Stingy Investor Contact - Subscribe - Login
  Home | Articles | Screens | Links | SNW | Rothery Report
 
Get ready for the Hot Potato

Some people add chili peppers to almost everything. They gobble down jalapeos and savour habaneros. But even the bravest chili heads balk when it comes to noshing on the hottest peppers in the world. The current king of heat? The Carolina Reaper. You can find videos online of people trying the reaper. They're not pretty.

When it comes to investing, many prefer plain portfolios while others like to spice things up. To the more daring, I offer a fiery take on MoneySense's conservative Couch Potato portfolio. Call it the Hot Potato.

Before we start slathering on the sriracha sauce, it's worth remembering what the classic Couch Potato is all about. It dishes out a variety of low-fee diversified portfolios of broad-market index funds (and exchange-traded funds) that can be held for a long time - usually 10 years or more. The only trading they require comes from deposits, withdrawals and the occasional rebalancing, which helps maintain the portfolio's desired asset mix.

The basic Couch Potato method represents a low-cost conventional approach to money management that is suitable for a large number of investors. If you're the passive buy-and-hold type then the Couch Potato might be just the thing for you.

But if you're more adventuresome and want a more active and somewhat unconventional approach, then the unabashedly momentum-based Hot Potato is worth exploring. Like the classic Couch Potato, it comes in several varieties and uses the same low-fee index funds (and exchange-traded funds) as building blocks. But the Hot Potato diverges significantly from the classic version because it employs shorter holding periods and focuses on a single asset class at a time. It adds a lot more zip to money management.

Sizzling tubers: Heat outperforms over time

The basic Hot Potato method is inspired by money manager James Montier's 2003 article 'Cheap Countries Outperform,' which can be found in his book Behavioural Investing. Montier noted that the stock markets of countries that fared the best over the prior 12 months continued to outperform. It is a classic case of momentum in markets and we wanted to test whether a similar approach would work for Canadians.

To find out, we start with the original Couch Potato portfolio as a baseline. The original portfolio contains equal dollar amounts of Canadian bonds, Canadian stocks, and U.S. stocks. This no-fuss approach fared well from 1981 through 2015 with average annual returns of 10.0%. That assumes annual rebalancing back to an equal dollar amount of each index. (We used the FTSE TMX Canada Bond Universe index, the S&P/TSX Composite index and the S&P 500 for the performance calculations. All figures include the reinvestment of dividends and interest income, but not fees and taxes, which vary depending on personal circumstances.)

The spicier version of the classic spud strategy is very different: Instead of annually rebalancing back to equal amounts of the three indexes, the Hot Potato looks at the returns of the indexes over the prior 12 months and moves all its assets into the index that fared best. For instance, the top performing index at the end of 2011 was the S&P 500. As a result, the whole Hot Potato portfolio moved into the S&P 500 for 2012, with no money allocated to the other two indexes. U.S. stocks continued to outperform every year since then, thanks in part to the weakening Canadian dollar. As a result, the portfolio stays in U.S. stocks from 2012 on and remains there in 2016.

While the Hot Potato requires more attention, the effort is worth it because this portfolio would have gained an average of 12.0% annually from 1981 through 2015. That's a performance advantage of 2.0 percentage points per year for the Hot Potato. Mind you, it also came with a lot more volatility, which has to be expected due to its concentrated approach.

It's worth pointing out that taking the opposite tack and moving into the index that fared the worst over the prior year - call this the Cold Potato approach - yielded returns of only 9.7% annually. It modestly underperformed the original Couch Potato by 0.3 of a percentage point per year. If this pattern repeats, it's not encouraging news for Canadian stocks, which lagged in 2015. See how the Hot, Cold, and Classic versions of the original Canadian Couch Potato fared over time in the chart on the facing page.

Even better: Go global and reset monthly

While the Hot Potato generated good returns using annual data, it is well known that momentum tends to work better over shorter periods. (For more on this, check out Gary Antonacci's study of monthly momentum strategies for U.S.-based investors in his recent book Dual Momentum Investing.) This time, we'll focus on a global version of the Canadian Couch Potato portfolio to highlight the potential benefits for Canadians of using a similar monthly approach.

The Global Couch Potato places equal amounts of money into Canadian bonds, Canadian stocks, U.S. stocks, and global stocks. It uses the same indexes as the classic Couch Potato with the addition of the EAFE index as the proxy for international stocks.

The classic Global Couch Potato portfolio provided healthy average annual returns of 10.0% from the start of 1981 through 2015, assuming the portfolio's four indexes were rebalanced back to equal dollar amounts each month instead of annually. (Investors who follow the Global Couch Potato are generally less punctual with their rebalancing.)

Just as before, Hot Potato investors would opt for a concentrated approach. At the end of each month, they move all their chips into the single asset class that fared the best over the prior 12 months. If the top performer remains the same, no change is made that month.

The Global Hot Potato portfolio, rebalanced monthly, gained an average of 16.7% per year from the start of 1981 to the end of 2015. It beat the classic Couch Potato by a whopping 6.7 percentage points annually.

While the global version of the Hot Potato was certainly more volatile than the Couch Potato, it came mostly from the sort of upside volatility that few investors complain about. In addition, it nimbly sidestepped several market crashes along the way. In fact, the largest drawdown for the monthly-balanced Global Hot Potato came after the Internet bubble popped in 2000, when it declined 21.4%. But it bounced back almost two years before the Global Couch Potato did, having fallen 29.2% during the same downturn.

The Global Couch Potato drew its biggest loss during the 2008 collapse (31.1%) and didn't recover until 2011. Its spicier sibling fared better because it was invested in bonds for a good part of that period: It fell only 10% from its 2007 high to its 2008 low, and had recovered fully by the summer of 2009.

Once again contrarians fared poorly. The Global Cold Potato Portfolio is moved monthly into the worst performing asset class of the prior year. By doing so, it gained an average of 7.9% annually and trailed the Global Couch Potato by 2.1 percentage points per year. The monthly return history of all three global potato variants is shown in the charts on the opposite page.

Too hot? Take it down a notch

The Hot Potato's propensity for volatility can cause some investors to suffer indigestion. But there are options for people who want to add just a little spice to their portfolios.

For instance, they might opt for something I'll call the Warm Potato approach: Instead of moving all of their money into the hot asset class of the day, investors sell only the worst performing index over the prior 12 months and double up on the best performer. As a result, the Warm Potato is composed of a double weighting in the best performing asset class, none of the worst performer and a single weighting in each of the others.

Applying a somewhat spicier approach to the original three-asset-class Couch Potato portfolio, with annual changes, resulted in average annual returns of 10.6%. That's 0.6 of a percentage point advantage over the regular version. Similarly, applying this method to a global portfolio with four asset classes and rebalancing monthly, would have generated gains of 12.1% per year, beating the classic Couch Potato by 2.1 percentage points per year and with only a little more volatility than the regular version.

And now, the disclaimer

A few words of warning are in order: Past performance does not guarantee future performance. That maxim that applies to all versions of the Couch Potato strategy, and to investing in general. In addition, the Hot Potatoes might underperform their counterparts in the future. Indeed, they are likely do so at least from time to time.

In addition, it's worth considering the fees associated with frequent rebalancing. It's one reason why most Couch Potato portfolios are reset annually or less frequently. The Hot Potato portfolios are more active. For instance, the Global Hot Potato made an average of 1.7 large trades per year from 1981 through 2015. Trading costs (commissions and bid-ask spreads) reduce returns in practice and these have not been factored into the return numbers shown in our charts.

The Hot Potatoes can also trigger capital gains taxes in taxable accounts. As a result, investors should try to minimize such costs by using tax-favoured accounts and opting for liquid low-cost index funds or similar exchange-traded funds.

More subtly, the approach might not work as well as indicated when implemented using index funds or exchange-traded funds because such funds don't exactly track the indexes they follow in practice.

The Hot Potato approach isn't for everyone and should only be attempted by aggressive, seasoned investors. New investors should stick with the more conventional Couch Potato method, which encourages long holding periods. As always, for the best outcome, know your inner investor. Some people can handle a little heat - or a great deal of it. Others can't stand even a touch of pepper. Pick the portfolio that's right for you because your piece of mind will depend on it.



First published in MoneySense magazine.

  MoneySaver Articles
 2 Graham Stocks for 2018
 2 Stingy Stocks for 2017
 2 Graham Stocks for 2017
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2016
 5 Graham Stocks for 2016
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2015
 3 Graham Stocks for 2015
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2014
 4 Graham Stocks for 2014
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2013
 6 Graham Stocks for 2013
 9 Stingy Stocks for 2012
 8 Graham Stocks for 2012
 Simple Way 2011
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2011
 7 Graham Stocks for 2011
 Simple Way 2010
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2010
 8 Graham Stocks for 2010
 Simple Way 2009
 Timing Temptation
 19 Stingy Stocks for 2009
 4 Graham Stocks for 2009
 Simple Way 2008
 Active at Passive Prices
 Unbundling ETFs 2008
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2008
 5 Graham Stocks for 2008
 Is your index too active?
 Graham's Simple Way
 Canadian Graham Stocks
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2007
 8 Graham Stocks for 2007
 Top SPPs
 The Simple Way
 A hole in your IPO?
 Monkey Business
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2006
 Graham Stock Gainers
 Blue-Chip Blues
 Are Dividends Safe?
 SPPs for 2005
 Graham's Simplest Way
 Selling Graham Stocks
 RRSP Money Market Funds
 Stingy Stocks for 2005
 High Performance Graham
 Intelligent Indexing
 Unbundling Canadian ETFs
 A history of yield
 A Dynamic Duo
 Canadian Graham Stock
 Dividends at Risk
 Thrifty Value Stocks
 Stocks in Short Supply
 The New Dividend
 Hunting Goodwill
 SPPs for 2003
 RRSP: don't panic
 Desirable Dividends
 Stingy Selections 2003
 10 Graham Picks
 Growth Eh?
 Timing Disaster
 Dangerous Diversification
 The Coffee Can Portfolio
 Down with the dogs
 Stingy Selections
 Frugal Funds
 Graham Revisited
 Just Spend It
 Ticker Temptation
 Stock Mortality
 Focus on Fees
 SPPs for the Long Term
 Seeking Solid Stocks
 Relative Strength
 The VR Approach
 The Irrational Investor
 Value Investing

Globe & Mail Articles
 Indexing advice
 Media-shy stocks
 Curse of size
 Market uncertainty
 Be even lazier
 Scary beats safe
 Small, illiquid, value
 Use the numbers
 What value is good value?
 Sculpt for value
 Value vs CAPE
 Graham Rules
 CAPE vs PeakE
 Top value ratio
 Low Beta
 Value and dividends
 Walter Schloss
 Try unloved AIG
 Why I'm a value investor
 New world of ETFs
 Low P/Es possible
 10 yielders
 Be happier
 Long-Short
 Dividend Downside
 Shiller's P/E
 Copycat investing
 Cashing in on class
 Index roulette
 Theory collides
 Diving too deep
 3 retirement villains
 Scourge of inflation
 Economic omens
 Analyst Expectations
 Value stock scarcity
 It's all in the index
 How to pick good funds
 Low Beta Wins
 Hunt for dividend stocks
 Think garage sale

Old MS Articles
 Cdn Top 200 2018
 Cdn Top 200 2017
 Cdn Top 200 2016
 Cdn Top 200 2015
 Cdn Top 200 2014
 Cdn Top 200 2013
 Cdn Top 200 2012
 Cdn Top 200 2011
 Cdn Top 200 2010
 Cdn Top 200 2009
 Cdn Top 200 2008
 Cdn Top 200 2007
 Cdn Top 200 2006
 Cdn Top 200 2005
 US Top 500 2018
 US Top 500 2017
 US Top 500 2016
 US Top 500 2015
 US Top 500 2014
 US Top 500 2013
 US Top 500 2012
 US Top 500 2011
 US Top 500 2010
 US Top 500 2009
 US Top 500 2008
 US Top 500 2007
 US Top 1000 2006
 Dividends 100 2017
 Dividends 100 2016
 Retirement 100 2015
 Retirement 100 2014
 Retirement 100 2013
 Retirement 100 2012
 Retirement 100 2011
 Retirement 100 2010
 Income 100 2009
 Income 100 2008
 Income 100 2007
 Top Trusts 2006
 Top Trusts 2005
 Hot Potato
 Buffett Buys
 FB IPO
 Stocks that pay
 Value in the S&P500
 Where to invest $100k
 Where to invest $10k
 Summer Simple Way
 A crystal ball for stocks?
 Cheap & safe
 Risky business
 Dividend investing
 Value investing
 Momentum investing
 Low P/E P/B
 Dividends
 Dividend growers
 Graham's prescription
 The case for optimism
 Wicked investments
 Simply spectacular
 Small stocks, big profits
 Value that sizzles
 So simple it works
 No assembly required
 Investing by the book
 Invest like the masters
 A simple way to get rich
 Stocks for cannibals
 Car bites dogs
 So easy, so profitable
 Dogs of the Dow
 Money for nothing
 Yield of dreams
 Return of the master

Advisor's Edge Articles
 Passive Rebundling
 Doing the math

Norm Speaks
Flip Books

Tools:
 Asset Mixer
 Periodic Table



 
About Us | Legal | Contact Us
Disclaimers: Consult with a qualified investment adviser before trading. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, financial advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. More...