High Markets Wealth research · $MART DEBT Coach · companion report · Updated

A Practical Behavioural Solution for High Markets

At record prices, the decade ahead offers a much worse reward for its risk, and that affects almost every stock investor's whole portfolio. But prices can't tell you when a decline starts. So the useful question is how to hold your stocks through the next decline without predicting anything. This report tests one answer, the practical solution, over 100 years of US data, plus Canada and Japan. The evidence on valuations themselves is in the main report: Why Berkshire (sometimes) holds more cash than listed stocks.

What we found
  • The practical solution, in one line. When valuations are extreme (the CAPE in its highest 10%) and the price trend breaks, halve your stocks; stay halved until the trend recovers.
  • Staying with the plan comes first. Buy-and-hold spent of 2-year periods in a zone most investors can live with (never more than 20% below the last high, and not behind where they were 2 years earlier); the practical solution .
  • Then, the reward for the risk. From starts like today's, when stocks were dear relative to bond yields, buy-and-hold's risk-adjusted value (the sure amount a cautious investor would accept instead)10-year certainty equivalent was versus cash; the practical solution's was .
  • The protection is robust; the return edge is not proven. The practical solution's worst decline was vs for buy-and-hold, whether valuations were known 1, 3, 6 or 12 months late. The 1926–2026 return gain over buy-and-hold was a year, but its 90% range is to (block bootstrap), which includes zero, and without 1929–32 the gain turns negative ( a year). The practical solution ended behind buy-and-hold in of 10-year periods.
  • Where it stands today. Prices are , and at the month-end the S&P 500 was its 10-month average, so the practical solution is .
  • The full-exit version, for reference. Moving all of the stock allocation to cash cut the worst decline to and stayed calm in far more crash periods ( vs ). It is a bigger step for most investors and advisors to take, and to hold.
  • Trend alone is protection with a real cost. Without the valuation filter, halving on every trend break earned vs a year and trailed buy-and-hold in of 10-year periods. The valuation filter is what keeps the practical solution out of the way in ordinary markets.
  • Use the practical solution in an RRSP or TFSA. For the TSX before tax, the trend rule earned vs , with a worst decline of vs . In a taxable account, realizing gains on each exit cut the return to vs .
The practical solution

Practical, Behavioural, Committed to

  1. Write it down in advance, with your advisor, including when you will get back in. The written commitment is what protects against acting on fear or greed later.
  2. Check once a month, at month-end. Use the index's total-return level (dividends included) and its 10-month average.
  3. Are valuations extreme? The Shiller price-to-earnings ratio (CAPE: price divided by 10 years of average earnings, after inflation) is among its highest 10% of readings to date.Shiller CAPE at or above its real-time 90th percentile.
  4. If valuations are extreme and the level closes below its 10-month average, halve the stock allocation (100/0 becomes 50/50, 60/40 becomes 30/70), into cash (T-bills, a high-interest savings account or a cashable GIC) or bonds. Stay halved until the level closes back above its 10-month average, whatever prices do in between. Valuation only starts a cut.
  5. Otherwise stay, or go back, fully invested.

Signals are known at month-end and applied to the next month. CAPE is lagged one extra month for publication delay, and every switch costs 0.1%. The full-exit version is identical except that step 4 moves all of the stock allocation to cash. The exit was changed on 2026-09-29, after two Red Team reviews: the first version re-checked valuation monthly and went back to full stocks in the middle of the 1930 and 2008 crashes.

The practical dial

All-or-nothing, or halve it?

Halving is easier to live with. Big switches are hard for investors and advisors to adopt and to hold. The same signals with a smaller response: when the rule fires, cut stocks by 50% (the practical solution) or 100% (the full-exit version). Each row is compared with its own buy-and-hold. The 60/40 rows put the freed money into bonds. Rebalanced monthly; 0.1% per switch.

Halving is the practical sweet spot. For an all-stock investor the practical solution earned vs a year and cut the worst decline from to . For a 60/40 investor the practical solution matched buy-and-hold ( vs ) with a worst decline of vs . Sheltered accounts only gives the same result: running the full-exit version on the half of a portfolio held in an RRSP or TFSA is, before tax, the practical solution, and the taxable half never realizes a gain.

Staying with the plan

Stick to the plan first

Why this is measured first. There is no 10-year result for an investor who abandons the plan in year 3. The Stick-to-Plan Factor counts the share of all 2-year periods spent in a comfort zone: never more than 20% below the last high, and not behind where the investor was 2 years earlier. It is a descriptive comfort proxy, not a measured adherence probability; results for 1-, 3- and 5-year windows are in the project files.

  • Overall: buy-and-hold ; the practical solution ; the full-exit version ; a plain 60/40 mix .
  • In the four big crashes (1929–32, 1973–74, 2000–02, 2008–09): buy-and-hold ; the practical solution ; the full-exit version . Halving still means falling more than 20%, so the practical solution helps less in a crash than the full-exit version does.
  • Better than simply owning less stock. Against a plain mix holding the same average amount of stock, the practical solution scored points higher on the Stick-to-Plan Factor and higher on risk-adjusted value too.
Crashes

What each approach lost in the big declines

Monthly rules can't catch a one-month crash. Total return from the pre-crash peak month to the trough month. The 1987 crash took one month, too fast for any monthly rule. In 1929–32 the first version of the exit switched off as prices fell and re-entered early; the adopted exit stays out until the trend recovers.

A century of results

Growth of $1, US total market, 1926–2026

Does it still work?

By era, including after the rules were published

The trend rule was popularised by Faber (2007) and the valuation-plus-momentum idea by Asness, Ilmanen and Maloney (2017). Results after publication are the honest out-of-sample test.

After publication, a mostly rising market. Each cell: return per year · worst decline. After publication, both rules lagged buy-and-hold on return. The trend rule still cut the worst decline sharply (2007–2026: vs ). The full-exit version earned vs a year over 2007–2026.

Robustness

A plateau, not a lucky setting

Every combination of valuation threshold and moving-average length, plus a rate-adjusted valuation signal. A result that holds across neighbouring settings is less likely to be a fluke of one choice.

Neighbouring settings agree. All valuation + trend settings of the full-exit version returned to a year vs buy-and-hold, with Sortino between and (buy-and-hold: ). Longer averages switched less and did slightly better. Trend-only settings all gave up about points a year for roughly half the worst decline.

Behaviour

Where investors are most likely to abandon a rule

  • The hardest part is looking wrong for years. The trend rule trailed buy-and-hold in of 10-year periods. Few investors or advisors keep a rule through that without writing down, in advance, why they use it.
  • Whipsaws are the visible cost. The full-exit version made exits that reversed within three months in 100 years; of them missed a rally of more than 5% (for example ).
  • Re-entry is automatic. The practical solution is back in when the trend recovers, often well before the news does. This is the part discretionary sellers most often miss.
Other markets

Canada and Japan

Taxes erase the trend rule's edge in Canada. Signal: US CAPE (there is no complete Canadian series), trend on the TSX itself. In a taxable account the trend rule realizes gains at every exit, and its edge disappears. The full-exit version, with its valuation filter, switches far less, and roughly matched buy-and-hold after tax.

Japan: out early, and much of the fall avoided. The trend rule exited in , from the peak, and roughly halved the worst decline over 76 years at about the same return. Japan's valuation filter (dividend yield below 1%) was armed from (the first month the yearly yield figure was available), about years before the top.

Using the practical solution

For investors and advisors

  • Treat it as protection, not a return engine. The practical solution's value is a smaller worst case, which helps an investor stay invested through the next decline. Expect to trail a rising market for years.
  • Choose the goal first. For someone who wants maximum long-run wealth and can sit through −50% or worse, buy-and-hold remains hard to beat. For someone already financially independent, or who would sell in a panic, a rule that caps the damage is often worth its cost.
  • Who it doesn't suit. Someone who needs the money soon or has a binding spending floor; large taxable gains with no plan for them; too little RRSP or TFSA room; a portfolio unlike the tested stock-and-cash mix; or anyone unwilling to follow the rule through years of trailing the market.
  • Use a tax-sheltered account. In a taxable account, each exit realizes capital gains. Keep the switching inside an RRSP or TFSA.
  • Commit in writing, with your advisor, including the re-entry. Most of the damage from timing comes from never getting back in.
  • For investors who borrow to invest: the same logic argues for not adding leverage while valuations are extreme and the trend is weak, and for having a written plan to add it after a decline.
  • Compliance: anyone giving this to clients should get supervisor pre-approval for client-facing material first.
Method and limits

How this was built

  • US: CRSP value-weighted total market (month-end) and 1-month T-bills from the Ken French data library, 1926–Jun 2026. CAPE from Robert Shiller's data, ranked in real time (expanding window from 1881).
  • Canada: S&P/TSX total return (StatCan to 2001, XIC.TO after) vs 3-month T-bills, 1957–2026. The valuation signal is US CAPE, because there is no complete Canadian series. After-tax results use 2026 Ontario rates at a $200k income, with gains realized on each exit.
  • Japan: Nikkei 225 month-end (FRED, price-weighted), with approximate dividends and cash rates (Jordà–Schularick–Taylor). The valuation signal is an absolute dividend yield below 1%.
  • Several rules and settings were tested, so every "best" result carries multiple-testing risk. Prefer the plateau over the peak. A test on five markets the rules have never seen (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland) is under way.
  • Six Red Team reviews (one by Claude, five by OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex), plus a self-review, reproduced the key figures from the raw data. Corrections are built in.
  • Not modelled: fund fees, bid-ask spreads beyond 0.1% a switch, and taxes in the US results. The halving version after tax is not yet tested.
  • Main report (the valuation evidence): Why Berkshire (sometimes) holds more cash than listed stocks, and what it means for your equity allocation. Code and data available on request.