Permanent Adjacent?

Meb Faber Tweeted out an article he wrote in 2020 about a "stay rich portfolio" which he called the Global Asset Allocation. Presumably, the article was in support of the Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA) which allocates 45% to equities, 45% to fixed income and 10% into alternatives. 

We've looked at GAA before. The allocation is interesting and results need to be looked at closely to understand them.

The overall numbers aren't so hot. The 67%/33% blend is in there because it was mentioned in the article as being good middle ground between all GAA or all T-bills. The DIY version I built as follows;

Gold is mentioned favorably in Meb's article and I know he thinks managed futures is an excellent diversifier. I chose QMHIX for this to start playing with higher volatility managed futures. MERFX and BKLN are client holdings. 

When we look at the Cambria funds, the volatility stats usually aren't that good, they seem high for GAA given it only has 45% in equities. I wouldn't expect 45% equities to keep up with 60% equities but it would be nice for the volatility to be lower than it is for GAA, inline with the DIY version maybe. 

Where the results get interesting beyond the obvious that the  GAA ETF has been doing very well for the last year and half is that it does appear to be differentiated from VBAIX. Differentiation can be good. 

Pivot to a new fund that might blow your mind. It is blowing my mind, not being sarcastic. It's the Porter & Company Porter Index Fund (PPCP) it is a quadrant style fund that is modeled after the Permanent Portfolio but the asset mix is different. It allocates 25% each to... are you ready... property and casual insurers, capital efficient equities, hard assets and short term fixed income. What?

This one is easy to backtest thanks to the iShares US Insurance ETF (IAK).

Which one is which? That's a 20 year run and the lack of dispersion is remarkable. 

Copilot has thoughts. First it says that PRPFX hasn't been true to the Permanent Portfolio in terms of long term bonds. The equity allocation in PRPFX has generally tilted toward quality, not simpler market cap weighting. Gold is gold of course and cash is cash. Copilot thinks "insurers are unusually resilient, capital-efficient, low-volatility compounders that behave well across many macro regimes."

I don't know about that. The drawdowns look pretty rough for IAK. It then told me that IAK isn't the best proxy even though it gave me the ticker in the first place.

At that I point I threw in the towel. Seeing how PCPP trades might shed some light or maybe IAK is a proxy for something else that Copilot isn't teasing out. What's going on then? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Tools, Not Return Engines

We've got a lot different things to tie together related to portfolio construction and diversification. 

Cliff Asness wrote a long Tweet in support of a paper from AQR that said bonds don't diversify equities, they dilute equities which I think is a fascinating way to phrase it. There's been commentary from various sources that bonds no longer diversify equities they way they used to (I have said that repeatedly) but Cliff believes "bonds never mattered all that much in 60/40" because as the AQR paper goes on to explore, there are other diversifiers can do the job that people think bonds can do. 

I disagree a little bit, bonds mattered for a long time. They were reliably negatively correlated in a way that doesn't exist anymore. Compensation stopped being adequate for duration long before the top in late 2021 but they did help...until they didn't. 

The actual paper starts off talking about the mistake of replacing bonds with things that actually have more equity-like risk than bonds. They cite "most buffered funds" as one example, they cite private credit as having a 0.63 correlation to equities with equity beta of 0.70. They also noted that some believe Bitcoin can function as an equity diversifier but they are very dismissive of that idea. Per the paper they favor long/short equity with a market neutral bias and managed futures. 

Many of the blog posts boil down to me trying to refine my approach on how to build the 40 in a 60/40 construct. There's value in backtesting but there needs to be a grain of salt added to the process of backtesting per a paper from Long Tail Alpha. Done incorrectly, the process can lead to building around hindsight bias that relies too much on the past repeating. 

How often do we backtest a heavy dose of managed futures and then contrast that to the actual experience of owning managed futures? Too much allocated to any diversifier creates risks to the portfolio regardless of whether there's ever a consequence for that risk. Managed futures always backtests beautifully but since the resurgence in popularity of managed futures starting in late 2021, there have been two very rough stretches, one in early 2023 and then going into the Tariff Panic. I've seen a couple of different sources say how bad early 2025 was but I actually recall early 2023 being worse. Managed futures are great for slower, longer declines but really a flip of the coin for fast declines. 

This is a great quote from the Long Tail Alpha paper.

we’re keenly aware of the historical bleed of a typical left tail hedge, whose value does not come from a strong CAGR, but rather from smoothing out left tail events in a larger portfolio

Or, diversify your diversifiers. You can smooth out the left tail events, meaning reduce a portfolio's sensitivity to outlying, downside market events by owning several different strategies that each have their own unique risks. This approach makes the portfolio more robust in case the next long, slow decline is the one where managed futures doesn't work. Thanks to liquid alts, there's no logistical barrier to having many different diversifiers. 

This chart is from Man. The way to read it is that the green combos provide better diversification than the pink combos.

The take away is not to allocate this way, I think the way to take it is as a reminder that during a draw down, a portfolio that goes narrower than broad based indexes will have things that go up. As we noted the other day, during Friday's puke down, healthcare, financials, REITs and staples generally went up. Whenever the next real bear market comes along, there will be stocks and maybe even a couple sectors that go up. If a couple of alts work as well as a couple of plain vanilla holdings go up or are even just flat, then a the portfolio has a good chance of weathering something more serious than a bad week or month.

Hedgeco.net provides rationale for using alts that aligns with my beliefs.

Investors have become more aware that the classic 60/40 portfolio can fail when stocks and bonds fall together. Inflation shocks, rate volatility, geopolitical events, and liquidity stress have all exposed the limits of relying solely on long-only equity and core bonds.

They go on to talk about alts not as "return engines" but as tools that can fill portfolio gaps. The gap in the context for today's post is how to build the 40 or whatever percentage not allocated to plain vanilla equities. There's even a shoutout to litigation finance (we've looked at this a couple of times) which at this point doesn't exist in a wrapper with daily liquidity. "Liquid alts are most useful when they are mapped to a specific portfolio role." How often do we talk about this point? A lot, because it should be an obvious conclusion. 

Adam Grossman weighed in at Morningstar about his concerns for a coming lost decade. A key to success from 2000-2009 was knowing where else to look. I have no idea if we are going to have another lost decade but the process of planning in case we do should have started a long time ago.

A final note, in Friday's recap, I should have included how the autocallable funds did. We've talked about them some so it makes sense to check in when the market does poorly.

ACYN is from First Trust and pretty new. ACYN targets an 11% "yield" which is lower than the others, Copilot says that ACYN should have less sensitivity to equity declines. That panned out of Friday anyway. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Hola San Felipe!

On Saturday night I went down a fun rabbit hole of retiring as an expat to San Felipe, BC Mexico. The catalyst for my rabbit holing was a video on Instagram from a couple selling something to help people figure out how to retire to places in Italy that are just as pretty as the tourist spots but off the beaten path with no tourists. So they said, I obviously have no idea. 

A couple of months ago a dog lady acquaintance of my wife's moved to La Paz, Mexico which is way down near Cabo. San Felipe is about two hours south of the Calexico/Mexicali boarder crossing. In college, we used to go to San Felipe for the first few days of spring break. 

The picture is actually Rosarito Beach, that's me at the net setting the ball in 1989. It's as close as I can get to San Felipe without pulling stuff out of storage. Between the Italy video and the friend in La Paz BC, it just popped into my head, what's going on in San Felipe? 

Based on pictures on the internet, the town has grown a lot which is not surprising but it still very much looks like an outpost to me. It looks like the desert, just next to a body of water, the Gulf of Baja. 

That's a 4 br house for $239,000 on a 30,000 square foot lot. It's in a community that has a golf course with a lake and you can see the gulf in the background. The house needs some work the listing says but the house looks cared for as opposed to neglected. There's weirdness with the garage from the above picture. One of the pictures shows a mini-split.

There are plenty of cheaper houses there too. This one below is asking $179,000, it has 3br but is in a neighborhood. There are complexities to home ownership that are not insurmountable but do need to be worked through. Because San Felipe is on the water, there are a couple of legal residency statuses and each one has requirements for home ownership. There is also a complexity to the land the house sits on. Hawaii has something similar, the terminology in Hawaii is fee simple where you own the house and the land or leasehold where you own the house and lease the land. You'd have to dig in more but this is not unheard of.

For the internet, the best bet is probably Starlink. There is reliable cell signal in town. Many houses there have solar so that's not a problem in terms of rules, it seems like it's kind of recommended along with a generator. The water is still not safe to drink and there is not enough rain for catchment to be viable. Property tax for a $300,000 house would be $300-$750/yr plus there is another annual fee that AI described as sort of a banking/administrative fee to own a house which might tie into the residency issues. 

For serious medical issues, you'd probably need to go to Mexicali which is to say you'd really need to go to San Diego or maybe Phoenix. For routine physicals and dentals, San Felipe has adequate services, likewise for injuries but not Level 1 traumas. Prescott can't accommodate Level 1 traumas either, that is common for smaller towns. 

For under age 65, health insurance can be pretty cheap. Americans can go through a process to enroll in Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social which would be $2000/yr for both ($1000 each) but doesn't cover preexisting. Paying for services out of pocket sounds cheap, a full battery of blood work would be about $80. 

There is no Costco, Walmart or Home Depot in San Felipe. There are several grocery stores including one that is owned by Walmart so there are Walmart brand items in town. There is hardware store. Interestingly, Amazon delivers to San Felipe.

In terms of safety, the area is rated 3: Reconsider Travel. Highway 5 is the main corridor from Calexico to San Felipe. The suggestion is to drive during the day and stay on the pavement. The Highway is not riskless to be sure but it is in the interest of the crime organizations to keep the highway clear with traffic moving but really, stay on the pavement. The town of San Felipe is significantly safer than the road to get there. 

The population has about tripled since I went there in the 80's but it still is very much an outpost sort of town. Out of 20,000 people who live there, 3000-5000 are American or Canadian. 

We're not moving to Mexico. 

Coincidentally, this morning there is another Barron's article about retiring to another country, primarily Canada, Mexico or the UK. That article tilted more toward people feeling like they need to leave the US for political reasons. The driver here is the financial aspect of trying to problem solve for an underfunded retirement. 

My only experience with healthcare in another country is the care my father received in Spain. He lived there for about 35 years, he got cancer shortly after his 88th birthday and died about six months later. The care he received was terrible. All the years he was there and getting just normal care like annual physicals and treatment for a broken hip when he was 71, the care was perfectly adequate. 

Because I think it plays a role in just about every retirement decision, someone who believes they need to retire in another country to make the numbers work will have dramatically more optionality if they have their health dialed in. 

For the 20 plus years I have been blogging, I have talked about the potential for "something having to give" if the desired retirement lifestyle won't work as a function of dollars and cents. Usually that has meant figuring out how to spend less, working longer in a primary career or taking up some sort of post retirement gig. Something else that might have to give is living in the US. Many countries are considerably cheaper.

We've looked at Ecuador countless times in this context over many years. Since then, political instability and cartel activity have both increased. I've noted that and said maybe an American couple would want to leave in the face of that and maybe they would but according to Gemini, the real story is that Cuenca and other inland expat areas have been unaffected by what has transpired elsewhere in the country. 

Interestingly, Gemini says that Cuenca is far cheaper than San Felipe.

Cuenca is probably safer too. I say probably because San Felipe's stats appear to be lumped in with Mexicali and Tijuana. The climate in Cuenca is quite moderate compared to Felipe being very hot.

Panama gets favorable attention as an expat destination. It is safer than San Felipe and about the same as Cuenca. For costs, it is much more than Cuenca and a little more than San Felipe. The climate in Boquette, Panama is similar to Cuenca because both are at elevation and Panama's healthcare appears to be the best of the three. One other thing going for Panama is that they use the US dollar for its currency. 

Gemini suggests a 3-6 month test run before moving to an expat destination and that the test run should include the worst time of the year like a rainy season or in the case of San Felipe, the summer. That many months should allow time to get a general sense of what it is like to live there (pick an area that you'd actually live in), learn about doing general errands, understand the infrastructure constraints and get a sense of whether a social network can be built. 

It seems like it is getting more difficult to accumulate enough to make retirement work. Whatever anyone wants to attribute the reasons to, it seems like that is a financial reality. Moving somewhere else can be the answer to some (probably) small slice of the population. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Rough & Rougher

Wall Street got kicked in the stomach on Friday, or maybe a little further south than that. Stocks were down a lot. Big tech was down a lot more. Bonds with duration were down a good bit, not a ton. Managed futures were mostly lower. Gold was also down a lot. Broad commodities were down a little less than gold. Bitcoin spent a little time below $60,000 for the first time in ages.

Client/personal holding BTAL was up a lot....yay? I'm glad it "worked" today but if BTAL is your best performer then things are going badly. REITs, staples, some financials and healthcare were generally green. 

Are markets worried that rates won't get cut anytime soon with the jobs data the most recent nail in that coffin, or are markets worried that there is no end in sight to the war, is it the excesses related to capex spending/debt issuance/equity issuance in the AI/data center theme, were we simply overdue for a pullback or was it something else? Yes.

Today is a great microcosm though for a lot of the portfolio construction theory we play around with here. Let's detour for a moment to what today's blog post was originally going to be about. Finomial Tweeted out a thread of a portfolio review for a capital efficient strategy that looks a lot like something we would work on here.

Here's the backtest result versus 80% equity/20% bonds (Finomial chose that benchmark).

The portfolio that Finomial posted has certainly been more volatile but hard to argue with the longer term result. It's easy to see that volatility on display in both the Tariff Panic last year and the broad reaction to starting the war with Iran. In the Tariff Panic it was down 18% versus 13.8% for 80/20. That is probably attributable to managed futures getting hit very hard during that event and the portfolio has close to 18% in managed futures. 

The point isn't to pick on the portfolio, it is to understand what the experience of riding through with some huge number in managed futures, or gold, or broad commodities or something else would actually feel like and how difficult it might be emotionally.

This sort of day would be challenging for anyone who is heavy in any of these.

We've talked about 5% in TECL which is not heavy IMO but 20% in one day is not nothing. We've never talked about SOXL which is 3x semiconductors. If it is as simple as looking at RSST and subtracting SPY's result to see how their managed futures sleeve did, then it was the biggest decliner of the ones I follow. I threw in HFGM because it targets twice the volatility of global macro. 

What would that table look like if this was the start of a meaningful move lower? Do you remember that fast panic that happened at the end of 2018? Most clients don't but in that fast event but TECL fell by 60%. Sixty percent in an event that many people don't remember. From July 2024 into early August, so just one month, RSST fell by 18%. I remember one or two very bad days in the first week of August but I'm not sure why RSST would have fallen that much but at the same time VBAIX was only down 4%. RSST came back obviously without issue but how difficult would it have been for someone who was heavy in RSST going down 18% in a down 4% world?

This is a difference between theory expressed in backtests versus actually enduring a market event. How did the portfolio that Finomial analyzed do today? Down 3.41%. That's probably not a number that will induce a poor decision but what about a week from now if equities continue lower and the things under the hood of managed futures continue to run counter to the recent trend (managed futures is likely long equities, long gold and long other commodities)?

I hope I am consistent in saying not to go too heavy into any of these diversifiers but if you are going to put 20% into something like managed futures or gold, I would spend time envisioning what it would really feel like when things take a meaningfully negative turn. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Solving Problems

The picture is of the engineer's compartment from Walker Fire's brush truck (type 6 engine).

The hardware pictured is a reducer, an inch and half double female, 2.5 inch double male and a 2.5 inch double female and you can see there is other items in the bin. These tools allow us to change hose size, make connections to truck outlets and even pair up incompatible thread types (there are two types of thread for some reason). The way I have been describing this to new firefighters has always been to say there is no problem that can't be solved out of this compartment, you just need to know what you're looking for. 

The ETF universe is of course similar. I mentioned taking in a new client for my subadvisor relationship early this week. The client came in with 55% in tech with heavy weightings in many of the names that are front and center for the AI/semiconductor mania that we are currently in.

I am hesitant to use the word bubble, I think mania might be a better word. Semantics aside, there is clearly an excess in this theme. Tech/communications is too big to zero out but I've been saying here for ages that I have been underweight. As of right now, tech plus communications adds up to 50% of the S&P 500. History has not been kind to sectors that get above 30%. Obviously there is no way to know when or even if there will be a consequence but the sign of excess is clear. No exposure is a non starter, repeated for emphasis but underweighting is viable.

For this new client, I sold a lot of the smaller names and shaved down the exposure to the major names he held. My usual tech holding for clients is broad based sector ETF that is heavy in many of the names I was keeping for him albeit in smaller percentages than what we walked in the door with. Loading back up on a sector fund that was top heavy in all the same names made no sense and would have left him very exposed to the same stocks that would be in real trouble if there is ever a consequence to the current AI/semiconductor excess. 

While 50% in tech plus communications is a non-starter for me, 10-12% is too light so into the engineers compartment for the Invesco Equal Weight Tech ETF (RSPT). Instead of 45% in semiconductors it has about 25% and obviously there are no holdings in the low double digits or high single digits. Weaving RSPT in with the holdings we kept/reduced allowed for dialing in some pretty precise percentages to bring him inline with other clients. 

Sort of related with the tech excess, back in May I swapped out market cap weighted ETFs for the few clients who had one for the momentum/quality/value combo we discussed a while back. The momentum ETF is kind of like MCW on steroids and the other two differentiate considerably from MCW and I think the three will combine to give a better result with a less total tech exposure than MCW.

The takeaway here is a point we make regularly which is I am not trying to predict anything, I am trying to avoid, or in this case underweight and obvious build up of risk. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Autocallable Theory

Larry Swedroe did a deep dive on the Calamos US Equity Autocallable Income ETF (CAIE). The basic idea with the fund is that it owns a series of structured notes that mature each week. The fund targets a 14% distribution. The fund would run into serious problems if it's reference index fell 40%. The reference index is similar to the S&P 500. CAIE has sensitivity to the reference index on the way down but in its one test so far, it captured a lot less of the reference index' recovery which is to be expected based on the structure of autocallables. 

You might look at that and decide right away these aren't for you (XV, SBAR and ACYN are also autocallable funds) but there has been no malfunction with them. 

Some points made by Swedroe; first is that 90% of the distribution is a return of capital. Yes it is a very high percentage. He warns that this has the effect of lowering your cost basis in a taxable account so that when/if you sell the cost basis might be nothing, so you'd owe a capital gains tax. Yes but that would be less than the tax on a true dividend. 

Larry then talks about gains being capped as I noted above which is correct. Don't buy this looking for an equity proxy on the upside. Larry notes the 40% threshold for problems starting, that is called a barrier, and yes a decline that big would be bad for the fund but it would be bad for everything. Don't buy this looking for downside protection. He further equates it to being short a put option which gives some good context for how it should behave.

The next issue is the counter party risk with JP Morgan and the cost embedded to pay the counter party. This isn't quite the threat he makes it out to be, if you don't already know this, don't bet too much of your portfolio on the credit worthiness of one bank. The odds of things ending badly for JP Morgan are quite low but sized correctly the actual risk is minimal.

He picks at the complexity and opacity. Yes, they are both, moreso complex than opaque. The strategy is learnable, I'd argue that these funds are less complex than the typical macro fund. Yes it is not cheap too. This is not a three basis point index fund. 

Larry says the NAV must erode and you can see that with SBAR and XV but it hasn't happened yet with CAIE. It probably will erode but I am always leery of using the word must. 

The article finished with checklist of sorts, what you want versus what you get. Once you understand what the fund does you realize that if you want what Larry says you want, you should find a different strategy.

As a matter of curiosity, I'm always going to want to try to find a plausible use for these flawed products, products riddled with drawbacks anyway. I continue to believe there is a use case for things like autocallables and crazy high yielders as part of bridge to the next financial milestone like taking Social Security or taking RMDs with the expectation that any basket of these will deplete toward zero.

The question/tradeoff goes something like this. An investor is 62 and wants to live off a $200,000 bucket of money until they take SS at their preferred age of 68. The income need from this piece of money is $40,000/yr for six years. If they leave the $200,000 in cash they can get five years, plus a couple of months from the interest. How likely would it be to squeeze out a sixth year or even a 7th thanks to the large distributions (ROC and all).

Using a combo of autocallables, not the craziest high yielding YieldMax funds (think Microsoft and Google, not Tesla and Microstrategy), cat bonds, then a sleeve in something like the BCKT or LDDR ETF which both offer depletion strategies and I threw in WTPI which is a pretty high, not crazy high, yielding  ETF that sells put options and doesn't really erode, it doesn't go up on a price basis but it hasn't eroded. There are countless closed end funds that could be part of the discussion to. 

With enough holdings, like maybe a dozen, any sort of issuer risk, strategy risk or idiosyncratic risk could be reasonably diversified.

Back to our $200,000 example, taking $40,000/yr from a basket of these would leave $57,000 left over after six years and probably get the investor through a 7th year with just a little leftover.

If it works out that a lot or most of the "yield" is ROC, that would not count toward modified adjusted income which could keep someone below the income threshold for health insurance from the marketplace to be subsidized which would be helpful until Medicare starts.

There are several grains of salt to take here related to reduced distributions and an extended downturn in markets but to the extent we do some work here on portfolio theory, this one is pretty far out there but still interesting. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Is It Ok To Die Rich?

There are a lot of personal finance topics where people draw a wide range of conclusions. Social Security is a great example, take it early take it late? There are plenty of good arguments on both sides of that debate. Another important one even if it engenders a little less passion is how to spend/withdraw from accounts to fund retirement. 

Someone who is too frugal might die with a lot of money leftover unspent, they didn't live their fullest life possible the argument would go. The other side of that is people who spend a lot, too much really and maybe they turn out ok financially or maybe they run out of money with the ultimate goal being that the check to the undertaker bounces (very old joke). 

Bill Bernstein and Edward McQuarrie wrote about this, breaking people down into two groups. One is the richest person in the graveyard which is a phrase attributed to Steve Jobs. The argument against spending too little is that it is not a "rational" choice. The other group is people who are willing to live with the fear of running out of money. I'd use the word stress more than fear; willing to live with the stress they might run out of money. 

Any advisory practice will have both types of clients with most of them in the middle I believe, taking a relatively safe to slightly generous amount out. 

The Bernstein/McQuarrie article gives permission to be the richest person in the graveyard, RPIG as they call it. I can understand the idea of dying with $5 million in the bank after years of living a $100,000 lifestyle would cause some form of regret but if we assume there aren't too many of those out there, Bernstein/McQuarrie validate the utility that could go with having a relatively high number in the bank.

I've made this same point slightly differently, I usually say there is value in never having to worry about money. That doesn't have to mean having millions in the bank. Being able to cover your desired, retirement lifestyle with Social Security and maybe one or two other income streams but not needing your $800,000-$1.2 million IRA seems like a pretty comfortable spot to be in. 

It's very important to figure out what type you are in this context. Although I am very unlikely to accumulate anywhere near $5 million in today's dollars, I am closer to to being RPIG. Not worrying about money is very high on my priority list, it goes hand in hand with independence which is the real priority for me. It's not about being rich, it's about being comfortable; financially independent. 

I'm not saying anyone else should view this the way I do, I am saying figure out where you are on this issue so you're not sitting on a mountain of money at 93 if that would cause regret or so you don't spend 1/4 of your life stressing every up and down of the stock market if that would make your life less enjoyable. 

A quick pivot to something that isn't completely true but might be in the future. I saw a post on one of the socials that Nvidia will pay people $2000/mo to house/host a small server. The idea is that with all the pushback against big data centers, servers about the size of a generator could help alleviate the problem. My first reaction was it can't be true. 

So there's something to it, still in a trial phase. They aren't paying $2000/mo but covering internet and utility bills and providing battery backup for your house? There might be 100 reasons not do this if it ever goes mainstream, I don't know, but it would be worth learning about if it ever was available in your area. What if it does evolve into Nvdia, or some other company, paying you for this setup? Getting even $1000/mo toward a $5000 or $6000 lifestyle seems like a lot, especially given how under saved we collectively are for retirement. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.