top traders unplugged - episode #100 · top traders unplugged | episode #100 there are only a few...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
“I think that managed futures continues to go through this constant evolution where
new edges, new ideas, new behaviors of markets come out. That is the whole game,
that is what wakes you up in the morning, that is what’s challenging, that is what
gives you ulcers at night. It’s how are the market participants causing that
aggregate macro behavior to change? That ever newness is what makes this
industry interesting.”
~ Robert Sinnott
The following eBook serves as a detailed transcript of Episode #100 of the Top Traders Unplugged Podcast.
You can find show notes and more information on this episode right here: toptradersunplugged.com/robert-
sinnott-alphasimplex-100/
I sincerely hope these interviews serve as a useful resource for you in your career and endeavors in the world
of trading. If you have indeed enjoyed these shows, please consider giving the podcast a rating and review
on iTunes. It would help spread this knowledge to traders everywhere.
As you read this transcript, remember to keep two things in mind: all the discussion that we’ll have about
investment performance is about the past, and PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE OR EVEN INFER
ANYTHING ABOUT FUTURE PERFORMANCE. Also understand that there’s a significant risk of financial loss
with all investment strategies and you need to request and understand the specific risks, from the investment
manager, about their products before you make investment decisions.
2
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
Niels: I have a few questions/observations which you may or may not agree with. So first was
just a question, do you use machine learning throughout the program? Would you say it’s a
machine learning, trend following strategy?.
Robert: No, I wouldn’t. We have a portion of our portfolio, about forty percent of the risk of
the portfolio, with partially informed machine learning. To be specific, what I’m saying is that
forty percent of our portfolio is composed of trend signals that are then differentially
weighted based on the outputs of these machine learning tools.
I should, again, say that these machine learning tools are not neural networks. They are things
like decision trees. They are things like kernel regression, where, as a research scientist I can
go in, and I can tell you exactly why this market and these trends are being weighted the way
that they are. I can go in and I can tell you, “Oh, it’s because in these periods it did particularly
well, or in these periods it didn’t do particularly well, and that that’s the source of the entropy
that is causing this decision tree to make the decision that it is - to come out with that
bifurcation, with that decision, with that rule.” So, it’s not a black box in any way, shape, or
form to us and that’s critical in terms of how we develop these models.
Moreover, we’re really sensitive to the idea that any mechanism, any source of value-add is
going to break. George Box, the statistician, once said (and again it’s been quoted by a whole
bunch of people, but I like to say that George said this one, “All models are wrong, but some
are useful.” So, when we compose our portfolio we build that portfolio with the assumption
that some fraction of the models that we’re using are wrong; that some fraction of the value
adds that we’re using are wrong (especially at least some of the time) like any other model.
By taking a diversified approach, by combining about thirty percent of our portfolio in very,
very academically sourced classic trend following signals; about a third of our portfolio and
what we consider our specialized short horizon models that don’t use machine learning but do
try to add value through asset selection; and about forty percent of our portfolio is in these
algorithmically informed trend models. That allows us to have more confidence that,
regardless of what happens in the future, we have a fighting chance of being successful
capturing the next trend or the next allocation of risk.
Niels: That’s interesting. In a sense, I’m glad about the answer that you gave because, of
course, trend following comes from a fairly simple way of trading the markets and a lot of
people would argue that the reason why it is successful, still, is that it’s not too complex at its
core. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t innovate. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t evolve, but at its
core, it’s not too complicated. Therefore, personally, there’s always this worry that if you over
complicate something that is relatively simple that, at some point, it stops working.
Robert: Absolutely, Occam's razor holds in trend following like in anything else. If you go into
even our most complicated model, you go into it, and you look at its individual pieces. What
3
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
you realize is that it’s a combination of really simple transparent steps that are just being
systematically applied. It sounds like what we’re doing is really fancy, but what it comes down
to is we’re just being very efficient and very systematic about how we learn those simple
decision rules and how we constrain what can be learned by those simple decision rules.
Every element, every sub, sub, sub signal in our portfolio is either a binary or ternary positive,
flat or negative; or it has got a continuous signal. Some of them should be somewhat positive,
somewhat flat, and somewhat negative. It’s just a combination of those elements. They are all
trend following. There is nothing in there that says I should be short this trend.
There are some things that say this trend is very, very strong and has gone a long way and that
on a forward going basis my expected return is lower than what it would have been if I hadn’t
gone through that extremely strong period. But we’re never going to fight the trend. It’s
always asking the question, based on what we’ve seen in momentum, and assuming that that
momentum continues, at least to some extent, what is the best portfolio that I can construct?
It’s simple things layered on top of each other, tightly constrained.
Katy: So Rob, actually this is a big debate right now, as well, is that pure trend versus non-
pure trend. So, it sounds like you’re more on the pure trend side, so focusing explicitly on
trend. Is there a strategic reason behind this, or what is your thinking on the difference
between those two, including other strategies into a trend program?
Robert: So, I’m going to break the trend (so to speak) of managers. We are a pure trend
program. And, this is even crazier; our flagship program is a pure trend product. Why do we do
that?
If I were to say that our flagship program was a pure trend product fifteen years ago, or ten
years ago, no one would bat an eye - that would be unsurprising. That’s where the industry
was.
Today that’s not the case, and there are a few reasons for that. One has to do with the
business economics of a flagship program for many managers, especially those with large
legacy infrastructures. Another part of it is that trend following is a rough ride, and many
managers will add in other elements that will smooth that ride over time.
But, let’s think a little bit about what that means “to smooth the ride” because when we think
about trend following (and I’m going to steal your words here, but I think they’re very, very
good) trend following is fundamentally a divergence bet. You’re saying that markets have
moved a certain degree, and they’re going to keep moving in that direction. They’re not going
to revert to where they used to be. They’re not going to revert to the historical range. They
are going to break out, and they will continue that move for as long as they can.
4
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
There are only a few different sources of return that have that behavior; that are profitable on
market dislocation. You have trend following, and then you can buy options. Buying options
has a very, very strong negative carry. In fact, one of the things really popular right now, in
2018, is people shorting the VIX. Well, what is shorting the VIX? It’s selling options. It is betting
that the market is, at the very minimum, not going to go down (if you’re thinking about mostly
on puts) but it’s certainly not going to break out in either direction.
So, if you think about trend following among dislocation based strategies, it has, over the long
term, provided a positive return; not just the excess return of the cash collateral but typically a
bit more, especially during these periods of crisis. So, that’s, we think, the fundamental…
In the words of economics – if you were to think about the Arrow-Debreu security that is
trend following, it’s a small payout (in most environments) in expectation. Hopefully, if
everything works correctly (but not in a guaranteed sense), there is a big payout if things hit
the fan in either direction. Things could go into a mania or a crisis, but managed futures
should do well.
Other than options there are no other investments, at least that I know of, that have that
same payout characteristic. So, if you were to start adding classic risk premia, if you were to
add a long bias to equities, if you were even to add a long bias to commodities, those bets
break down in a crisis. They are things that will muddle or cancel out part of that crisis return.
So, when we designed this product, it was for the view of let’s be a component of a portfolio
that is complimentary to stocks and bonds and that traditional allocation, and if we were to
add in those convergence bets (that carry, that value), we would be going against that goal.
The benefit of being a young manager is that we were able to build our infrastructure,
research team and everything else consistent with the program that we have. As a result, we
were able to create a flagship product that was just trend following; that met that institutional
need.
Where we have been able to differentiate ourselves, and where we’ve been able to (knock on
wood) continue our relative degree of performance is in these value adds, in these adaptive
measures, in how we follow short horizon trends, in these particular edges that we’ve created,
but that is all in the context of trend following rather than striking out. I like to say that
investing in any premia, like momentum, follows the 80/20 rule. You can get eighty percent of
the return, especially on a correlation basis, really cheaply, with a small number of assets, and
with a really simple signal.
There are any number of indices out there. I should know because I created some of them
back in 2010. But, that’s not going to capture the entirety of momentum. By pushing in that
other eighty percent of labor, and squeezing out that other twenty percent of return, you can
5
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
actually have a strongly differentiated product that is very useful in a portfolio context, and
that’s what we do.
Niels: So, if you think about trend following as the core of what you do, to some degree
maybe you can think that there must be a limit to how much juice we can squeeze out of
trend following. What are some of the hard problems that are left to be solved in this space, in
your opinion? What are the things that you really want to achieve or overcome in that
particular space?
Robert: Oh my goodness, there are so many. The challenge, of course, is to know how
confident you should be in any particular solution to them. Like any other manager of size,
when we have someone come in and they show us their program and they want to be hired,
or they want to be bought out, and they’ll show us these Sharpe two strategies because they
think they’ve solved one of the critical problems in trend following and of course you look at
that… Let’s put it this way probably nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and
ninety-nine out of a million of them are probably going to be wrong.
So, just these are, literally, billion dollar questions. If you could answer any of these questions
to any degree of satisfaction you could put the rest of us out of business, at least eventually.
One of the largest challenges is, when is the trend going to stop? What is the proper way of
identifying when reversion is going to start? When the trend has gone from not having
incorporated...
So, basic model of trend following: you started out at price level one hundred, new
information comes in, prices start to rise as some market participants discover the new
information, then the trend followers come in because the markets started moving, and
they’ll start repricing. At some point, suppose the underlying information says that the price
was at a hundred, now it should be at two hundred. At some point in the classic version, your
trend is going to pass two hundred. Then it’s going to keel over, as some people really know
that it is suppose to be a hundred, and they’re going to start shorting the market and it will
flat-line and become range bound at two hundred.
Being able to identify when the trend has become fully valued, consistently, over time,
especially in periods of crisis, would be immensely valuable and it’s an incredibly hard
challenge. Because, for any bit of information, chances are you don’t know. Even if you have
the bit of information that happens to be driving that market move, you don’t know that
that’s the only bit of information that’s driving that market move.
That incompleteness of understanding makes the timing of reversion really tricky. It gets even
worse when you go through a crisis where everyone may know that at an S&P value in the six
hundreds, things are oversold, but because of liquidity needs, some people are still selling, and
6
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
you don’t know when that’s going to stop. So, trying to time reversals, in a generic sense, is
absolutely a source of significant value-add to a trend following strategy because that would
allow you to reduce risk, at the very minimum, if not remove risk.
Another great one, how do you identify the impetus? How do you identify when a trend has
begun that is going to persist rather than revert? We’ve spent a lot of time in our specialized
short horizon models trying to identify which short-term signals are going to persist and which
ones are going to revert.
I would say if we’re lucky, and if we assume that our in-sample results are in anyway
consistent with the out of sample results, we’ve improved our success rate by a couple of
percent. To do so, even at a five or ten percent margin would be huge. It would be
revolutionary in this space.
Another one would be, let’s finally solve the execution question. One of the big challenges, as
a trend follower in today’s day and age, is how do you execute your trades in a very, very cost-
effective way? I’m not talking about clearing costs because once you get to a certain size if you
can negotiate down your costs… Well, if you don’t negotiate down your costs, you’re not
doing your job.
In terms of your actual execution - your market slippage, that is a very competitive game that,
even if you invest a huge amount of capital in it, depending on really the supply and demand
dynamic of the market at that point in time, having the best algorithms in the world won’t
help you if every other CTA is trading at the same time. So, those are just a short example of
some of the challenges, some of the complications that we struggle with every day, that we
try to add value incrementally to, but are still illusive and, more importantly, we think that
even if we get some edges, those edges are going to disappear over time.
Katy: So, maybe just a quick question about the recent growth of the firm. I thought that
maybe… So, in the last few years you’ve definitely been growing, increasing your investor
base. What do you think some of the success factors have been for AlphaSimplex and what
has led to helping to increase your footprint in the space?
Robert: So, AlphaSimplex has been successful for a number of reasons. The biggest has been
the consistency of our program, our sticking to our mandate, and our focus on transparency.
So, if you’re an investor in AlphaSimplex… Gone are the old days where you don’t know what
the holdings are and doubly gone are the old days where you didn’t know why we were
holding the positions that we are. If you invest in, really, any of our programs, and you want to
see the holdings of your portfolio at the end of the month, that’s publicly available. If you
want to understand about the positions that we hold, well, we’re entirely a trend follower.
7
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
If you look at the price chart of a typical asset, unless we’re in a tight range, you will know at
least what direction we’re holding. You may not know the magnitude, but you’ll know the
direction. We go through a lot of effort to try to make it very accessible as to what we do as a
manager, what kinds of algorithms we use, and our goals are (let’s call them) our constructive
philosophy about how we build the portfolio.
When you combine that with a very, very consistent investment process, and I’m not just
talking about being a pure trend follower, though that’s helped, but also being clean and clear
about our research process, about how we take ideas from either blue sky research or
academic papers, build them, test them, put them in out of sample testing and then finally
deploy them. That consistency is also something that has given a lot of investors, be they full
discretion probably less so for your average retail investor, but certainly on the institutional
side, or the investment advisor side. They want that consistency of process. They want that
consistency of mandate. They want that consistency of understanding.
Then, finally, I think that we do a very, very, again, consistent job of risk management - where
we look, when we think about risk. We don’t just think about volatility like many managers
over the short term. We look at volatility over lots of different horizons with the view that
what has just happened in the last few days may not actually be representative of what
happens in the next few days.
Our deputy CIO, a guy named Alex Healy, who is one of the more intelligent people that I have
ever met in my life has a saying. That saying is, “if your risk model thinks that a two percent
drop in the S&P is a four sigma or five sigma move (which, in fact, it would have been last year
based on short-term windows), then your risk model is wrong.” That is wholly unacceptable
because the chance of a large upset like that is completely well within the realm of reason.
So, I don’t do this anymore but used to, as a kind of side gig, was an advisor to some students
at Harvard College, helping them with statistics, academic advising and the like. I was aligned
with one of the houses, a house called Dunster House. On the night of the election, I was
running the projector, we had CNN, we had Fox News, we had MSNBC (you know, covered the
full bases), and then we had the Mexican peso (my particular addition to that set).
So if you were tracking markets on the night of the election, you would remember that the
S&P dropped more than five percent, the NASDAQ hit its overnight drop limit. It couldn’t trade
lower. The stopping mechanisms, the fail-safes kicked in. If that happened in November and
we’ve had similar instances that were very short lived more recently, it’s totally reasonable
that that could happen during the day, but your short term volatility estimate might not
capture that.
So, when we build our risk models, we want to make sure that they are aware of that jump
risk. Whether they take into account that longer history, that we don’t just look at volatility,
8
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
but we look at other moments, that we look at your value at risk, that we look at your net
asset exposures, and your gross asset exposures, and things like your dv01 and your
concentration in your portfolio. Again, that comprehensive approach to risk management has
been another strong selling point for our clients.
Finally, and I think this is something that has been a communication story more than a product
story is that managed futures has gone through a very interesting period in the recent past.
Which is it hasn’t had very strong performance, but we have had a few instances, like in Q1 of
2016 where equity markets actually fell, and that managed futures, ourselves, and the
industry performed quite well.
We had a very, very negative correlation during that time and it served as a proof point. So,
investors, as they become more educated about managed futures, have realized that if
everything in their portfolio is all green and is always all green at the same time, well maybe
they’re not well diversified and that therefore, something like managed futures (and especially
one that is designed to be a compliment to a traditional portfolio, like ours) is probably going
to receive a certain amount of good attention.
Niels: Sure, absolutely. Speaking of receiving good attention, we’ve also seen that some
strategies have grown very quickly, in particular, some of these low-cost products, of course.
Is there a limit to how much… Because you also talked about the risk of everyone doing
trading at the same time and all of those things, is there a limit to how big you can be (if we
talk about you specifically) before you feel that this is actually going to impact what we do?
Because the range of managers, we have the hundred million dollar managers, we have the
thirty-five billion dollar manager. The range is huge, and there’s always this debate about does
size kill performance, or at what point does it kill performance?
Robert: So, the tiny little compliance angel on my shoulder is going to be kicking me when I
say this. I would say that there is a tradeoff and it’s partially a tradeoff of how you trade. The
more short horizon momentum, the more reactive your portfolio is, and the more biased you
are towards an equal risk allocation to all of the assets that you trade. So, that is to say, if you
want to hold the same potential exposure to soy meal as you do to the S&P 500 you’re going
to have constraints as to the size. That’s going to be a function of both market liquidity as well
as some of the regulatory constraints of exchanges, or of the CFTC or any number of other
bodies.
So, what I would say is that if you want to have a reactive portfolio that doesn’t have a long
bias, then there will be constraints as to how big your portfolio can be. I will say that our fund
cannot be, at least in its current form, anything close to the size of the really large firms in this
space.
9
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
We will be constrained at that point. We’re not constrained yet, but that it’s our intention to
constrain ourselves before we see that degradation. Because, in fact, we do have that short
horizon emphasis and we do have that bias towards trading in size some of those less liquid
futures.
In terms of the industry as a whole, that’s a much trickier question, and it’s going to be
something that varies over time. I think a good example of this might be in base metals. So,
there are some times where base metal volumes have been very low, and there have been
times where base metal volumes have been very high based on growth expectation out of
China, or out of supply considerations out of South America, or any number of things. Then,
based on where we are in that range of volumes, there are going to be some times where
CTAs are a hefty fraction of the volume of some markets, not necessarily base markets, but of
some markets, and there are going to be some times where we’re very, very little.
I think that in some of the agricultural markets, if producer markets are very, very low, CTAs
could have a sizable chunk of that and I believe the good folks at NewEdge did a study on that
in 2013, which, if you haven’t seen I would highly recommend. I think that their approach is
certainly a great first approximation to some of the considerations.
I think that once you account for some of the CFTC limits and whatnot, it’s not quite as bleak
as they paint it, not that they paint it particularly bleak, but it’s not as bleak as they paint it,
but I think it is a consideration. So, what does that mean? It means that when we think about
portfolio liquidity, and asset liquidity from a risk management standpoint, yes, we care about
that, but the larger concern is not so much about what fraction of total volume is being driven
by CTAs, it’s what fraction of today’s volume or the current period in today, so this hour’s
volume or this fifteen minute period’s volume is being driven by CTAs. In so much that you can
avoid those points of concentration when you can avoid the crowding, you should, all else
equal, be more successful, at least if you’re going in the same direction.
Niels: Yeah, that’s true. I think there’s the whole debate about how big is this industry? This
industry has grown, but mainly because we’ve got one big company that was suddenly
included as a CTA, which has a hundred and seventy billion under management. You take
them out and suddenly the CTA industry, it hasn’t grown that much. So, it’s more about the
participants whatever we call them. You’re right; it’s clearly do you get the liquidity that you
need at the time that you need it? So, I take that on.
What about starting to get towards the end of our conversations, but in terms of
opportunities that you see in the space, or maybe for you as a firm, what are things that you
get most excited about? What do you think is compelling in this day and age, now we’re
entering 2018?
10
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
Robert: So the compelling things left in this space, fortunately, are always changing. I think
we’ve had a few interesting possibilities; interesting opportunities come up in the recent past.
There’s been a shift towards, what you might call, extended markets, which will be
substantially less liquid but do trade different instruments.
So while it wouldn’t necessarily… It could potentially, but wouldn’t necessarily fit that crisis
alpha niche. If you don’t have liquidity, it’s very hard to tactically trade in a crisis, just from
first principles, but it could be very attractive. So, I think that’s something that the managed
futures industry as a whole is looking at, even if it’s starting to bend the definition of a futures
contract.
I think that managed futures continues to go through this constant evolution where new
edges, new ideas, new behaviors of markets come out. That is the whole game, that is what
wakes you up in the morning, that is what’s challenging, that is what gives you ulcers at night.
It’s how are the market participants causing that aggregate macro behavior to change? That
ever newness is what makes this industry interesting
Katy: So, maybe turning that around too, Rob, what are the things that keep you up at night?
What are the things that worry you?
Niels: That’s the DIY work that keeps him up at night.
Robert: Fortunately, not so much anymore. That was a very short period but a very enjoyable
period of my past; now it’s infants. Other than my small son, the things that keep me up at
night are the big unexpected, unknown macro shocks.
Whenever you construct a portfolio, especially managed futures, we in the US would say
you’d probably use leverage. In the UK they would probably would say that you geared it to a
certain volatility. But, anytime you do that you’re increasing the risk of your portfolio in order
to achieve some amount of desired volatility; if you’re using the Kelly criterion to scale that,
great, if you’re using a static risk allocation, my humble opinion less great, but it still works. All
of that is based off of some assumption of volatility and some assumption of correlation.
As we all know, market distributions are not normal. Those fat tails exist, and they can
surprise you. I think there are many instances where, in managed futures, we have all been
surprised.
If you plot the worst returns or the daily volatilities of any CTA manager over the last few
years you’ll see some jumps, and then you’ll see, I believe it was December 4th or December
11
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
3rd, 2015 sticking out like a sore thumb to the downside when Mario Draghi came out and
surprised everyone with a change in expectation.
Those are the things that you worry about. Those changes in correlation structure, those
changes in trend because for better or for worse, if you’re a trend follower, your correlation
structure and your trend signals often change at the same time, and while we try to spend a
lot of effort trying to mitigate the cost of that, you can’t get rid of it. It’s kind of a central
weakness, a central pivot of the systems. So that’s something that you always worry about.
The second thing that you always worry about is just simple model decay. I think trend
following has a lot. Momentum as a factor, as a future, has a lot of reasons why it should
persist for a long period of time. Yes, it has these behavioral features, but it also has this jack-
of-all-trades aspect where it can detect mispricing and capture shifts that may be informed by
who knows what, but it will capture some fraction of.
That should persist in so much that markets are not perfectly informed and that price does not
perfectly incorporate information over time. But, anything we do is going to degrade over
time. So, the constant worry is that one, will our models decay? And then two, in our fight
against that decay, in that fight for an edge have we added in some accidental overfit?
Regardless of how careful you are, there is going to be some possibility there.
So, that’s what I would say; it’s big macro economic shocks that we don’t have time to capture
and change direction for and model overfit. Those are the two boogie men that keep me up at
night.
Niels: What about maybe not a final thought, but close to a final thought. If you’re going to
share something that you feel is important right now for investors, or even a rising star,
someone who wants to do what you do one day, what would that be? It could be a piece of
good advice or something.
Robert: I would say four things, one take up ballroom dancing, but more seriously, I would say
the first thing you should realize is that any model that you construct, any model that you read
about is going to be wrong. It might be effective, it might be useful, but it’s going to be wrong.
The EMH... There are a number of critiques out there that say that if the EMH was true, it
would all of a sudden fail. The joke about if you have a behavioral economist walking down
the street along with an efficient markets practitioner and they look down, and they see a
hundred dollar bill. The behavioral economist asks the EMH practitioner why didn’t he pick up
the hundred dollar bill? He’d say well you can’t; it’s not actually there. If it was there,
somebody would have already picked it up.
12
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
So, the models that you learn, the theories that you learn, none of them are going to be
perfectly correct and that there’s so much different between theory and practice. That being
said, models are useful. Models can give you information: can inform your views, can inform
your intuitions and can inform your process. If you combine a disciplined constructed model
and hopefully, a disciplined constructed view on probability, you can be, over the long term
with a fair probability, successful in markets.
It’s not going to be sexy. If you find that you’ve returned two hundred percent overnight:
either you’re immensely lucky, or you’re a crook, but you’re certainly not following a
disciplined process - one of those two, but certainly not the third. If you’re going to have that
kind of return and following a disciplined process, it should take you a very long time to
develop and to hone that skill.
Then finally, if you want to go into this space, actually the best book I’ve actually ever read,
the one that I love more than anything else, if you want to learn probability, I would suggest
picking up Joe Blitzstein’s book on Introduction to Probability. If you want to learn about CTAs,
I love Robert Carver’s book on Systematic Trading.
It doesn’t go to quite the same depth of what I think anyone really does in production, but in
terms of building out the concepts, building out the intuition, building out the understanding
of how you think about these programs, I think Robert Carver’s book does an excellent job,
and if you want to learn about managed futures, of course, Katy Kaminski, here, sitting across
the table – I can’t recommend her book enough.
Niels: I couldn’t agree more and just reminding the listeners that Robert Carver has been on
the podcast so that they can go back and listen to him as has Katy, of course. From my point of
view, I would just say that if you think about an investor, right, in this day and age, and with all
the things that are changing, with all the things that you’ve been talking about, what’s the
most important question they can be asking themselves right now?
Robert: If I knew that I could make a lot of money. I would say that the thing you have to
remember more than anything else is that trying to find out the right question to ask is often
as important if not more important than the right answer. If you could tell me with great
confidence that you knew the right question to ask today to be successful in markets? Then
you, sir, would have a very, very valuable quantity on your hands.
I would say, be humble. I would say, and I said this at the beginning, everyone thinks that
there’s a lot of noise in markets, all that noise is, is a lot information and a lot of action of
people who are probably behaving fairly rationally, using different objectives and different
information sets than you are.
13
Top Traders Unplugged | Episode #100
It reminds you that markets are incredibly dynamic, incredibly complex, and that noise, or
interventions by the ECB, or anything else are things that we have to deal with. You can
complain about them all you want, but if you want to be successful you have to be humble,
you have to take what the market gives you, and you have to learn and adapt and adjust to
that state of affairs, not the one that you want to happen to be the case.
Niels: Perfect, excellent, on that note let’s wrap up this fascinating conversation recorded
live, here in Miami.
Rob, thank you so much for being on the podcast today and sharing your thoughts and
experiences with Katy and me. It is so important that practitioners, like you, come and share
these ideas because when ideas become conversations that lead to action, that’s when real
change happens.
To our listeners around the world, let me finish by saying I hope you got a lot of value from
today’s conversation and that if you could, share these episodes with your friends and
colleagues so that the conversation can continue.
From me, Niels Kaastrup-Larsen and Katy Kaminski, thanks for listening and we look forward
to being back with you on the next episode of Top Traders Unplugged. In the meantime, go
check out all of the amazing free resources that you can find on the website.
Thanks for tuning into Top Traders Unplugged!
Ready to learn more about the world’s Top Traders? Go to TopTradersUnplugged.com and signup to
receive the full transcripts of the first ten episodes of the show, and visit the show notes where you
can find useful links to other amazing resources.
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 on the next episode of…