Wal-Mart, which was called a stock to hold onto this morning by Goldman Sachs, also made another list. Try this one on for size: The Motley Fool called Wal-Mart the worst stock to own in 2008. Wow -- those are two different viewpoints!

Wal-Mart shares are pretty much where they were in 1999 -- in the $45 to $50 range. Does that mean it's the worst stock to own in 2008? For Wal-Mart to grow revenues in the double digits, the figure must be in the tens of billions of dollars. Based on its sheer revenue size alone, Wal-Mart should be growing in the low single digits, right? Does the market recognize this when pitting it against retailer competitors who have higher growth rates? I suspect that it does not.

In its analysis, the Fool looked at statistics like revenue per employee, quarterly revenue growth and P/E ratio between Wal-Mart, Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) and Costco Wholesale (NYSE: COST) and found Wal-Mart's numbers weren't the most impressive of the bunch. Hence, it's the worst stock to own in 2008. So, although a probable recession may cause more customers to enter Wal-Mart stores, as Goldman argues, the cost of Chinese-made products (a mainstay in Wal-Mart stores) may rise and cause the company to experience margin shortfalls or actually raise customer prices (something I've referred to in the past).

Will Wal-Mart stock rise or fall in 2008? You make the call. If it ends up at $47.23 (where it is this morning) a year from now, you can always stuff that cash under a mattress in 2009 to get the same return.