“A seasoned trader feels happy the moment he enters into a good trade, even if that trade ends up with losses.” – Luc van Hof (Tweet)
In this year-end review, Luc van Hof discusses what he learned from 2014 and how his firm innovated to create better gains for customers in 2015. He also talks about the Swiss Franc and why he was not trading it when the major move happened in 2015.
Thanks for listening and please welcome our guest Luc van Hof.
In This Episode, You’ll Learn:
- The two programs that his firm trades.
- What kind of risk both of his programs take on.
- What 2014 taught Luc.
- What he learned from the Swiss Franc move.
- Why they didn’t trade the Swiss Franc…on the day of the big move.
- Why he wishes they could have taken a holiday for 6 months after the end of June.
“You have no choice but to be active in the market.” – Luc van Hof (Tweet)
- The advantage of trading frequently.
- The new innovation that his firm started this year.
- His thoughts on volatility.
Resources & Links Mentioned in this Episode:
This episode was sponsored by Swiss Financial Services:
Connect with Capital Hedge:
Visit the Website: www.CapHedge.com
E-Mail Capital Hedge: email@example.com
Follow Luc Van Hof on Linkedin
Luc: Well, not to make a joke of it, but we should have taken a six month holiday at the end of June. That would have been the best decision. But of course that's the difference between say trading your own money, in which case you could do that, and trading say other people's money. You can't say to your clients, "Well, we made 5% in six months or 8% in six months, let's stop this for the rest of the year." And we would say well, why would we continue to pay management fees? So you have basically no choice but to be active in the market. It doesn't mean you have to trade, but it's very difficult for a short-term trader to be out of the market for weeks if not months.
This is Luc van Hof, Founder and CEO of Capital Hedge, 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 Luc for this review of 2014 where we look at the big events from the point of view of your trading strategies. I want to explore the ups and the downs, as well as the big takeaway from what can only be described as an important year for systematic trading strategies, in general. But as we know, just because you're systematic in your trading, it doesn't necessarily mean that you capture the movements of the markets in a similar way. But before we jump into the first question.., Because you run a slightly different strategy to many of my other guests, I would appreciate it if you just took a few minutes just to remind people about your two main strategies that you run on your side.
Luc: Okay, sure Niels, thank you. So the first strategy that is called DPI is Downside Protection in Income, is a strategy that actually is a very short-term trading strategy, and it basically uses two components. One component is a… what people could describe as a short-term CTA approach systematically trading in a directional fashion which we do in the currencies and in the stock index futures. So that's a relatively common approach used by CTA's, although it's rather short term. So it's strictly intra-week and most of the time it's even intra-day.
Now the second component which is like the opposite of the directional trading component is, of course, a range trading or short volatility of non-directional trading component. That's where we use options. In other words we are selling volatility, We are selling options, of course hedged at all times. But then this, of course, will depend to a great extent on the timing in terms of when do we put on the trade and what happens to volatility; more so than what happens to the markets, the price and such. And as you can imagine with the events that we saw in the fourth quarter of 2014, we had very different characteristics and very different return profiles between these two components. The directional trading, on the one hand: trading short-term directionally, going for big moves, intra-day and definitely intra-week; and the other one which is hoping that the market sits still. Which of course it didn’t do. As a consequence that option component suffered quite dramatically. So that's one program, the DPI program.
Our second program which is called VTP stands for Volatility, Time, and Price is a more uncommon approach to trading because the main component in the algorithms is trying to play what we call the position sizing element. So it's more like you're going to risk… You want to have some exposure, a certain fraction of the portfolio, let's assume in currencies, or in bonds, or in real estate or ETFs. And as a function of how the underlying market behaves, you're going to take up the role of a market maker. In other words, you're prepared to buy at lower prices. You're prepared to sell at higher prices. So it's like a gamma scalping strategy, but to a larger extent slightly wide of time frame. Then we used positions for several days if not weeks. So these are very different programs. One is taking advantage of big swings in the market. It's probably not going to be a surprise to hear that that one had a great Q4; while the other program, the short volatility program got hit by the spike in volatility.
So for some clients it was kind of a relief that they didn't bet heavily on one program or the other because it could have been very unlucky, very fortunate or very unfortunate. While if you have like a good fifty-fifty weighting between the two, well you end up with a decent year if you're invested in the two programs. If you would be betting heavily on the short options program, you would have had a great Q2 and a pretty poor Q3 and Q4. So it's again, the question of re-diversified which I think is the only free lunch that is available on Wall Street and for trading, in general.
Niels: Sure, absolutely, and I appreciate that. Now of course when you say some of the numbers, I've obviously seen your performance numbers and even though you said it was a very tough year for DPI, the reality is the net result was only it being down very slightly for the year. But of course to you that might not be such a good year.
Luc: True, very true, because it's a very relative thing. So if we say we're up 5% some people might say, "Well that is not really very significant, or very impressive." If you then realize that the risk was only 2%, of course, it becomes a very good thing. Now in DPI we were down 3%, we didn't risk a lot, but still we lost 3%. Now people cannot expect to make - say 15%, 20% with that program because it's a low-risk program.
So to give you some background in terms of multi performances, the DPI program has returned now as of the end of 2014, a compounded return for the last five years of slightly over 7% - 7.1%. Which is not great, but it's definitely decent. Now the downside deviation and the drawdowns are about the same size. Maximum drawdown is also 7% and the standard deviation is also 6.5%, so we have a sharp ratio which is now around 1.1%, still good, but nothing dramatic.
So all in all we can say that we had a very good start of the year being up like 5% after two quarters in 2014, which looked like it was going to be a good year. In the third quarter was like flat to slightly negative, I think we gave back 1%, but then the fourth quarter with a spike in volatility. It was really tough for our type of trading because we are short volatility we are selling options, and as you know we saw a couple of very big moves like in September we had one. We had one of course through the middle of October, and then again in December. Again the market came back down very briskly, but also rebounded quite dramatically and very swiftly. So it's tough for short option trades.
Niels: Yeah, absolutely. And it is interesting isn't it? The first part of 2014 is where all of the trend followers were complaining, and you were having a good time, and vice versa. So of course from an investor's point of view this is what it's all about. It's about finding strategies that are fundamentally different and perform differently. So I think that that is important to stress. But given those conditions and given the market moves we saw, if you look on a market by market basis, what were the most profitable and what were the most unprofitable markets, if you look at it that way? Because I know you trade obviously a few different ones.
Luc: Well not only is it different from one market to the next, but also different from what strategy we trade on that market. So if I take the example of the S&P, the S&P was a great performer for the directional trading. We had some very significant intra-day moves, which we could capitalize on using futures, day trading, and intra-week trading the futures market. On the other hand if you look at the same market where normally volatility came down to as low as 10%, 12% for the VIX, which was like the long-term average around say 18%. When we saw spikes like in October to over 30%, so this was a dramatic increase in volatility. You can imagine in that very same market where we could make money trading directionally futures. We got hit significantly having shorted options at a certain VIX level, for example around 18%, 20%, and then volatility going through the roof to 25%, even 32% in a couple of days time.
So, of course, these positions suffered, but all in all I think the program, as we conceived it, has been delivering continuously. Because we don't really regret that we lost money on a trade. At the end of the day, we're trying to take good trades. Good trades are something which is different, I think for, on the one hand, what we could call a seasoned and consistent trader and, on the other hand, an amateur trader. When does an amateur trader feel happy? If he has a trade and can exit the trade with a profit.
Now a seasoned trader, he feels happy the moment he enters into a good trade. Even if that trade ends up with losses, well you should remain equally content. You're doing the trade after rigorous analysis, clear procedures, a good system, application, and so on. So there's no regret as such. Of course it's more fun if the trade, which was a good trade, turns out to be profitable. But it's not something that you should regret if you took a trade, according to the rules, according to the system, and then it turns out to be a losing trade.
Because that's not exactly what it's all about, it's trying to come up with a good expectancy, a good mathematical expectation for a certain system, a certain trade. And then you have to take the good trades with the bad trades. The bad trades are the losing trades, but it doesn’t mean that they are bad as such. They were down according to the system, in line with the procedures that we agreed on beforehand, so that's not what I would call a bad trade. A bad trade would be a trader that I shouldn't have taken because I started overriding the system. It's where I said, "Well, this market has gone up too high, I'm going to get out of the trade and I will have a small profit." Then the market continues for another twenty, thirty points. That would be a bad trade even though I made money. So it's a big distinction, I think, between what we could describe as bad trading and good trading. Good trading has to do with implementing the system as you're supposed to do, trading as you should do, independent of the result.
Luc: So that is, I think, for us an important thing and that's why we don't really complain about, "Okay, we had a bad Q4 but we had a good Q1, Q2, a flat Q3. All in all, we lost money a little bit, but it's not a bad year, we didn't do anything wrong. The market was tough, but it's supposed to be tough at times. It's supposed to be providing us with some serious challenges. And of course there again, as you hinted before, the power of diversification kicks in. If an investor is invested with say a long-term CTA and a short-term CTA, well that short-term CTA probably has a good time in Q1, Q2, and has a tough time in Q3, Q4. And exactly the other way around for the longer-term CTA, so again the investor invested with both of them, we'll probably see a nice, decent, average profitable return.
Niels: Sure, I completely agree Luc, and I think you're absolutely right. A good day in the office is actually a day where you come home, and you know you've done what the strategy was meant to do, and implemented in an efficient way. But I do want to ask a slightly different question then because you're right it's not about good or bad but let's look at it in another way. Did 2014, and the moves you saw and the returns you captured, did that teach you anything? Was there anything in what happened that gave you any ideas or something where you said, "Well maybe we should do it a little bit differently."? Or if I can put it that way?
Luc: Absolutely, I mean that is why this trading game, if you call it that, is such a fascinating and interesting thing to do, because it's constantly evolving. There is not one year which is identical or similar to a previous one. There is always something interesting, challenging… what's making it more fun, but also more difficult. So if I take one example, the fact that a market could show this very quick and swift and steep retracements during a strong rally, surprised a lot of people… Niels: Are you referring to October? Sorry to interrupt your example... October last year?
Luc: Yes, for example if you take September 18th to be more precise in terms of dates, we made at that point in time, a new all-time high in the S&P. Subsequently the market dropped over one hundred points in a couple of days. Everyone was extremely, "Oh this is the end of the rally, it's all over now, volatility went through the roof." Sure enough, on October 15th the market basically bottomed out and by the end of the same month, we were making new all-time highs. So it has only happened twice, I think if you looked it up in the S&P specifically, since 1956 when they started collecting the data in a more rigorous fashion, it has only happened twice that a market which was down more than six percent within a month, at the end of that same month was still profitable.
So it's a very steep recovery, and these kinds of things you don't see very often. So you have to account for that, that these kinds of very big back and forth movements can indeed take place. Our estimate in our guess work or our calculations in terms of what we can be expecting reasonably speaking in terms of volatility, we can be wrong, as anyone else is.
So the market can actually do anything. It's not like, "Well, the market can't move down two hundred points, and within a week go back up two hundred and fifty." What? It can't do that. And it proved that... actually twice in Q4. If you see what happened in December, same story, the markets sold off, and then on December 18th and 19th again had a very ferocious rally. And a lot of people, especially market makers, they got hit quite dramatically in the options market. Again, this was because they never estimated it or thought it would be possible that a market would be able to recover so quickly in two days time, after having shown such a big and steep decline. But it can do it. So, always be prepared for everything: that's basically the key.
Niels: Sure, no absolutely. And it's fascinating actually that so many of these strategies, and of course none of us were trading back in 1956 when apparently it happened the first time. But it just shows you how important risk management is, how important the robustness of the strategies… And it's been very pleasing to me at least to see that generally it was a very robust year for these strategies. But in a year where there were no disasters from a market point of view at least, meaning that there was no financial crisis, and so on and so forth. So it's not just crisis alpha that we're delivering as an industry, it's actually alpha. But I want to stay with the theme about these unexpected events.
Clearly there were some themes last year that were big, and you know Ukraine, and certainly oil, nobody saw oil collapsing 50%. But there is certainly another theme that springs to mind that happened only three or four days ago, which is the Swiss National Bank deciding to abolish the peg to the Euro. And again this created something that probably if you look at the statistics at least, shouldn't be able to happen in terms of standard deviation moves and so on and so forth. So I want you to talk a little bit about how you approach this situation and how you dealt with it if you wouldn't mind?
Luc: Okay. Well, to a certain extent it reminds me of a conference where I participated in February of 2014, and we were probably… This was in Amsterdam, on ETFs, and we were probably likely two hundred people in the room, and said, "Let's do a little poll" Who thinks that interest rates are going to rally? Of the say two hundred people, only two people said it's not going to rally. I happened to be one of these two people, because just for the fun of it I said, "Well if everyone thinks that the market is going to do X, it's probably going to go the other way." And indeed bonds or interest rates did not increase dramatically as people expected.
Now, the same with the Swiss National Bank. Everyone said, "Well, we are sure that the Swiss franc is never going to strengthen because of the resist cap at one twenty, so let's play a very silly and easy game and make a lot of money. We'll sell the points beyond that one twenty level, and every time we'll be capturing the premium, and that's a fun game to play and repeat." So rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat,.. At one point in time, of course, the person or the institution on the other side of the trade is going to say, "Well, this doesn't make sense, we're not going to continue doing that." So it's a factor which of course to a certain extent disturbs or distorts normal market behavior.
So when we discover something like that… We had a similar experience with the Japanese Central Bank several years ago, where they announced interventions and said, "We will not allow this, and we will do that if this and that happens." So, they can do that. They can continue to do that for a couple of weeks if not months. Also, they have the right, and they're entitled to change the strategy, and they're definitely not going to inform us that they're going to change the strategy.
So when they announced in September, I think it was, 2011 that suddenly the Swiss National Bank was going to defend the Swiss franc. That they will take all necessary actions to avoid that the Swiss franc would strengthen too much or too strongly. We say, "Well, that's like a very important distortion of normal markets movements." So we no longer decided to trade the Swiss franc. So we excluded it from the G5 currency pairs that we had. So apart from the Euro, the Euro/dollar, the Aussie/dollar, the pound, we said, "Well this Japanese yen is still interesting, but the Swiss franc, there's something not wrong with it, but it cannot move freely as before." So Euro/Swiss and dollar/Swiss, which were popular currency pairs for us to trade, were like excluded from the list. This of course would have provided us with some interesting trading opportunities in the three years between 2011 in September, and last week, but of course, we probably would have had a pretty big loss on our books if we'd continued to play the same game.
So in a way we are fortunate that we decided probably way too soon to say, "Well this is not a market we can trade or we can analyze as we analyze the Euro/dollar, or Aussie/dollar against the yen. This is something that is like an artificial obstacle, which will prevent it from trading normally. So we can't use our algorithms to treat that market as we treat the other markets, so let's not trade it." So I understand that people say, "Well there is not this given in the market one twenty is like an artificial cap, let's exploit it, fine." But it's like with market makers: if you know that market makers are going to do something over and over again and you continue to make money out of that situation, at a certain point in time that market maker, usually they're not too dumb, they will understand that it's not a game for them to be continuing. So they will change the game, and of course if you're still in the game, you'll end up giving back some of the profits you took before.
So it's not a kind of trading that you would like to do. So we don't really want to have the market which is not liquid, which is artificially bounded or capped or whatever, and then we don't trade. It has to be liquid. It should be traded freely without any known obstacles. Because if there are obstacles that are unknown beforehand, it distorts the picture, it distorts the calculations.
Niels: Sure. But I guess in a little while once everything settles down, the Swiss franc is now a free currency, and you would consider it again I guess.
Luc: Absolutely. We saw something similar with pound/yen in 2008 and 2011. When we had intra-day moves of a couple of times more than one thousand pips in one single day, which was unheard of before. Well, we couldn't trade it because the spread was like fifteen, twenty pips during some portions of the day. Now three months down the road, the spread came down from like fifteen, twenty to again two, three pips. And then it became tradable again. If something similar happens with the Swiss franc when it starts to trade as narrowly as it did in say 2005, in 2002, then it's definitely going to be on our list again to trade it.
Niels: Sure. And I think also what happened,.. I think on Thursday, I guess, is that we were all reminded that whenever authorities go out and say one thing, we can't really take it for granted that they won't do the exact opposite shortly thereafter.
Luc: Exactly. That's a very important point I think you made because it's not like they do something... It's like market maker, it's like a trader, it's not because our system tells us to buy… Let's say to buy oil now, assume it says you should go long oil now for whatever reason. It doesn't mean, or it doesn't exclude that the next day you can say, "Well we should reverse the trade." If something significant happens which is so significant that it can change the market direction or the market bias as we analyze it, well we should reverse position. And by the same token, a central bank such as the Swiss National Bank, of course, can do that.
Niels: Yeah, absolutely. Now just because the year end is always a time where you sort of reflect on certain things, was there anything, when you look back at 2014 as a whole (maybe looking away from just pure performance, it could be other things that were significant for you as a firm, or the strategy as such), anything that springs to mind?
Luc: Well not to make a joke of it, but we should have taken a six month holiday at the end of June. That would have been the best decision, but, of course, that's the difference between say, trading your own money, in which case you can do that, and trading say other people's money. You can't say to your clients, "Well we made 5% in six months or 8% in six months, let's stop this for the rest of the year." We would say, "Well why would we continue to pay management fees?" We want you to continue to trade. So you have basically no choice but to be active in the market. It doesn't mean you have to trade, but it's certainly difficult for a short-term trader to be out of the market for weeks if not months.
So, of course, what it implies for us is that we say, "Well we should be able to offer our clients a wider choice in terms of strategies." If we see, if we know this, if we get convinced that strategy A is no longer in sync with the market, or too difficult to trade given the market conditions, well we should be able to offer another set of trading strategies, or another approach which doesn't get hit by these kind of conditions. So we discussed it at length, in Q4 while we were coping with market volatility, which was spiking, and then falling back again to like lower levels… we said, "well, we should offer our clients a choice to basically pick and choose from like three, four, five different trading approaches.” And one could be intra-day trading: if people feel uncomfortable holding positions overnight, holding positions over the weekend saying, "Well there is one strategy which is strictly day trading, and let's temporarily switch to that and to that only." They should be able to do that.
Now, of course, there is a built in lag in terms of reporting performance. The client can only see it after the fact. The client couldn't see after a day, after two days, after a week of bad trades in a certain strategy that something's maybe out of line, out of sync or having a tough time. So, there's never an optimal time. We don't have crystal balls here, so we can't really say, "Well we should switch into that strategy now because it's going to be the better performer." Of course, we don't know that. But the big advantage of trading frequently and being in a market nearly continuously is that you get a lot of feedback from the market, and from the returns of the trades.
So if you collect say ten, twenty, thirty trades, delivered by one specific strategy say in a week's time. And normally speaking 40%, 50% of the time these trades turn out to be profitable. And now only 10% of the trades are profitable, something is kind of awkward. Something is like out of the ordinary, and that should set off a couple of alarms. On the other hand (and we had that situation as well), when we were trading options at the beginning of the year, and not like a 50%, 55% of trades were profitable, but like 85%, 90% of the trades were profitable. We should not get too complacent and say, "Well, we found the secret of the market, this is the Holy Grail, let's put more money into it." Because it's also very cyclical, we know that these very good times or excessively good times, they can turn around, which they did.
Niels: Sure, absolutely. And have you launched then this platform where you can offer these individuals strategies, or is that something that you're planning to do this year?
Luc: We are working on that, and in the managed accounts we already provide that. So people can before and say, "Well, we will be invested in these five strategies, and you pick and choose which ones you want to trade." Or people can say, "Well, we don't want you to trade FOREX, or we don't want you to trade short volatility." One client, I think in October, I met with him in London and he said, "Well, I hear so many bad stories about people being short volatility, let's get out of that short volatility portion." I said, "Okay, his timing couldn't have been better." Better than our own timing, because we continued trading it, and, of course, the client was out of it, so that can happen.
So people have the luxury of pulling out of a strategy, re-entering in the same strategy a couple of weeks later as they see fit. That, of course, can only be done with managed accounts. In a strict program like the certificate that we trade for Deutsche Bank, that's like a really strict set that we agreed on with the bank what we can trade: what markets we can trade, so there it's a different story. But in a managed account environment, it's really up to the client to modify the risk profile, to modify the type of strategies that we want out of the portfolio of five different approaches, they can pick one or two, or up to five.
Niels: Sure. That's very exciting. That's a new innovation, and yeah, absolutely, looking forward to hearing more about that later in 2015. Now, I wanted to ask you one thing before we start to wrap up, and that is… You mentioned it in a sense yourself by saying, you know we have a client here who comes up and says I'm a little bit nervous about short volatility trades and so on and so forth. Now, a lot of talk, no doubt, has been about the changes in volatility and a lot of prominent commentators in the financial world… and I'm thinking here in particular of Mohamed El-Erian has been out saying that the world to him in one word is divergent, and we're going to see much more divergence going forward.
To a certain extent, I associate that wrongly or rightly with more volatility to accompany divergence. Because it's essentially saying, or showing, or is a result of the fact that maybe central banks are losing some of their power. Maybe they are, which they have clearly decided to do different things, and that creates much more of a divergent environment than what we've been used to. Now, given all of that, what do you expect your strategy's reaction to be if we are entering now a new era of much more divergence in the markets, rather than what we saw the last five years, which in my mind, was a much more a convergent environment?
Luc: Okay, that's a very good point I think. When people hint to the fact that volatility is back in town, volatility is back from the low levels, back to say the more normal levels. I think we even should look at it a little bit more general and say, "Well, we should not forget that volatility is volatile." Volatility is not something static, it's not like, "Okay the VIX is at eighteen, it's going to remain between sixteen and twenty." No, it can in the same year go as low as ten, which was like the all-time low, and go as high as thirty-two, and in a couple of weeks’ time. So if volatility is changing, we have to build that into the program.
That basically goes back to what we discusses earlier: that at some point in time we should have some kind of a cut-off level as a stop loss so to speak where you say, "Well now volatility is too high for this kind of strategy, it's no longer worth the trouble trying to trade it." It's like in the Swiss franc, if the spread is too wide with a short-term trading approach where you're like going for on average let's say, twenty pips, but the spread could be ten. Well, then it's not worth the trouble because you will pay ten on the in and ten on the out, and you end up with nothing, even if you have a good trade. So let alone you will have fifty percent bad trades; so all losing trades.
So in other words, if volatility is really so high that it excludes you from being able to implement your program in a normal fashion, you should be able to pull the plug and stop trading that specific approach. On the other hand, that also means that maybe the market is in a big dominant trend, which could be to the upside or to the downside. You can follow that trend, but of course you have to build into the equation that volatility being higher, that your stops should be more relaxed, they should be further away. This will mean, as a consequence, that your trading size should be adapted. In this case being smaller than normal because the market can be more volatile. If you budget for a certain level of risk then you have to take into account with these kinds of swings that are say, in the cards. We have to take into account that the market may see our account go up and down X percent, and if that's too much for my stomach, then I should alter the trading size. And I think that's an important lesson for 2015.
I think most people think that volatility is going to remain relatively high. It's not going to be very quick or very easy I think to see volatility levels dropping back down to the low teens. Say 10%, 12% percent. It's probably going to remain there with oil and with events such as the S&B action, nervousness in the market, in general, what's going to happen with QE in Europe if that comes out? So there are many factors that will probably provide us with some incentive to justify a higher level of volatility. Of course, this means that you have to be able to be open and trade oil, trade real estate, trade bonds, trade S&P's, trade currencies, so you have to be flexible. I think that's the best word.
So being diversified, being flexible, being able to trade short-term trading strategies along side with longer-term trading strategies, because it's very difficult to predict, and that's something we don't do, predicting. What kind of strategy, what kind of market is going to be the winner? So it's probably best to have this balanced approach to different strategies… If you're with one specific trading organization, or at least having different markets. Because you can't know in advance, which is going to be the big mover. It reminds me of some of the very successful trend followers who don't mind trading eighty or more markets. They only need to be right on a couple of them to have a decent year, if they can control their losses on the other ones.
Niels: Yeah, no that's absolutely true. Before we wrap up, I just want to ensure that we've covered more or less the highlights from your point of view of 2014. Is there anything that you want to add here at the very end that you think our listeners should be mindful about when they think about the last year or so?
Luc: Well I think the bottom line and the key message for us is some kind of a confirmation, and really a true confirmation that we see that the strategies do hold up even under market conditions and circumstances that are extremely unexpected - even more volatile then maybe compared to what we expected in terms of volatility and still can deliver returns. So we are very hopeful and very confident that 2015 is going to be another good year.
Niels: Sure, absolutely. Great stuff! Good way to end this, unfortunately as I mentioned it is a short episode. So I will wrap it up now. But, of course, for those who want to hear much more from you Luc, there is a couple of much longer episodes on the TOPTRADERSUNPLUGGED.COM website that they can dive into. I do want to thank you again for being on the podcast and sharing your insights. And I want to congratulate you on a solid year. I want to wish you and your firm all the very best for 2015, and I look forward to catching up with you later in the year!
Luc: Thank you Niels, I really appreciate it! Looking forward to it!
Niels: All the best, take care Luc!
Luc: Thank you, bye.
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: 28 Jan 2015no comments