reply
    • John Williamson says

      November 11, 2021 at 11:02 pm

      RPAR’s Value loading is nearly zero.

      Reply
      • Thomas O'Brien says

        December 14, 2021 at 10:44 am

        What is your favorite portfolio for a risk adverse retiree?
        Thanks!

        Reply
        • John Williamson says

          December 15, 2021 at 9:34 am

          Hard to say. Probably the All Weather from Dalio.

          Reply
    • Ty Englehardt says

      February 12, 2022 at 7:57 am

      Hi, what do you think of the UPAR ETF? It uses 1.68 leverage and is benchmarked to stocks. I think the portfolio contains;
      49% long treasuries,
      49% TIPS,
      14% Gold,
      21% Commodity Producers,
      17.5% US Stocks
      7% International Stocks
      10.5% Emerging Market Stocks

      Thanks for the optimized portfolio website! I appreciate your articles, portfolios, and backtesting.

      Reply
      • John Williamson says

        February 12, 2022 at 9:30 pm

        Thanks, Ty. I mentioned UPAR briefly in the post above. I like it for someone wanting a bit more leverage than RPAR offers.

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Patreon

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive email updates when a new post is published.

Don't worry, I hate spam too. No ads.

Most Popular

Ray Dalio All Weather Portfolio Review, ETFs, & Leverage (2023)

HEDGEFUNDIE’s Excellent Adventure (UPRO/TMF) – A Summary

Golden Butterfly Portfolio Review and M1 Finance ETF Pie

David Swensen Portfolio (Yale Model) Review and ETFs To Use

Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio Review, ETFs, & Leverage (2023)

Corporate Bonds vs. Government Bonds (Treasuries) – The Showdown

VIG vs. VYM – Vanguard’s 2 Popular Dividend ETFs (Review)

Warren Buffett ETF Portfolio (90/10) Review and ETFs (2023)

The 60/40 Portfolio Review and ETF Pie for M1 Finance

Bogleheads 3 Fund Portfolio Review and Vanguard ETFs (2023)

m1 sidebar

rocket money

m1 sidebar

visor sidebar

retirable

Paul Merriman Ultimate Buy and Hold Portfolio Review, M1 Pie (2023)

Lowest Margin Rates Brokers (2023 Comparison)

M1 Finance vs. Vanguard Brokerage Comparison [2023 Review]

M1 Finance vs. Fidelity Brokerage Comparison [2023 Review]

The Best M1 Finance Dividend Pie for FIRE & Income Investors

Portfolio Asset Allocation by Age – Beginners To Retirees

The 5 Best Stock Brokers Online for Investing (2023 Review)

The 4 Best Investing Apps for Beginners (2023 Review)

The 7 Best Small Cap ETFs (3 From Vanguard) for 2023

The 6 Best REIT ETFs To Invest in Real Estate for 2023

The 6 Best Tech ETFs To Buy Tech Stocks in 2023

9 Best Clean Energy ETFs To Go Green in Your Portfolio (2023)

The 13 Best Small Cap Value ETFs (3 From Vanguard) for 2023

Why, How, & Where To Invest Your Emergency Fund To Beat Inflation

VOO vs. VTI – Vanguard’s S&P 500 and Total Stock Market ETFs

9 Best International ETFs To Buy (6 From Vanguard) in 2023

Ben Felix Model Portfolio (Rational Reminder, PWL) ETFs & Review

Factor Investing and Factor ETFs – The Ultimate Guide

Gone Fishin’ Portfolio Review (Alexander Green) & ETFs (2023)

TQQQ – Is It A Good Investment for a Long Term Hold Strategy?

Recent Posts

Roth IRA vs. Traditional IRA – Which Is Better for You? (2023)

VXUS vs. IXUS – Vanguard or iShares International ETF?

Tail Risk – What It Is and How To Hedge Against It

I Bonds Explained (US Savings Bonds) – Ultimate Guide (2023)

JEPI ETF Review – JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF

Sharpe Ratio vs. Sortino vs. Calmar – Risk Adjusted Return

Portfolio Risk Explained – How To Think About Risk and Volatility

HNDL ETF Review – Is HNDL a Good Investment? (7HANDL™ ETF)

NUSI ETF Review – Is NUSI a Good Investment?

3 Best SPAC ETFs To Invest in SPACs in 2023 – But Should You?

VOO vs. VOOV vs. VOOG – Vanguard S&P 500, Value, or Growth?

VXUS vs. VEU – Which Vanguard Total International ETF?

VT vs. VTI – Global Stock Market vs. Total U.S. Stock Market

PSLDX – A Review of the PIMCO StocksPLUS® Long Duration Fund

The 7 Best Value ETFs To Buy Value Stocks in 2023

View All...

Footer

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Patreon

Amazon Affiliate Disclosure

OptimizedPortfolio.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive email updates when a new post is published.

Don't worry, I hate spam too. No ads.

About - My Toolbox - Privacy - Terms - Contact


Copyright © 2023 OptimizedPortfolio.com

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Ok, Got ItReject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT