This ain’t the same as civil.

From a random reader last night:

“Sounds to me like you’ve based your career on harpooning Jim Cramer. Kind of like FOX News, and MSNBC picking their enemies, and then looking for some ‘dirt’ to substantiate it. I’ve made money w/ Cramer, and have lost w/ him as well. However, they are all my decisions, and my responsibility. If I were to follow your advice, I’m sure I would be in the same position. Don’t even begin to tell me you’ve never made the ‘wrong’ call. I would suggest you might find more avid followers by, accentuating on the positive. What is it you do correctly not, what Jim Cramer may do incorrectly in your opinion. What I see here is by, the mere mention of a famous personality you, hope to pick up followers. Quit riding his coattails, and create your own coattails to follow. Jim Cramer: ‘Do the homework!’ I always do the homework, and have sometimes also reached a different conclusion than Mr. Cramer. Doesn’t make him a bad guy, and you’re probably not so bad, either. There have been times where he regrets, and apologizes for information, admitting he’s wrong. At those times he goes on w/ info. on how he arrived at his conclusion. Several great learning experiences right there. I would suggest you get off of his back, and make a strong showing for yourself. Dave Loevner”

That same feeling just hit me when people cheered at the end of Moore’s film!

To my critic’s last sentence: my first book, second book, and documentary film may give you an idea of ‘a strong showing’ for my views.

From the ‘calculated risk’ blog:

“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth. Son, we live in a country with an investment gap. And that gap needs to be filled by men with money. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Middle Class Consumer? Goldman Sachs has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lehman and you curse derivatives. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know: that Lehman’s death, while tragic, probably saved the financial system. And that Goldman’s existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves pension funds. You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want us to fill that investment gap. You need us to fill that gap. “We use words like credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligation, and securitization? We use these words as the backbone of a life spent investing in something. You use ‘em as a punchline. We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a commoner who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very credit we provide, and then questions the manner in which we provide it! We’d rather you just said thank you and paid your taxes on time. Otherwise, we suggest you get an account and start trading. Either way, we don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”

Warren Buffett preaches in 2002:

“I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system. Basically these instruments call for money to change hands at some future date, with the amount to be determined by one or more reference items, such as interest rates, stock prices, or currency values. For example, if you are either long or short an S&P 500 futures contract, you are a party to a very simple derivatives transaction, with your gain or loss derived from movements in the index. Derivatives contracts are of varying duration, running sometimes to 20 or more years, and their value is often tied to several variables…The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”

Now, Mr. Phony has changed his tune:

“[Warren Buffett) Berkshire would like a provision to the [finance reform] bill ensuring that existing derivative contracts would not be affected by the proposed rules. Berkshire has $63 billion worth of derivatives on its books, according to Barclays Capital, The Journal reported.”

No doubt this arcane financial jargon blows by those not familiar, but bottom line: Big Daddy Buffett wants special breaks because…he thinks he is special. Free markets? No. Honest government? No.

Next.

In the last few weeks the media has gone ‘all in’ on recovery. All is rosy. The Dow is up. Good times are back! And when the media goes all in many love to point out (me included) that the magazine cover indicator is often great contrary evidence to where we are really headed.

That said, the cover indicator is more fun than substance. Meaning, trend followers don’t build into their technical trend following systems the cover indicator. So it sounds great, and the psychology behind it makes sense, and sometimes it works out, but if the numbers of your system don’t say to do something — sitting still is the best course of action.

From Yahoo:

“[Maria] Bartiromo says the Volcker Rule, which effectively reinstates Glass-Steagall, will be hard to push through, but argued the specifics of the reform package are somewhat secondary right now. “Just getting the reform out there so that people feel…that there is accountability [and] the policemen are working the beat, I think is positive. That will help sentiment and, yes, ultimately help Wall Street.”

People, move along. Don’t pay attention to what’s going on behind the curtain.

Alexander Ineichen writes:

“The financial crisis was not ’caused’ by a single event or a single group of investors. More likely, a series of conditions needed to be met for the dominos to fall one by one and the system to crack. The idea that hedge funds were the first stone to fall and thereby causing the chain reaction, seems infinitely improbable from what we know today. However, a disproportionate amount of regulatory zeal and political energy is spent on regulating ‘alternative’ funds. This we find odd, especially given that the ‘too big to fail’ issue is the single most important aspect related to systemic risk and is far from being resolved.”

He adds:

“Politicians blamed speculators for ‘causing’ oil to go to $147. However, politicians didn’t thank speculators for ‘causing’ oil going back to $35. This seems odd. In the Greece situation, it’s again the speculators who get blamed. Bismarck often remarked that if one likes laws and sausages it is best not to see them being made. This is probably also true for the price mechanism in a free market economy, as the impact of the market responding to bad news isn’t always pretty.”

Ineichen stop being so right.

A white paper (PDF) on beating Buffett that made it across my desk. Feedback?