“Volatility remained very low, so for models that are trying to be more selective and to provide alpha I would say it wasn’t a good year.” – Nigol Koulajian (Tweet)
In this year-end-review, we discuss the year for CTAs and short term traders, as well as the recent collapse of the Euro/Swiss Franc peg and how that affected the models of Quest Partners. Nigol discusses his goals and thoughts for 2015 and reflects on a 2014 that saw his firm start two new strategies and take in new investment.
Please welcome back our guest Nigol Koulajian.
In This Episode, You’ll Learn:
- How Quest Partners did in 2014.
- Why fixed income was the highest contributor to his gains during the year.
- What models did well in 2014.
- What the Euro/Swiss Franc collapse can teach us about risk management.
- How do we prepare for the unthinkable?
- The details of how his models reacted to the Swiss Franc surge.
“The danger of central banks doing what they’re doing, is that the potential for the moves such as yesterday to continue to happen is higher and higher.” – Nigol Koulajian (Tweet)
- What the highlights of 2014 were for Nigol.
- About the two hedge strategies that they started in 2014.
- How investors should insure they don’t repeat 2011 and 2012.
- How the “Black Box” of CTAs is not as mysterious as it used to be.
- What focus he is taking in 2015.
Resources & Links Mentioned in this Episode:
This episode was sponsored by Swiss Financial Services:
Connect with Quest Financial Partners:
Visit the Website: www.QuestPartnersLLC.com
Call Quest Partners LLC: +1 (212) 838-7222
E-Mail Quest Partners LLC: email@example.com
Follow Nigol Koulajian on Linkedin
Nigol: When it comes to 2015 I will say the way I'm thinking of it is that every assumption should be questioned. So when it comes to risk, mind your own business. I would say that's the most important sentence that I'm keeping in my own mind as it comes to making decisions in 2015. I don't want to assume the luxury or the false comfort of saying all CTA's are doing this. Therefore, it must be safe. Every single market position, every assumption has to be questioned.
This is Nigol Koulajian, Founder and CEO of Quest Partners in New York, and you are listening to my year in review on Top Traders Unplugged.
Introduction: Imagine spending an hour with the world's greatest traders. Imagine learning from their experiences their successes and their failures, imagine no more. Welcome to Top Traders Unplugged. The place where you can learn from the best hedge fund managers in the world, so you can take your manager due diligence, or investment career to the next level. Here's your host, veteran hedge fund manager, Niels Kaastrup-Larsen.
Niels: Welcome back, Nigol, for this review of 2014 where we look at the big events from the point of view of your trading strategy. I want to explore the ups and the downs as well as the big takeaway from what can only be described as a great year for systematic trading strategies, in general, at least. But as we know, just because you're systematic in your trading, it doesn't mean necessarily that your strategy deals with market events in a similar way. So it'll be exciting to hear about your experiences. But just diving right into it, tell me a little bit about 2014 from your perspective. How did the year evolve for your firm and the strategies?
Nigol: The year was, I would say, a little bit better than average. Overall we started out, in March and April with a drawdown, as the volatility in foreign exchange contracted dramatically. So the implied vols on the Euro, on the Yen, went from between fifteen and twenty all the way down to five, six, seven, eight levels. So there was massive, massive contraction in FX, and our short-term models went into a drawdown. And from there on we had… I would say it looks like, seven out of eight months positive, so starting in May. July was down, but every month outside of that was up on the year. So we did pretty well.
Niels: Yeah. And it's interesting because I mean, I know a lot of strategies in this space certainly saw a little bit of trouble, but actually more, in general, where you did well.
Nigol: Yes, it's what we've been waiting for (these types of moves) for a few years, although we've done well in the last five years. It's mainly been due to the alpha that we generate, relative to the CTA's. In 2014, I would say this, the CTA's were better and the classical strategies came back and had a very good year - I would say two or three times their average returns. So we participated in that although we were not able to provide as much alpha as we would have wanted to, despite our 16% return on the year.
Niels: Yeah, sure. When you look at the program as a whole, where did you see the biggest contributions, both in terms of the positive, but also on the negative side during the year?
Nigol: Yeah, on the positive side, in terms of sectors, I would say fixed income was the highest contributor, and so were energies. So we were up around 10% on the fixed income and 9% on energies. On the negative side the FX was difficult, I would say in particular in March and April when the vols compressed. Then obviously they came back as the trend in the Euro and the trend in the Yen were pretty strong. But I would say they were very long term, very clean trends without the type of volatility where our systems really thrive. So yes, sector wise that's how it was. Now from a system perspective I would say that most of our long term models were the ones that did the best. So long-term and intermediate-term trend following, where the short-term relatively didn't do well because of the… I would say still low volatility overall in the market.
Niels: And when you say long term, Nigol, I know overall your program doesn't have a long holding period, so maybe you should just qualify that for us? When you say long term, what do you really mean?
Nigol: So our average days per trade is seven to eight days for the program overall, but our long-term models actually have thirty days per trade, which is similar to some of the larger CTA's. So those models, and then the models that have fifteen days per trade… I would say fifteen days per trade all the way to thirty days per trade, those are the models that really contributed to the performance in 2014.
Niels: Sure, and do you think… and I don't know whether this is the right question to ask, but I'm going to try anyway. Looking at the conditions, do you think that a lot of the positive things that we experienced and that you saw in your program, was it more due to the way volatility behaved, or was it more due to the fact that you had the right trade length, or the right holding period for these markets? Do you know the difference? Do you know the distinction I'm trying to make here?
Nigol: Yes. So I would say that the vol remained very low. So for models that are trying to be more selective and to provide alpha, I would say that wasn't particularly a good year. So, I would say it would be a very good year for the most classical trend following models that are always in the markets. So whether you want to use, let's say, the channel breakout models: anywhere between a twenty day channel break out, all the way to a hundred day channel breakout; momentum strategies: so twelve months momentum, close off today relative to the close twelve months ago also did very well, and so did the moving average type of models. So these models are all one hundred percent of the time in the market, and those are the ones that did the best. If you're looking for better entry points, or reversal points within the trend, vol expansion, those things really you did not have much opportunity in 2014.
Niels: Sure, and you know, we saw some big moves, we talked about that and people… Well you know, some markets moved very significantly and certainly in the commodity space. But when you look back at the year, and I know when you're systematic, it's not necessarily something that you look at very often. But, in reviewing the models, reviewing the performance, is there anything that springs to mind the point of you saying, "Actually, given the move in the market, I would have expected our models to do a little bit better." Meaning, when you make money it's easy, and you don't necessarily look at the negatives, but actually it's the negatives that we learn from. So is there anything there, would you say, that actually surprised you a little bit, that we couldn't capture more of that?
Nigol: Definitely, we're always looking at our performance and relative to how the markets behaved. In particular, I would say the way we typically filter, which means, the patterns in volatility, the asymmetry of the markets, in terms of the markets that are trending slowly and reversing fast. Those things didn't work as well. We're always evaluating how much exposure we have to each source of alpha. Each source of alpha is also a source of potential missed returns. So, you want to be closer to index, and you can go far away from the index. Being far away from the index was great for the last five years, but last year it was really the index that did well. So for the asymmetry and volatility patterns, and volatility and those things I would say, didn't work. So we reevaluate very specifically every single way that we look at these factors and make sure that we don't have too much exposure to any single one of them. So we want to make sure that… especially after five years of relatively low vol and lower performance for CTA beta, we wanted to make sure that we have enough exposure to models that are going to be more frequently in the market, and therefore less likely to miss big moves.
Niels: Okay. Now, clearly as you mentioned it was a year of, kind of in stages. I mean, there were two or three difficult months last year, and then there was a lot of great months from a performance point of view. But it was really a year with some overall riding themes, I mean, Russia, oil, Ukraine, were things that people will remember the year for. And often they associate them with maybe something negative when it comes to investing because a lot of people lost money during these periods. Not necessarily the strategies that you employ of course, but I do want to stretch the question into the New Year, 2015. We have another theme now that we can talk about, and that's what the Swiss Central Bank actually did yesterday, so it's very fresh in people's minds. Talk to me a little bit about how these themes... how you coped with the themes if you can, put some words on that. And I think in particular I'd love to talk a little bit more and spend a little bit more time on the Swiss franc from a risk management point of view. What does an event like that really teach us about risk management, and so on and so forth.
Nigol: Great question! Let me go at it one point at a time. So first, overall I would say that last year kind of reconfirms the " raison d'etre" of CTA's. Which means CTA's exist in a way that we're saying that we don't care about fundamentals and that price moves lead the fundamentals and not the other way around. And if you look at the… I mean 2014 was a great year, in terms of seeing what happened in crude oil, that was down around over fifty-five percent for no reason at the time. And here's probably the largest commodity in the world, highly liquid, highly visible, that drops sixty percent without any news driving that move. So if you say, the reason I'm a CTA is because I believe that we don't explain fundamentals very much, in terms of price action. And you can have massive moves that are not explained by fundamentals. Here's one perfect example of such a situation… very few people see it coming…
The Ruble devaluation and that sort of thing, we were not involved in trading… I would say we trade G10 type of currencies, so we were not involved in the Ruble, so it really didn't affect us. Now, in other aspects, obviously a very, very visible aspect was the continued effort of central banks to lower the interest rates on their bonds. So central banks, of course, lowered the short-term yields, now they're going towards lowering the yields of their long bonds. And I would say that when they fail, they will continue buying riskier and riskier assets to make sure that everybody is incentivized to take the cash that they have and actually spend it. So effectively, they're trying to push the consumer to spend and saying, you know, don't keep cash in the bank because it's going to lose its value. Everything is going up in price, and you're going to miss it, so just go buy anything you can buy with it whether it's real estate or stocks or whatever. So that kind of action continued.
Now the downside of that type of action is what just happened yesterday with the Swiss franc. Central banks, no matter now big, no matter now powerful: one, they have to release the pressure that they have on the market because it becomes very costly. And what you have is a complete reversal of a move that took many years to sustain, can reverse in just a few minutes. So what we saw in the Swiss franc yesterday… We actually did a calculation; it was about one hundred and fifty standard deviations. So Euro Swiss, it was a one hundred and fifty standard deviation move in terms of daily volatility. A ten standard deviation is typically considered extreme, such as what happened in 2008. Yesterday was over one hundred standard deviations.
Niels: It couldn't happen! I mean, in theory, what people would say is that should never happen, right?
Nigol: A ten standard deviation should not happen. One hundred and seventy, one hundred and eighty is like… You can't even calculate the probability or the number of years that it would take for that to happen. It's billions of, billions of, billions of years. It happened, so the danger is… The large danger that exists with central banks doing what they're doing with such force is that the potential for the moves, such as yesterday, to continue to happen in markets is higher and higher. And not only in, I would say, relatively small currencies such as the Swiss franc, but in very large markets such as US treasuries, bonds, JGB's, and even stock markets. So those type of moves are going to happen because the markets that we're dealing with are artificially priced by central banks. They're not naturally priced by the market.
Niels: So what does that teach you? Or what does that make you think, Nigol, when something like that which never in theory happened, at least not in our lifetime, it does happen? Not that you sound surprised, because I think that's just a general systematic way of looking at things, but surely we must learn something from it. And I know it just happened, so obviously no one has really formulated any conclusions, but I'm just curious, and I'm sure the audience is curious in terms of your initial thoughts, your initial gut feelings when it comes to this. How do we prepare, or how do we ensure that we are prepared for the unthinkable?
Nigol: I would say first, you have to be realistic in terms of… Everybody should be realistic in terms of their ability to fundamentally have a real price estimate on the markets that we're dealing with. Outside of one factor, which is a variable, which is central bank interventions, these markets could easily be down fifty percent. I mean, whether it's a US thirty-year bond or equities that are arbitraged from a yield perspective with the bonds, these markets can be down fifty percent. So, when people are relying on fundamentals to buy cheap stocks or that sort of thing, I would say today is a very dangerous time to do that.
More than ever today, I would say you have to rely on technicals, and, in particular, more short-term perspectives within the technical world. So that if you have a chance to go in the direction of dramatic price moves such as the ones that happened yesterday, you have a chance to do it. I would say that the longer term approach to CTA's with very long term models, where your long equities, your long fixed income, and you're relying on the correlation of equities and fixed income to have a low volatility portfolio - those days are over. The correlation between stocks and bonds can easily go positive, and you can easily have very large moves. The only way you can protect yourself is to first understand the risk to the correlation and understand the risk of the volatility - that the current volatility is not representative of the true risk. Therefore, have models, which in the short term can go in the direction of the price action. That's very, very important. There's a risk of getting whipsawed when you're trading short term, but in today's world, you cannot disregard this.
Niels: Sure, I mean I know some of your models look for expansion and volatility, and you certainly got that yesterday. But what about liquidity? Can you actually trade something like happened like that yesterday?
Nigol: Liquidity wise, there were actually opportunities… The move was not an actual gap, so you could, over a few minutes, like almost ten minutes, you could have actually traded in the Swiss, no problem. Except that in today's world, because most asset management firms are used to low volatility, they are also more reliant on view of types of trading strategies. They're less reliant on stops, they see stops as unnecessary.
Niels: It's the cost.
Nigol: Yeah, it's the cost. So today, you have to realize that this is really a very dangerous position to take, and investors should recognize that as well.
Niels: Remind me Nigol, do you generally use stops for all of your positions?
Nigol: Absolutely. Yes. I mean over ninety-five percent of our positions have stops in the market. So yesterday's move happened over a fifteen minute period, so it wasn't a real gap per say, and there was plenty of liquidity over those fifteen minutes. Not for tens of billions of dollars of trading, but for one billion here, one billion there, that's not a problem at all.
Niels: I know last time we were talking on the podcast you were very open with some ideas in trading. I just want to test that openness again by just asking you: Are you happy to share exactly what your trading did yesterday in terms of exposure to Swiss francs, or SMI if you trade that? Just how did the day start? What did you actually do if anything? And where did you end up in terms of positions and stuff like that? What actually took place?
Nigol: Sure. Let me speak generally first and go more to our models that are more short term in nature. The longer term models that rely on moving averages, for example, wouldn't have caught the reversal in the trend yesterday. As a matter of fact, the most short term of the moving average type crossover strategies would only start flipping today and tomorrow... today and Monday basically. We have very small exposure to long-term models such as those. Those models effectively didn't even trade yesterday.
Niels: True. So they were short coming into it, and they are still short the Swiss franc.
Nigol: Yes. So they would trade the next day market on open, or the next day market on close or the same day market on close, but very rare. I would say that it's a slow process, and yesterday's move wouldn't have triggered any trading. Now as you go more short-term and there you are approaching strategies that are more similar to what we do, then you have stops in the market which are actually very close. Those stops, for your strategies are at a certain multiple of volatility away from the price and those positions. I would say 60%, 70 %, 80% of our position in the Swiss franc got stopped out in the first two or three minutes. So only 10% to 20% of the move started happening, and we were already fully out of our short-term positions on the Swiss franc.
Now the benefit of this type of trading is that you're much more positively skewed. You're benefiting from the large moves from the surprises. Yesterday, by chance, we did not have any entry positions to go in the direction of the move. We only had exits from our short term positions. So we lost a little bit on our long term positions. We lost very little on our short term positions. By chance for a lot of CTAs, I would say the Euro moves on its own as well. The downtrend in the Euro continues and that generated some positive returns yesterday. The up move in fixed income as well, so that dampened the magnitude of the losses in the Swiss franc for a day such as yesterday.
Niels: Sure, it's very interesting, and I appreciate that. That's always good to hear from the battle ground exactly what took place. Now, just looking back at 2014 as a whole - the year, what were the highlights for you, let alone that the performance was good, we take that for granted, of course. What was the highlight in general for a year like 2014?
Nigol: I would say overall the yields or the returns on credit type strategies, on equity long/short strategies, as those returns seemed to be squeezed out of the markets the CTAs had a better year. I would say that there's a real interest from the fund-the-fund community, from many different asset management angles back to looking at CTAs in a realistic way as part of a portfolio. So where I would say from 2009 to the end of 2013, the allocations probably steadily decreased. I would also say 2014 was a year where people started reallocating or were looking in a very serious manner to increase their reallocations. So everybody's positioning themselves. With the type of moves that even we saw yesterday, the technical approach is critical in a portfolio at this point in time. It's a very cheap hedge for these types of moves, and people are moving towards that. For us, that's very encouraging. It's always good to see that the industry is doing well overall.
Niels: Yeah, I completely agree. Were there any big changes on your side? I mean personnel wise, some interesting research findings in general, or any other things that happened over the year?
Nigol: For us it was a significant year because we've started two hedge strategies. One is an equity hedge strategy, and one is a fixed income hedge strategy. Last year, 2014 was the first full year for both of those strategies. Relative to the benchmarks, which is in the short US ten-year bond position, we outperformed by 8% in our fixed income hedge and on the equity hedge we outperformed by about 15% relative to the short S&P position. So, for us it was an interesting... although those strategies rely on the same methodology that we use in the original program, those strategies had substantial outperformance versus the benchmarks. The interest in those strategies is increasing at a rapid rate.
Niels: Sure. When you do those hedge products, do you only trade within the markets that you're trying to be a hedge against, or do you need to trade other types of markets in order to provide a meaningful hedge?
Nigol: No, the point of those strategies is that if you want to generate negative beta to the S&P it is much more interesting to find that negative beta to the S&P in all other markets. Whether you can be short silver, whether you can be short crude oil, or you can be short copper, anywhere you can find negative beta to the S&P you should get it, even when the S&P is going up. So if you're only looking to short equity markets, when they are going up you basically have no hedging. So you're missing the reversal. The point of such strategies is... well, the S&P was going up but crude oil was going down, so was copper and both those are correlated to the S&P. For example, give you very good returns with negative beta to the S&P. So this is much more valuable than just the classical timing on short/flat equity indices.
Niels: Sure, sure. Now, I've been reading a few 2015 outlooks from prominent people, big banks and also Mohamed El-Erian I noticed was on CNBC a couple of weeks ago and he said something along these lines, is that, "if I can sum up the world in one word it would be divergence." To me, that's very significant. Clearly if he's right it's incredibly significant. Tell me, for a short term strategy like yours, how do you take that? Is it also something that you wish for?
Nigol: Divergence typically comes with volatility and, therefore, for us, we expect that to be some value added in terms of returns. The mindset for the last five years has been in a straight line: equities going up with very minimal corrections; fixed income going up with very minimal corrections. I would say everything else is flat. The beginning of this type of volatility, although it's still very minimal in nature, has the potential to completely throw the order into the air and create new equilibriums in all asset classes. So this divergence that he's talking about is something that, for us, we see as having potentially major trends in all asset classes. So, yes, we would say that's positive for us.
Niels: Sure. Now 2014 was a very good year for the systematic industry or trading strategies in general and certainly the best we've seen since 2008. Now I know that 2014 was not a year where you had big disasters in terms of price falls in equities and fixed income. So it wasn't necessarily one of those years where CTAs were looked upon as the savior of a portfolio, but it was certainly a very strong component of a portfolio. However, you mentioned before that you saw, or you're seeing now some more interest in the strategies and in the space, in general. If we start seeing a big inflow of capital back into these strategies, in particular if people are worried that divergence is coming, and we need some of those strategies that are long divergence. How do we ensure, and how should investors ensure that they don't end up in the same situation as we saw in 2011, 2012, where they were basically redeeming at the wrong and worst possible time, because they either didn't understand what they bought, they got bored with their investments? I know you perform differently than many other people during that period of time, so I take that. So maybe it's a general conversation or question that I'm asking you, but it's an important one. It's so destabilizing for everyone when you see these massive flows in and out of a relatively small industry still. What's your best advice both to investors, but also from a manager point of view in order to avoid the zig zag in AUM?
Nigols: Well, in the last five years I would say that the degree of transparency in the industry has changed tremendously where investors have available to them today many fully transparent indices. So the concept of the black box that made huge returns in 2008, today does not have to be followed in order to be exposed to the CTA space. So investors should spend enough resources evaluating the transparent models that are available and realize that there is no big mystery behind CTAs. By doing so, once they're comfortable with the models and they understand that they can actually replicate those models themselves, they would be more likely to be able to withstand the typical volatility of a CTA portfolio. Therefore, they would not come in at the exactly wrong time based on returns as well as exit at exactly the wrong time based on returns. So, education and a certain degree of investment into understanding what today is easily available.
Niels: Yeah, I take that on board. I do want to push back a little bit here, Nigol. Maybe I just misunderstood you here, because one of the dangers that I see, and that is, I think it's good that there are transparent benchmarks, that's fine. But I do caution a little bit about people thinking that it's easy, and people thinking that, if I just follow these models I'm going to make money. A lot of what people pay for, I think, is actually for the managers to stick with the models during the difficult times. Because even the benchmarks, as we know, they're going to have their difficulties; they're going to have their drawdowns. So I think if institutional investors think that they can just do this themselves, I think that's dangerous. Because it's the discipline that makes the difference, it's the fact that we don't worry about being down 20% as we were, or many people were by midsummer 2014. Am I on the right track here?
Nigol: That is true, but the only way to overcome that is through education. They shouldn't do it themselves, but the education is very helpful in being able to withstand the volatility, the drawdowns, and the runs of CTAs. So I would say...
Niels: But how do you teach someone, and this is a great point, I appreciate that. How do you teach someone through education that to control their emotions and to stick with the discipline, how do we teach that? I think that's important, both actually whether they do that themselves or whether they invest with a manager, they still have to go through the same drawdown, so how do we teach them that?
Niels: Because I think that's what we've been trying to do for the last 20, 30 years.
Nigols: Yeah, exactly, that's the trick question, right? It's not so easy. The emotional aspect of the CTA space is not so easy to teach. But at least if there's an understanding of the models. I would say that investors are able to know that what they're getting is a constant process rather than a process where they are getting only the losses and not the gains. So when you know that the model is stable. It's not being changed by the manager based on reactions to market returns; that's already a major source of comfort where at least now you know what you are getting. Where I would say part of the fear and where investors miss timing their CTA investments are the fact that they are not sure that they knew what the process was. It's a first step. I'm not saying that once you have that you're able to withstand the returns and the volatility, but it's a very big step.
Niels: Sure, and I think that's a great point, actually, that's a great point. If we can somehow really teach them and give them transparency into the process, that really should help them regardless. I think that is a great point, Nigol, I appreciate that.
Now I've only got one question left, which is always one of those odd ones, so I'll leave that for a few seconds. But I do want to give you a chance to bring up anything that you want people to be thinking about going into 2015. If there's something that you want to bring up about your own firm: new plans, new something? Is there anything that you think we should just touch upon before we wrap up?
Nigol: I'll bring up one quick point and then mention the thing to focus on for 2015. So first I would say we've actually done substantial testing on single stock strategies, and we will start trading those for a proprietary account within the next month, so we're very excited about that. When it comes to 2015, I will say, the way I'm thinking about it, is that every assumption should be questioned. So I will say that when it comes to risk, mind your own business. I would say that's the most important sentence that I am keeping in my own mind as it comes to making decisions in 2015. I don't want to assume the luxury or the false comfort of saying all CTAs are doing this. Therefore, it must be safe. Every single market position, every assumption has to be questioned. That's the approach that I'm taking in 2015.
Niels: Fantastic. Now, the final question Nigol, we're going into a new year. If you had a magic wand and you could wish for something for the new year, what would that be?
Nigol: I stay away from new year resolutions or wishing things for myself. In the American Indian culture, there's actually... when you tell somebody, "may you get what you're wishing" that's actually a curse (laugh). People don't know what's good for them. So I would say I'm going along with the flow, accepting what comes and learning to adapt in a most realistic way to what's offered. That's my approach to getting what I want.
Niels: Sure, I think that's perfectly nice and very good indeed. Now, unfortunately it is a short episode today. So we are running out of time. But of course for those who want to hear much more from you, they can certainly go and listen to our previous conversation on Top Traders Unplugged.
I do want to thank you for being on the podcast today and sharing your insights. I also want to congratulate you on another solid year as well. I of course do want to wish you and your firm all the best for 2015 and I look forward to catching up with you later in the year.
Nigol: Thank you, Niels. Thank you for your effort over the year. You've done some amazing interviews that I've listened to and have been very helpful and very informative. I look forward to continuing to follow up on your work.
Niels: Great stuff. Thank you so much and take care.
Nigol: Thank you.
Niels: All the best.
Ending: Thanks for listening to Top Traders Unplugged. If you feel you learned something of value from today's episode, the best way to stay updated is to go on over to iTunes and subscribe to the show so that you'll be sure to get all the new episodes as they're released. We have some amazing guests lined up for you, and to ensure our show continues to grow, please leave us an honest rating and review on iTunes. It only takes a minute, and it's the best way to show us you love the podcast. We'll see you next time on Top Traders Unplugged.
Become An Insider
Subscribe for free and be the first to receive new and exclusive interviews with the world's top traders. As an insider we'll also send insightful bonus content direct to your inbox.Free Instant Access »
You might also like:
Date posted: 22 Jan 2015no comments