This is positive right?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lenders are ramping up efforts to avoid home foreclosures, but a report by bank regulators says more than half of borrowers who get help fall behind again. More than 50 percent of homeowners with loans modified in the first half of last year had missed at least two months of payments a year later, the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision said Wednesday.

From the ‘USA Today’:

You don’t have $100 to buy groceries. Which would cost you more? A.) Taking out a payday loan with a 450% APR or B.) Overdrawing your debit card and paying the $27 fee? Answer: B. The $27 fee on your debit card would equal a 704% interest rate. Note: Assume a 14 day repayment period and an average $17.25 fee per $100 for a payday loan. Annual percentage rate (APR) calculated by taking transaction revenue divided by amount borrowed, multiplied by 365, then divided by the loan term.

This is the news today on the front page of USA Today Money section.

Shout out to Victor Niederhoffer for posting my review of Michael Moore’s new film.

Jeff Tucker reviews “Broke” at Mises.org:

Broke, a new documentary by Michael Covel, offers an extremely engaging look at what went wrong with the macroeconomy but in a very interesting way: he provides close examinations of several microeconomic sectors that affect the financial well being of the household.

Most impressive is his contemporary history of the housing bust. Most of the energy of the film seems to have been focused on this area, and it is the most successful part of the film. Covel illustrates the vast gulf that separates the promise from the reality. It is especially interesting to see the film maker’s conversations with real estate brokers, lenders, and homeowners on their way to foreclosure.

I was also thrilled to see his relentless hammering of the financial press, especially the television press. He argues that the talking heads on CNBC (he really has it in for Jim Cramer) and elsewhere are as clueless as anyone about why stocks go up and down or what you should do with your money. He puts guests on his own camera where they admit that what they say may or may not be useful but the main purpose of these shows is not to help viewers with their finances but rather to keep people glued to the set: in other words, this is entertainment. This point can’t be made enough and it applies more broadly than financial news. A vast majority of viewers, and this includes even smart people, continue to be under the impression than the news industry is about distributing news as versus the driving need to provide a compelling time suck.

In another section, he takes a look at state lotteries to show what a scam they are, and compares them to the poker industry in which individuals can in fact win money. Guess which of the two government loves? Which of the two is government always regulating and banning? Very interesting point here.

He concludes with a satisfying attack on the “buy and hold” investment strategy, which he sees as nothing but broker-promoted propaganda to keep you from ever selling stocks. In contrast, truly savvy investors and poker players understand that the well-orchestrated sell order is the key to long-term profits. One point I found interesting: he shows that the largest earners in the poker industry are not the people who win the most hands.

Nothing in the film contradicts Austrian theory, and one portion shows the way that the Federal Reserve compounded the problems of the housing boom through crazy interest-rate manipulations that overstimulated investment. I would have liked to see more of this. This section is much too short, and I would have liked to hear and see more, but of course I’m a viewer with a bias.

While the film seems to lack a bit of overarching theoretical focus and periodically seems to lose its analytical drive, it is still an excellent corrective to a wide range of myths out there, such as the one that claims government can solve the problems of the bust or that you can trust the media or large firms to give sound economic advise.

If there is an overarching theory to the film–would that he would have made this more explicit–it is that there is no one who knows the future, despite every promise. This is the job of serious entrepreneurs, and some of them are very good at it. While this film will not help anyone become such a person, it might help some people who might otherwise be taken in by the myriad phonies out there trying to hawk their wares.

Source: Mises.org.

John B. Watson, psychologist, and founder of “Behaviorism” once offered:

“Men are built, not born. Give me the baby, and I’ll make it climb and use its hands in constructing buildings of stone or wood. I’ll make it a thief, a gunman or a dope fiend. The possibilities of shaping in any direction are almost endless.”

I thought of this quotation today due a phone call. The caller wanted to know why the Turtles today have differences in performance. Two issues for consideration:

1. Some Turtles like Jerry Parker have chosen a path of less risk and less return. Some like Tom Shanks have stayed true to their higher risk/reward roots. Even though they have made different choices they are BOTH still trend following Turtle traders!
2. Beyond risk/reward choices, chapters 11, 12, 13 and the afterword of my book lay out a clear picture why some Turtles made it and some did not.

Eric Crittenden, Research Director for Blackstar Funds, LLC, offered some new research stating:

The non-random behavior of declining stock prices….argues for the use of a ‘stop loss’ or ‘sell discipline’.

Read the research (PDF).

Obama is speaking now. He just said something about eliminating boom/bust cycles along with eliminating future economic meltdowns. Nice try Mr. President.

This is my review of Michael Moore’s new film appearing today. Shout out to The Daily Reckoning for publishing it:

***

A friend recently invited me to a private screening of Michael Moore’s new film Capitalism: A Love Story. The September 16th invite not surprisingly leaned a certain direction:

“[Michael] Moore takes us into the homes of ordinary people whose lives have been turned upside down; and he goes looking for explanations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. What he finds are the all-too-familiar symptoms of a love affair gone astray: lies, abuse, betrayal and 14,000 jobs being lost every day. Capitalism: A Love Story…is Michael Moore’s ultimate quest to answer the question he’s posed throughout his illustrious filmmaking career: Who are we and why do we behave the way that we do?”

Considering Moore was going to be there for a Q&A after (moderated by Arianna Huffington), I quickly signed on. Now before painting a picture of Moore’s new film let me be honest: my belief set is essentially libertarian (‘Government out of my bedroom and my pocketbook’). Not only do government solutions not excite me, they scare the living blank out of me. Remember when George Bush declared, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system…to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse”? He might as well of said, “Hide your money, kids – ’cause I’m coming to take it!”

Oh sure, in theory I would like to see everyone with their own homestead, money in their pocket for regular shopping frenzies and no health worries despite eating at Burger King 24/7, but arriving at those goals is not exactly doable unless government robs Peter to pay Paul and or starts up the printing press.

And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes warehouses of Washington, DC-based federal workers remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn’t care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed. So not surprisingly, and with some generalization as I proffer this, Democrats like Moore and Republicans don’t.

However, I was excited to see a ‘mainstream’ film that was backed by big Hollywood bucks conclude capitalism as ‘evil.’ Arguably the most successful documentarian ever, a man who has made untold millions of dollars, was going to legitimately make the case that there was an alternative to capitalism. I sat down in a packed Mann’s Bruin Theater in Westwood, CA eager to see how his vision could possibly flesh out.

Moore is a rather simple guy. He is likable. He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money). His Flint, Michigan union worker upbringing is his worldview. If you did not have that upbringing or if your life started less severe than his you are an evil capitalist. If on the other hand you were a laid off factory worker with a sixth grade education you are the true hero. I don’t care one way or the other that he has that view and I am not knocking union workers, but Moore sees the world through a class warfare lens resulting in a certain agenda: force wealth to be spread amongst everyone regardless of effort. Within minutes it was clear where Capitalism: A Love Story was headed. The ‘highlights’ included:

* We listen to heartbreaking stories of foreclosed families across America, but we don’t learn why the foreclosures happened. Did these people treat their homes as piggy banks? Were there refis on top of refis just to keep buying mall trinkets and other goodies with no respect to risk or logic? We don’t find out.

* We meet one family who was just foreclosed on so desperate for money that they were willing to accept $1,000 for cleaning out the house that they were just evicted from. Was it sad? Yes. But, should we end capitalism due to this one family in Peoria, IL?

* We are introduced to a guy whose company is called ‘Condo Vultures’ buying and selling foreclosed properties. Since he acted like a used car salesman, the implication was that he was an evil capitalist. However, Moore doesn’t tell us if his buyers were ‘working class’ people making smart buying decisions after prices had dropped.

* We listen to Catholic priests who denounce capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. What they would put in its place and how would the new system work? The priests don’t tell us.

* We learn that Wal-Mart bought life insurance policies on many workers. We are then told to feel outrage when Wal-Mart receives a large payout from an employee death while the families still struggle with bills. I saw where Moore was heading here, but this was a reason to end capitalism?

* We hear a story from a commercial pilot so low on money that he has to use food stamps. Moore points out that many pilots are making less than Taco Bell managers and then attributes a recent plane crash in Buffalo to underpaid pilots. This one crash is extrapolated out as yet another reason to end capitalism.

I was pleasantly surprised at Moore’s attempt at balance. For example, he included:

* A carpenter, while ply-wooding up a foreclosed home, says, “If people pay their bills, they don’t get thrown out.”

* A dressing down of Senator Chris Dodd (D) by name. Moore calling out a top Democrat? He sure did. He nailed him.

* A lengthy dissertation on the evils of Goldman Sachs. He rips Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson big time and I agree with him. In fact, I said to myself, “Moore you should have done your whole film on Goldman Sachs!”

Throughout the various stories and interviews he also weaves a conspiracy (all Moore films do this). The plot goes something like this: America won World War II and quickly dominated due to no competition (Germany and Japan were destroyed). We had great post-war success where everyone lived in union-like equality. Jobs were plentiful and families were happy. However, things start to go bad in the 1970s, and Moore uses a snippet of President Carter preaching about greed. This clip was predictably building to Moore’s big reason for all problems today: the Reagan revolution.

Moore sees Reagan entering the scene as a shill for corporate banking interests. However, everyone is happy as the good times roll all the way through into Clinton times. Moore does take subtle shots at President Clinton, but nails his right hand economic man Larry Summers directly as a primary reason for the banking collapse. So, while Moore sees Japan and Germany today as socialistic winners where corporations benefit workers more than shareholders, he sees America sinking fast.

So is that it? That was the proof that capitalism is an evil to eliminate? Essentially, yes, that’s Moore’s proof. What is his solution? Tugging on your idealistic heartstrings of course! Moore ends his film with recently uncovered video of FDR talking to America on January 11, 1944. Looking into the camera a weary FDR proposed what he called a second Bill of Rights – an economic Bill of Rights for all regardless of station, race, or creed that included:

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
* The right of every family to a decent home.
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
* The right to a good education.

As FDR concluded and the film ended, I was shocked at the reaction. The theater of 400+ stood and cheered wildly at FDR’s 1944 proposal. The questions running through my head were immediate: How does one legislate words like “useful”, “enough”, “recreation”, “adequate”, “decent”, and “good”? Who decides all of this and to what degree? At past points in history to voice an opposition opinion in the middle of such a single-minded herd would have certainly been my physical demise! Interestingly, during the Q&A Huffington and Moore discussed bank failure fears during the fall of 2008. They asked for a show of hands of how many people moved money around or attempted to protect against a bank failure. I had the only hand that went up.

FDR’s plan hauled out by Moore six decades after it was forgotten reminded me of another interchange – this one from the 1970s. Then talk show master, the Oprah of his day, Phil Donahue was interviewing free market economist Milton Friedman and wanted to know if Friedman had ever had a moment of doubt about “capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?” Friedman was quick in response:

“…is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.”

Donahue (and the video of this on YouTube is classic) then countered saying that capitalism rewards the ability to manipulate the system and not virtue. Friedman was having none of it:

“And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? …Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? …Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?”

Friedman’s logic was what I was remembering as a theater full of people cheered wildly for a second Bill of Rights. How did this film crowd actually think FDR’s 1944 vision could be executed? Frankly, it was clear to me at that moment capitalism was on shaky ground. Starting with Bush ‘abandoning’ capitalism to bailouts for everyone to Obama gifting away the future – we seriously might be past the point of no return toward a socialization of America.

Figuring someone else must see the problems with this film, I started poking around the net for other views. One critic declared that the value of Capitalism: A Love Story was not in the moviemaking, but in its message that hits you in the gut and makes you angry. This film did not make me angry, but it did punch me in the gut. The people in that theater with me were not bad people, including Moore. They just seem to all have consumed a lethal dose of Kool-Aid! And at the end of his Q&A Moore pushed the audience to understand that while they don’t have the money, they do have the vote. He implored them to use their vote to take money from one group to give it another group. Did he really say that openly with no ambiguity? Yes, sadly.

Michael Covel

P.S. Where am I wrong?

Some comments of mine yesterday at Barrons:

Investors are now faced with a dilemma. It is difficult to put new money to work after the market has rallied 60%, but that is what many, again including me, said 10% and 20% ago. The trend still points up. Michael Covel, proprietor of a Website bearing his name and author of the recently published Trend Following (FT Press), says he would tell interested stock investors still on the sidelines to “go for it” because the trend is up. “But if you do get in,” he adds, “you better know, before you put your hard-earned capital to work, how much you can afford to lose. No one can control how high or low the stock market will go, but you can control how much you are willing to lose.” Trend followers let the market tell them what to do, and that means they realize that trends do not last forever. Trends can turn on a dime. So just because an investor takes the plunge today based on a rising trend, this does not guarantee any profits at all. However, over time, following the trend has been a good strategy.

More from Michael Kahn here.