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.
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 (see my film).
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 (Michael Moore net worth was estimated at $50 million in 2014), 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 his attempt at balance in the Michael Moore Capitalism film. 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 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.
Addendum
Moore’s film ends with recently uncovered video of FDR saying this on January 11, 1944:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are:
• 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. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
A roomful of college kids last night stood and cheered wildly at this proposal. My question: How do you legislate words like “enough”, “adequate”, “decent”, and “good”?
Money management in the context of trading refers to what a gambler might call ‘bet sizing’. It is how many contracts to trade on a certain strategy, given a certain bankroll. In my experience with retail investors, the number of contracts to trade is normally an arbitrary consideration. One contract, five contracts, ten contracts – whatever you can afford. I have known traders who spent countless hours studying Gann, or testing indicators, or drawing little lines all over their little charts. But when it came to placing the bet, there appeared to be no consideration to the position size. Someone even said to me recently, “It doesn’t matter how much you bet as long as it’s a good trade.” We will use a really simple example to explain why such thinking is incorrect.
John Gallwas recently interviewed me for his Striker Report:
Michael Covel
Author, Film director, Educator
Program(s) Developed: Michael Covel’s daily trend following, economic and political commentary
Interviewed by John F. Gallwas – Founder of Striker Securities
Michael Covel is a highly respected author, film director, and entrepreneur. He extends his trading expertise to readers and clients through the use of film, the worldwide web and the written word. He has published two books: “Trend Following: How Great Traders Make Millions in Up or Down Markets” and most recently “The Complete TurtleTrader: The Legend, the Lessons, the Results”
Fueled by the success of his two bestselling books, Covel enters filmmaking with his debut film, “Broke: The New American Dream” an insightful and witty documentary that explores the ripple effects of behavioral finance across the 2007-2009 market and economic crash through the diverse worlds of fish markets, sheep farms, lottery stores and poker tables.
Covel earned a Bachelor’s of Arts from George Mason University and a Master’s of Business Administration from Florida State University. He has also completed graduate level courses in international relations in London.
John Gallwas: In order to get everyone on the same page, let’s start with a simple definition of the two basic price forecasting theories known as “fundamental” and “technical” analysis.
Michael Covel: Fundamental analysis to me means assembling all of the data and knowledge about some market to hopefully make a prediction about its direction. Doing this will hopefully allow you to buy “cheap” or find “value”. Built into fundamental analysis is the assumption that you will know when to exit. Technical trend following says something quite opposite. It says we have no idea why any market goes up or down, there is too much information, so why not simply follow the trend up or down with a preset exit plan. Trend following could care less about crop reports or Fed conjecture, just follow the price trend.
John Gallwas: What are the “pros” and “cons” of each our readers should know, and which do you believe is the best for most traders to study.
Michael Covel: I think fundamental analysis is a waste of time. Is that too blunt? Bottom line, no one has any idea what stock, bond, currency, and commodity markets will do over the next six months. How many of the great fundamental analysts had calls that made their clients money over 2008? Not many as trillions of dollars were lost through buy and hold prediction nonsense. Sure, some very smart analysts will get the next six months of predictions right, but then again when you flip a coin you have a 50% chance of being right too. Does that mean there is no hope for profit? No. If you can put aside the need to try and predict the future and if you can instead trade as a technical trader, like trend followers who made fortunes in 2008, you will have a chance to make money going forward. If we can’t know the future and if we can’t know what direction any market will trend it is far better to have a plan to systematically profit by reacting to market moves versus a reliance on the false hope of predictions. Let me also use some quotes from top trading minds that I have interviewed. Consider the most successful Turtle Jerry Parker: “Technical Analysis relies upon the idea that smart money will move into a market and give advance warning that a position should be taken. This often occurs when the true major fundamentals are unknown.” Ed Seykota, from “The Market Wizards” adds: “While Fundamental Analysis may help you understand how things work, it does not tell you when or how much. Also, by the time a fundamental case presents, the move may already be over.”
John Gallwas: As a well known author, lecturer, and consultant, you work with many traders. What have you found to be the difference between the profitable and unprofitable trader?
Michael Covel: In my second book “The Complete TurtleTrader” I go into the differences between the world famous Turtle traders who won big and lost big (Chapters 11, 12, and 13). That’s right, contrary to myth, not all Turtles were big winners. Some Turtles like Jerry Parker have won massive profits over the years and some Turtles, like [name; see book], have not made it as successful traders and have literally imploded. Why is that? It comes down to emotional intelligence. Some Turtles could harness their emotions in order to stick with their trading systems, some could not. The ones, who did not, the ones who thought they were smarter than the system, went bust. I guess I could be less black and white about it, but why do that.
John Gallwas: There are many “trading systems” that have been developed by third-party vendors, brokerage firms, and by individuals. What advise can you give our readers on how to choose and operate a trading system?
Michael Covel: Understand what is under the hood and why — or don’t trade it. Real simple. Next step? Risk and reward are interrelated. How much risk are you willing to take to get the desired reward? It can be different for every person. A good trading system should allow you to turn up the “heat” (or down) to your desired risk tolerance.
John Gallwas: What is the story behind the documentary you produced titled “Broke: the New American Dream”?
Michael Covel: I have been fortunate to learn about markets and money from some of the best traders around the world. I wanted to share their wisdom with others and a documentary film seemed like a great way to reach people. Plus I am very passionate that the government has no answer to the current economic mess and no one is speaking that truth as bluntly as it needed to be said! The film is for everyone. Whether twenty-something?s or sixty-something?s, feedback so far has been one of “I did not expect that.” “Wow, is that how it really is.” “I need to change what I am doing!” Is there a central theme running through? Trust, but verify. If most people actually did that they might find out that they are on a really “wrong” path. Meaning, whether trusting the government, trusting social security will be there, trusting media images, trusting buy and hold…people just blindly trusted without even thinking. I always want to show people how “it” really works. Dissecting the wrong messaging of government, media and Wall Street is fun. To me, the film is a universal and timeless message.
This interview is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a solicitation of any kind. Trade only with risk capital. The risk of trading can be substantial and each investor and/or trader must consider whether trading systems are a suitable investment.
I love it when people tell me the trend following ‘winners’ are the lucky survivors. In my humble opinion people who think like that are either ignorant in the short-term willing to learn/be corrected or, and I say this bluntly, losers in life unable to accept reality. If trend following winners are the lucky monkeys hitting the keyboards, than the king of the monkeys must be Warren Buffett. Buffett himself makes the case for why this is bullshit (there is no other word) in an excerpt from Snowball:
Kevin Bruce is a silent (and very successful) trend following pioneer. Who is he? For those trend following data freaks out there, check this out (PDF). The highlighted sections are Bruce. You ask who is “Signet”? Signet Bank was where Bruce worked. In one of those odd stories Bruce had convinced, due to his performance and his fortuitous timing, to let a regional bank back in the day let him trade a trend following portfolio ‘in house’. To hear him talk about how he managed this relationship is nothing short of amazing. Bruce also appears in my film Broke.
Note: I will be soon putting out the long form interviews of many of the traders in my film. Bruce is coming, but first I will release David Harding (76 minutes) and Salem Abraham (89 minutes). Both are timeless interviews.
